President Barack Obama said that he was “comfortable” with new federal regulations making emergency contraception available to women and girls over the age of 15, but said more study was needed to see whether it was safe to allow access to the "morning after" pill for girls younger than that.

Following news on Wednesday that the Justice Department would appeal a federal judge’s ruling requiring pharmacies to make emergency contraceptives available without a prescription to women of all ages, the president deferred to his Justice Department’s decision to appeal the law.

“The rule that’s been put forward by the FDA, Secretary Sebelius has reviewed. She’s comfortable with it; I’m comfortable with it,” he said.

On Wednesday, the FDA agreed to lower the age limit to 15 for sales of "Plan B One-Step," and to make the emergency contraceptive available in the general aisles of stores instead of behind the pharmacy counter.

“My suspicion is that the FDA may now be called upon to make further decisions about whether there’s sufficient scientific evidence for girls younger than 15,” Obama explained at a press conference during a trip to Mexico. “That’s the FDA’s decision to make. That’s Secretary Sebelius’s decision to review.”

But the president strongly backed the current rule, too.

“I’m very comfortable with the decisions they've made right now, based on solid scientific evidence, for girls 15 and older,” he said. 

This story was originally published on Thu May 2, 2013 6:27 PM EDT

So much for that charm offensive, at least for now… Yesterday was marked by tons of partisanship, obstruction, and dysfunction… Obama visits with House Republicans at 1:30 pm ET… Senate to unveil their budget today… Do balanced budgets really matter?... Obama speaks to Organizing for Action… A compromise on background checks?... 2012’s highest (and lowest) turnout… And Bolling Alone: Bill Bolling won’t run as indie VA GOV candidate, which is probably good news for both Cuccinelli and McAuliffe.

*** So much for that charm offensive -- at least for now: President Obama’s so-called charm offensive continues today, as he meets on Capitol Hill with House Republicans at 1:30 pm ET. But after the president’s events over the past week (dinner with GOP senators, lunch with Paul Ryan, meetings on the Hill with Democrats and Republicans), it’s important to note that being nice and cordial doesn’t immediately fix the gridlock and partisanship in Washington. Just consider what happened yesterday: GOP Sens. John McCain and Tom Coburn -- both of whom dined with Obama last week -- stalled the Senate legislation to keep the government operating past March 27; House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan -- who lunched with the president last week -- introduced his budget, which calls for the repeal of Obamacare and transform Medicare into a voucher/premium support system; Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee indicated they have no intention of confirming Richard Cordray to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; and the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a universal background check legislation on guns by a straight party-line vote. Yes, folks are being nicer to each other. And yes, the charm offensive and outreach could pay dividends in the future. But it isn’t paying dividends right now. The reason: This is simply what happens when you have divided government.  

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

President Barack Obama departs the Capitol after meeting with Senate Democrats in Washington March 12, 2013.

*** Senate Dems unveil their budget: A day after Ryan unveiled his House GOP budget blueprint, Senate Democrats will do the same – and their budget is completely different. USA Today: “Senate Democrats plan to release a competing budget Wednesday that includes about $1 trillion in new revenues from closing tax loopholes for corporations and the rich, despite widespread GOP opposition to any new taxes after the January deal that raised $620 billion from wealthy Americans… “[T]heir plan also includes about $1 trillion in spending cuts, which is far below the threshold Republicans are seeking for deficit reduction It also proposes a $100 billion stimulus plan for new spending on the nation's infrastructure and no structural changes to Medicare.” It’s truly amazing how far apart the House GOP and Senate Dems are on these budget offers. It’s as if NOTHING happened since the debt-ceiling debacle of July 2011. Neither budget seems to reflect the reality of where things are in DC. It appears these budgets were created for interest groups who keep score to decide who is a “real” Democrat and who is a “real” Republican.

*** Do balanced budgets really matter? Yet here’s the biggest difference between the two plans: Ryan’s balances the budget in 10 years, while the Senate Dems’ doesn’t, although it does reduce the deficit. Given this difference, the New York Times asks a good question: Does balancing the budget really matter? The answer: Not really, at least in the short and medium term. “While economists generally agree that narrowing the government’s deficit and limiting the size of the debt are necessary in the long run, most argue that balancing the budget would not restore the nation’s still-weak economy to health in the near term. Indeed, rushing to do so with unemployment still elevated and the economy growing at only a sluggish pace could even set back the effort to reduce the deficit.” Obama weighed into this debate, with this answer on ABC: “My goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance. My goal is how do we grow the economy, put people back to work, and if we do that we are going to be bringing in more revenue.” Here’s the simple truth when it comes to the politics of deficits: They REALLY matter when you’re the party out of power, and they don’t as much when you are in power. Remember what Dick Cheney said about deficits when the GOP controlled the White House? Parties out of power push the “balanced budget” idea because it polls well (who is against a balanced budget?), and it’s a way to be against the governing party without having to say SPECIFICALLY what you are against, per se.

*** Obama speaks to Organizing for Action: In addition to Obama meeting with House Republicans at 1:30 pm ET, he delivers remarks at 6:30 pm ET to the initial Organizing for Action summit. So earlier in the day he’s trying to schmooze with the opposition; and later in the day he’s meeting with his political arm. As we’ve mentioned before, Organization for Action -- registered as a social-welfare 501c4 organization -- has received plenty of criticism because it raising big bucks from contributors, who might get access to the president (like at today’s speech). Organizing for Action has promised to disclose its donors, and to bar lobbyists and corporations from giving money. But think about the larger message the president is sending today: On the one hand, he wants to reach out and show Congress he’s ready to talk; on the other, he’s gearing up for a potential ideological war.

*** A compromise on background checks? As we mentioned above, the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday passed -- by a 10-8 party-line vote -- Sen. Chuck Schumer’s legislation that would institute universal background checks for all gun purchasers. Given that party-line vote and given Schumer’s inability so far to find a Republican to co-sponsor that legislation, it’s more than likely that Republicans would be able to successfully filibuster the measure. So where do we go forward? NBC’s Kasie Hunt reports that senators from both parties are privately expecting the National Rifle Association not to fight any compromise background-check legislation as long as it doesn’t require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks. Now there’s a difference between the NRA supporting something, opposing it, and not saying a word. And, per our understanding, the NRA simply won’t say a word if this record-keeping is excluded, which would give some Republicans (read: Tom Coburn) the cover to back the background-check legislation. But as Hunt notes, gun-control advocates believe that leaving out the record keeping would render the law toothless.

*** The highest (and lowest) turnout from 2012: This is a fun recap from the 2012 election. Which state had the top turnout? Politico, per a new report released by Nonprofit VOTE: “Minnesota topped the turnout list for the eighth time in the last nine presidential and midterm elections, with 76.1 percent turnout. Hawaii came in last, with turnout at a mere 44.1 percent. Overall turnout was down from 62 percent in 2008, when the possibility of the nation’s first black president caused a surge at the polls, to 59 percent in 2012. Low turnout in the nation’s three most populous states — Texas, New York and California — contributed to the drop. All saw declines of nine percent or higher.” None of it is that surprising: Treat a state LIKE a battleground, and voters become more engaged and they show up to vote… Go Figure!

*** Bolling Alone: Virginia Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling’s (R) announcement yesterday that he WILL NOT mount an independent bid in this year’s gubernatorial contest is good news for the GOP and its candidate, state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R). But it’s also good news for Terry McAuliffe (D), because a Bolling indie candidacy could have hurt him, too (the reason: Bolling could have occupied the middle ground, potentially taking those votes away from the Macker). So we’re left with the two-way slugfest between Cuccinelli and McAuliffe – two very, very flawed candidates. This campaign will probably be defined by the candidate that makes the least amount of gaffes that play into their pre-conceived stereotypes that the other side is trying to create. Today, McAuliffe steps in it when he refuses to answer a question from a Norfolk reporter about whether he can name all the Cabinet posts in the administration.

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

In an apparent reversal from his past statements, former Florida Republican Gov. Jeb Bush said Monday that his immigration reform plan would "fall short" of offering a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants living in the United States -- a key provision being put forward by the bipartisan group leading reform efforts on Capitol Hill.

“Our proposal is a proposal that looks forward, and if we want to create an immigration policy that's going to work, we can't continue to make illegal immigration an easier path than legal immigration,” Bush said on NBC’s TODAY Show.

Bush -- an outspoken proponent of GOP outreach to Latinos who has previously embraced a path to citizenship -- said that he backs measures to allow illegal immigrants to become residents of the United States if they meet certain criteria. But he argued that the possibility of full citizenship would merely encourage more illegal immigrants to make their way inside the nation’s borders.

“There has to be some difference between people who come here legally and illegally,” he said. “It's just a matter of common sense and a matter of the rule of law. If we're not going to apply the law fairly and consistently, then we're going to have another wave of illegal immigrants coming into the country.”

Related: Jeb Bush: I won't rule out 2016 White House run 'but I won't declare today'

Bush’s rejection of that goal appears to be a turnaround for the possible presidential prospect. In a June 2012 interview with Charlie Rose, he acknowledged that his support for a path to citizenship placed him at odds with many in his party.

“You have to deal with this issue. You can’t ignore it,” he said during that interview. “And so, either a path to citizenship -- which I would support and that does put me probably out of the mainstream of most conservatives -- or a path to legalization, a path to residency of some kind.”

In a January op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Bush and Clint Bolick, his co-author on a new book about immigration, wrote that opportunities for citizenship strengthen America. 

"America's immigration system should provide opportunities for people who share the country's core values to become citizens, thereby strengthening the nation as have countless immigrants have before them," he said. (In the same op-ed, the pair also wrote that "amnesty promotes illegal immigration.")

Bush's voiced opposition to full citizenship rights also puts the former governor – and brother of former President George W. Bush – to the right of Republican senators like John McCain, Marco Rubio and Jeff Flake, all members of the Senate’s bipartisan “Gang of Eight” currently tackling immigration reform legislation.

That group’s proposal would offer “probationary legal status” for illegal immigrants who register with the federal government, pass a background check and pay back taxes and fines.  After certain border security criteria are met, those individuals would become eligible to apply for green cards and – eventually – the ability to seek full citizenship.

Bush appeared on the TODAY show to promote his book “Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution,” which hits shelves tomorrow. 

NBC's Mark Murray contributed to this report. 

This story was originally published on Mon Mar 4, 2013 1:18 PM EST

Hagel rollout went as well as planned, but still not an easy fight … Obama puts HIS team in place and is trying to make his mark on foreign policy … Poll shows better marks for Obama than Boehner in fiscal-cliff fight … the White House’s gun push takes shape and could be coming soon … Gabby Giffords, Mark Kelly announce formation of group to counter the NRA … Bloomberg tries to assert mayoral influence, but how much does/should he have? … Christie ‘State of the State’ today to focus on Sandy … R.I.P. Richard Ben Cramer -- he had what it takes.

*** No margin for error in Hagel nomination: Yesterday’s official rollout of Chuck Hagel for defense secretary went about as well as it could have for the Obama White House. Statements of praise for Hagel by folks like Colin Powell and Robert Gates? Check. A statement of past praise from John McCain (who said in 2006 Hagel would make a “great secretary of state”), even though McCain is now taking a skeptical look at the nominee? Check. And getting Chuck Schumer, perhaps the Democratic senator with the most reservations about Hagel, to issue a non-committal statement? Check. So the White House feels pretty good about where things stand, although this won’t be an easy fight. Yet what Team Obama can’t afford is any new negative information, any other shoe to drop. Bottom line: There is no margin for error from this point onward. Hagel’s support, at best, in the Senate is an inch deep and that “inch” would get him the votes he needs. But it wouldn’t take much for the bottom to, well, fall out. This is going to be a precarious few weeks. Very few senators are in D.C. right now, so the interest groups will be front and center. Hagel needs his confirmation hearing sooner, rather than later, but right now, it’s unclear when those hearings will be scheduled. Hagel also needs FACE time with senators, and he won’t have that opportunity for a good week or so. 

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

President Barack Obama speaks during a news conference with former Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., in the East Room on Jan. 7, 2013.

*** Obama’s confidence -- 2009 vs. 2013: As we wrote yesterday, Obama is clearly projecting a level of confidence at the start of this second term than he did four years ago, in particular, on foreign policy. Just look at the initial comfort level with his picks for his second-term national security team (Hagel, John Kerry, John Brennan) vs. the first-term team (Hillary Clinton, Bob Gates, Leon Panetta, Jim Jones). At the start of his first term, the president was no less confident about his foreign policy judgment but he made the calculation that he needed to placate the Washington establishment so he stuck with the Republican Gates at Defense, brought in Hillary to State, brought in a former general, Jim Jones, as his National Security Adviser. Gates and Clinton worked out, but Jones didn’t. 

*** Amplifying his views, using political capital: Now? The president is using his national security choices to amplify his views in a way that was missing four years ago. Kerry, Hagel, Brennan and keeping Tom Donilon as NSA (even potentially elevating Deputy NSA Denis McDonough to White House chief of staff) indicates the president is not just interested in running foreign policy out of the White House, but he wants to leave an Obama imprint on Defense, CIA, State etc. But it may be more than that -- Obama is displaying a confidence that he didn’t necessarily show after 2008. Much of this is what you get with a second-term president who got more than 51% of the popular vote (for the second-straight time). He may NOT be saying it the same way Bush did in 2004-05 after winning a second term, but he’s, so far, displaying the following notion: Obama believes he’s earned political capital, and he’s going to use it. 

*** Polling the concluded fiscal-cliff debate: Our first initial look at some polling post-Fiscal Cliff offers few surprises. According to a new Washington Post/ABC poll, American voters approve more of President Obama’s handling of the just-concluded debate over the fiscal cliff. “In the new survey, conducted after the House followed up a Senate vote by passing the measure, 53 percent of voters say they approve of the way Obama handled the matter, while 40 percent disapprove. The overall tally is clearly negative for Boehner’s performance: 30 percent approval and 56 percent disapproval.” For Boehner, that includes 52% of Republican voters who disapproved how he handled the negotiations. Meanwhile, a new Pew poll finds that 57% of adults “say that Obama got more of what he wanted from the tax legislation, while just 20% say Republican leaders got more of what they wanted. And while 48% approve of the way Obama handled the fiscal cliff negotiations only 19% approve of the way GOP leaders handled the negotiations.”

*** The White House and guns: Mark Glaze, the executive director of the Michael Bloomberg-backed Mayors Against Illegal Guns, chatted with First Read and NBC yesterday, saying that there were three proposals the White House could announce as part of its comprehensive package dealing with the aftermath of Newtown, CT. One, require background checks for ALL gun buys. (This actually has support from gun dealers and manufacturers, Glaze said, because it’s the private sale of guns that’s the big problem here.) Two, ban assault weapons and magazines. (If background checks are the easiest proposal to pass, then this might be the hardest.) Three, pass a federal anti-trafficking statute, making it a crime to be trafficking in guns. Glaze also said there were things the White House could do administratively -- like put an actual director at the ATF (either through Senate confirmation or recess appointment) and prosecute prohibited sellers (which he said the administration currently isn’t doing). By the way, don’t be surprised if the White House moves to unveil its proposals by as early as next week. In other gun-related news, Vice President Biden today will meet “with gun violence victims’ groups and gun safety organizations,” the AP reports. And Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly announce the formation of Americans for Responsible Solutions to counter the National Rifle Association in an op-ed on gun control in USA Today. 

*** Bloomberg’s wandering (mayoral) eye: Speaking of Bloomberg, the New York Times runs yet another story suggesting that the outgoing New York mayor isn’t happy with the slate of candidates running to succeed him. “Mr. Bloomberg has mused about a Mayor Charles E. Schumer with the Democratic senator from New York, and teased Mortimer B. Zuckerman, a fellow billionaire media mogul, about a possible bid. The mayor’s advisers raised the idea of a run with Edward G. Rendell, the former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania and mayor of Philadelphia, and with Edward Skyler, Mr. Bloomberg’s former top deputy in City Hall, according to several people. The mayor’s most formal overture was delivered to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, perhaps Mr. Bloomberg’s most quixotic choice for the job.” More: “The flirtations are unwelcome news for [apparent front-runner Christine] Quinn, who has been Mr. Bloomberg’s reliable partner in city government for years.” How much sway does Bloomberg really have though? Yes, he changed the rules to win a third term, but voters didn’t overwhelmingly send him back. He spent millions to win a race that should never been as close as it was. Candidates who decide to fall under Bloomberg’s spell about running ought to take a look at the 2009 results: Bloomberg didn’t crack 51%.

*** Chris Christie to deliver State of the State address: The Philly Inquirer reports: “Gov. Christie will focus Tuesday's State of the State speech on rebuilding towns damaged by Hurricane Sandy, a storm that pushed the well-exposed Republican governor further into the national spotlight and brought him bipartisan praise. But New Jersey Democrats were clear Monday that they hold him responsible for the economic doldrums the state had fallen into before Sandy: a 9.6 percent unemployment rate and the country's second-highest foreclosure rate.” 

*** RIP, Richard Ben Cramer. The obituary from the New York Times: “Richard Ben Cramer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and the author of “What It Takes,” a superbly detailed account of the 1988 presidential election considered among the finest books about American politics ever written, died in Baltimore on Monday night. He was 62.” On Twitter last night, it was striking to see so many political operatives and political journalists (your authors here included) note how inspirational “What It Takes” was to their careers. There are plenty of other folks offering great tributes to Cramer today. Ours is simple though: we believe there’s just one book every aspiring political journalist and operative ought to read if they want to know whether or not they are serious about this profession: it is “What It Takes.” It’s basically the unofficial textbook of Washington. If you haven’t read it, then you don’t get it. 

http://is.gd/ccxyrR">Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on http://is.gd/TzuR1b">Facebook and also on http://is.gd/hkhSDT">Twitter. Follow us @http://twitter.com/#!/chucktodd">chucktodd, @http://twitter.com/#!/mmurraypolitics">mmurraypolitics, @http://twitter.com/#!/DomenicoNBC">DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Chuck Hagel -- a man without a party… And a man who has a tough confirmation fight ahead… The nut of the Hagel fight, and why Obama is sticking with him… Kerry-Hagel-Brennan -- a Team of Loyalists… McConnell on the upcoming fiscal fight… White House’s “far broader” and “more comprehensive” campaign to curb gun violence… And Hillary Clinton returns to work.

*** Hagel -- a man without a party: This afternoon, President Obama will tap former GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel to be his nominee to lead the Defense Department. Hagel’s biggest obstacle to confirmation isn’t his controversial comments about Iran and Israel or his “overly aggressive gay” remark. Rather, it’s that he’s a man without a party. If Hagel were a Democrat, for instance, you would have seen someone like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) embrace his potential nomination on “Meet the Press” recently instead of being tepid about it. And if Hagel were a true-blue Republican -- having campaigned for Mitt Romney and other GOP candidates last fall -- you wouldn’t have seen folks like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) speak so critically of him. But Hagel’s in no-man’s-land territory, the place where the public says it wants many public officials to be, but where Washington can eat folks like this alive. He’s a Republican who later opposed the Iraq war, whose wife endorsed Obama in ’08, and who campaigned for Democrat Bob Kerrey in 2012. In recent times, every cabinet nominee from the opposition party (Bill Cohen, Norm Mineta, Bob Gates, Ray LaHood) has sailed through easily. But since we started covering politics, Hagel might be the first cabinet nominee from the opposition party who doesn't have the backing from that party. It’s amazing how things can change: Republicans universally support John Kerry for Secretary of State, but oppose Chuck Hagel for Defense.

Jim Young / Reuters

Senator Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., attends a meeting in the Cabinet Room at the White House in this file photo from Oct. 28, 2009.

*** And a tough fight ahead: That said, Hagel does have a constituency of one -- and that’s the president of the United States. But it’s not going to be an easy fight. In fact, we’ve heard that as many as 10 DEMOCRATIC senators might be “no” votes on Hagel, or they at least start out as “no” on Hagel. So Hagel will have a lot of work to do, especially in his individual meetings with Democrats. Yet we hear that Senate Armed Services Chairman Jack Reed (D) will campaign heavily for Hagel, and that could flip Dem votes; Reed is very close to Hagel and very well respected on both sides of the aisle. Here’s something to chew on: What message would it send if Hagel -- a decorated war hero, a Vietnam vet, a two-term senator who served in office without scandal -- doesn’t get confirmed? As administration official told the New York Times, “At the end of the day, Republicans will support a decorated war hero who was their colleague for 12 years and has critical experience on veterans’ issues.” But as we argue above, Hagel’s bigger problem might be with Democrats, not Republicans. And don’t be surprised if you start hearing this complaint from Democrats: “Why does our party continue to pick Republicans (like Cohen, Bob Gates, and now Hagel) to head up the Defense Department?”

*** The nut of Hagel fight: There are two basic lines of attack against Hagel. One has to do with whether he’s a true ally of Israel. Detractors point to some votes Hagel made when it came to Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as some votes on Iran sanctions. But supporters of Hagel note he always voted in favor of full funding of Israel aid and did sign on to key pieces of legislation that did target Iran’s nuclear program and did target Hamas. Then, of course, is the quote attributed to Hagel where he referred to pro-Israel groups as “the Jewish lobby,” which is offensive to both pro-Israel supporters and Jews who do not like to be lumped in with the AIPAC’s of the world. Gay rights groups are not excited at all about Hagel because of comments the Nebraska Republican made against a gay ambassador nominee from the Clinton years, when he referred to James Hormel as “openly aggressively gay.” Former Congressman and (and potential TEMPORARY Massachusetts senator) Barney Frank has been highly critical. So there is a lot of “cover,” if you will, for someone on the left or right who WANTS to oppose Hagel to find a political reason to oppose him. But realize, some of the real reasons for folks to be against Hagel won’t be the issues we discussed above. For some Republican senators, it will simply be the fact that many of Hagel’s former Republican colleagues have not gotten over Hagel’s high-profile flip on the Iraq war. And for some Democrats, it’s the frustration that the president is turning to his SECOND Republican to run the Defense Department.

*** Why Obama is sticking with Hagel: So with all this potential political controversy surrounding Hagel, one might ask, “Why is Obama sticking by him?” There are two big reasons. One, he likes the idea of a man who wore the uniform who will NOT be intimidated by the generals at the Pentagon. And two, with the budget fights dominating the next few years in Washington and the issue of downsizing the Pentagon on the table, what better person to have leading the downsizing argument than a former Republican senator.

*** A Team of Loyalists: In addition to making the Hagel pick today, President Obama will announce White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan to be his nominee to head the CIA, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports. Officials argue that, since 9/11, he has been at the forefront, on the front lines against al Qaeda. He has been involved in virtually "all major national security issues and will be able to hit the ground running at CIA,” the officials add to Mitchell. Brennan also has the complete confidence and trust of the president. And that’s the big signal Obama is sending by picking John Kerry for State, Chuck Hagel for Defense, and John Brennan for CIA -- he’s selecting people with whom he’s comfortable and who are loyal to him. (And in National Journal, Ron Fournier writes that Hagel “is Obama in a GOP jersey,” and that’s his biggest problem.) Bottom line: These are Obama people. But these are also three white men, and you’re going to start hearing voices demanding diverse picks for the other cabinet positions. And that grumbling could get louder when, as it is expected, the president names current Chief of Staff Jack Lew to Treasury and elevates current dep. National Security Adviser Denis McDonough to Chief of Staff. This could end up being a very busy week at the White House on the personnel front.

*** McConnell on the upcoming fiscal fight: The other big news today is over the upcoming political fight over the debt ceiling, the sequester, and government operations. On “Meet the Press” yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell – who helped strike the fiscal-cliff deal with the Obama White House – didn’t disavow his 2011 comment that refusing to raise the debt ceiling is “a hostage that's worth ransoming." McConnell told NBC’s Gregory yesterday, “What we're saying here is the biggest problem confronting the country is our excessive spending. If we're not going to deal with it now, when are we going to deal with it? And we've watched the government explode over the last four years. We've dealt with the revenue issue.” When Gregory followed up to ask if tax revenue would not be part of the conversation, McConnell replied, “Yeah, that's over. I'm in favor of doing tax reform, but I think tax reform ought to be revenue neutral as it was back during the Reagan years. We've resolved this issue.” But McConnell also declined to answer if he would rule out a government shutdown. “What I'm telling you is I haven't given up on the president stepping up to the plate and tackling the single biggest issue confronting the country.” While McConnell was careful not to threaten a government shutdown, many of the Republican rank-and-file were not.

*** White House’s “far broader” and “more comprehensive” campaign to curb gun violence: Also, the Washington Post reported yesterday that the Obama White House “is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.” More: “A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.”

*** Hillary Clinton returns to work today: After her concussion and her hospitalization due to a blood clot, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton returns to work today, meeting with her assistant secretaries at 9:15 pm ET.

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Obama and Romney embark on battleground blitz… First Read’s Electoral College scenario of the day: How Obama could get to 270 without Ohio… Mourdock pulls an Akin?... Why Mourdock could matter to Romney… Obama and that second-term agenda… Des Moines Register editorial chides Obama’s off-the-record conversation… And Quinnipiac poll shows McMahon trailing by six in Connecticut.

*** Battleground blitz: If you want to know where the presidential campaign is being fought, just look at all the candidate travel. Yesterday, President Obama hit Florida and Ohio. And today, beginning his whirlwind tour on Air Force One, he heads to Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada. Meanwhile, Romney yesterday was in Nevada and Colorado. And today, he returns to Nevada before heading to Iowa. And all of this occurring with 13 days until Election Day (a little over 300 hours until the first polls close, but who’s counting). By the way, as we mentioned earlier, NBC’s Brian Williams will be accompanying Obama on his battleground-state blitz.

*** Electoral College scenario of the day: Between now and election day, we’re going to delve into the various scenarios which are semi-realistic. Today’s: Obama could still lose Ohio and get to 270 electoral votes, and the path is not a nutty path. He does it by winning Wisconsin (a state that hasn’t gone GOP since 84), Iowa (a state Gore carried), New Hampshire (a state Kerry carried), and Colorado. That gets him to 272. Sorta stunning that with all of our focus on FL-OH-VA that they all three could get rendered meaningless by the Rodney Dangerfield of the battleground: Colorado. And this is why, despite some national polls showing Romney either tied or slightly ahead, the narrative has never held that Obama is behind – due to all of his different paths to 270.  And isn’t it inevitable that it’s a NEW state that keeps us up, not an old one? In the last three presidential campaign cycles, we in the media have looked backwards at an old battle for a swing state, and it ends up being a new state that becomes THE story. In 2000, it was Florida (which no one believed before October). In 2004, it was Ohio (again, no one believed it until October). In 2008, it was Virginia (which ended up reflecting the national vote). So why not Colorado in 2012? And keep an eye on Maine, too: The pro-Romney Super PAC Restore Our Future is up with a TV ad in the state trying to win the state’s one EV in the 2^nd congressional district.

*** Mourdock pulls an Akin? This isn’t a story the Romney campaign wants to see just 13 days before Election Day. Just days after Romney endorsed and cut a TV ad for Richard Mourdock, the GOP nominee in Indiana’s competitive Senate contest, Mourdock walked into controversy on rape and abortion. Describing his opposition to abortion – even in cases of rape – Mourdock said at a debate: "I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." Despite that recent endorsement, the Romney campaign distanced itself from Mourdock’s remarks. "Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock's comments, and they do not reflect his views." And even Mourdock walked back what he said at the debate. "God creates life, and that was my point,” he said in a statement. “God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that He does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick."

*** Why Mourdock could matter to Romney: Even though the Romney camp quickly distanced itself from Mourdock’s remarks, the story could matter to Romney. Why? Because just as Romney is trying to move to the middle -- on domestic policy, foreign policy, and social issues -- the Mourdock story is a reminder how the conservative bent of this Republican Party has been a drag on Romney. While Romney’s fav/unfav inched up in our latest NBC/WSJ poll to 43%-44%, the GOP’s own fav/unfav is at 36%-43% (compared with the Democratic Party’s 42%-40% score). It’s been the under-reported story of this campaign. So this becomes a fundamental question for Romney: Can he win over voters in the middle, even if these same folks have reservations about the party he now leads? Consider how the party will react if Romney loses; they’ll blame him for all sorts of things. But if Romney loses, it’ll likely be because Obama over-performed with Hispanics and women. Will that be Romney’s fault, or will blame lie with the perception of the party?

*** Obama and a second-term agenda: And here’s a fundamental question for Obama: How does he convince the public he has a second-term agenda with less than less than two weeks before election day? Yesterday, the campaign unveiled a new booklet outlining that agenda, and Obama held it up as he campaigned yesterday. (A little hiccup: Per NBC’s Ali Weinberg, the booklets, as of yesterday, had arrived only in Florida, where Obama was yesterday. They were not available at his Ohio rally!!) Here’s the irony in all of this discussion about Obama’s second-term agenda: He definitely has one;  in fact, it was the subject of most of his convention speech in Charlotte (100,000 new teachers, investment in infrastructure, tax breaks to families that create U.S. jobs, tax cuts to middle-class families, balanced deficit reduction). But because much of his campaign has been oriented to hitting Romney, there is the impression that Obama doesn’t have a second-term agenda. And that is something the Obama camp is trying to fix. But it’s clear the Obama campaign didn’t expect Romney to fix his image as fast as he did with that first debate because the pivot by the campaign from disqualifying Romney to re-qualifying Obama has been, um, sluggish.

*** Des Moines Register chides Obama’s off-the-record conversation: Meanwhile, the editor of the Des Moines Register, NBC’s Carrie Dann flags, wrote an editorial about a private, off-the-record phone conversation Obama had with the editor and publisher -- in an effort to win the paper’s endorsement. In the editorial, the editor chides Team Obama for not making the conversation on the record. “The conference call lasted nearly 30 minutes and was an incredibly informative exchange of questions, answers and an insightful glimpse into the president’s vision for a second term… Just two weeks before Election Day, the discussion, I believe, would have been valuable to all voters, but especially those in Iowa and around the country who have yet to decide between the incumbent Democrat and his Republican opponent.”  The paper makes its endorsement on Saturday night.

*** On the trail: Obama campaigns in Davenport, IA at 11:10 am ET, in Denver, CO at 4:55 pm ET, and Las Vegas at 12:35 am ET… Romney stumps in Reno, NV at 2:45 pm ET and in Cedar Rapids, IA at 8:00 pm ET… Biden hits Marion, OH… Ryan makes a stop in Cleveland, OH… And Ann Romney visits Florida.

/

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama speak in Ohio, Sept. 26, 2012.

*** Down the ballot: Meanwhile, looking down the ballot, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Chris Murphy leading Linda McMahon in Connecticut by six points among likely voters, 49%-43%... And Politico writes that the pro-Senate Democrat Super PAC Majority PAC is going up in Indiana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania. Yes, Pennsylvania, that’s right; Casey in more trouble than perhaps folks realized? The Republican there is a self-funder and has been relentless.

Countdown to Election Day: 13 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Setting the stage for tomorrow’s VP debate: The pressure is on… Biden’s challenge vs. Ryan’s challenge… Today’s main event: Issa’s hearing on the attack in Libya… Romney’s statement on abortion… New NBC/WSJ/Marist polls of FL, OH, and VA to come out tomorrow morning… Team Obama’s tactical ad-buying advantage over Team Romney… This week’s 10 hottest advertising markets… And Obama’s new TV ad combining “47%” and Medicare.

Susan Walsh / AP

Vice President Joseph Biden speaks at the Mine Resistance Ambush Protected Program transition ceremony, Monday, Oct. 1, 2012.

*** The pressure is on: While vice-presidential debates typically don't have much bearing on the presidential contest, tomorrow night's Joe Biden-vs.-Paul Ryan showdown has put pressure on both sides. Team Obama NEEDS a strong performance from Biden to make up for last week and change the subject; another bad outing by a member of the ticket and the Democratic handwringing could turn into a full-fledged panic. Meanwhile, Team Romney needs a solid outing from Ryan to keep up the momentum. As we wrote last week, consider tomorrow night Game 2 of a baseball playoff series. After ace Romney beat ace Obama in Game 1, Democrats are looking for their No. 2 starter, Biden, to even the score. And Republicans are looking to go 2-0. That's what at stake Thursday, and that's why there's more pressure on Biden than on Ryan.

*** Biden’s challenge: Yet despite the pressure, anyone who watched Biden during the 2008 Democratic primary debates might consider him the favorite going into tomorrow night. Yes, he's susceptible to gaffes. Yes, he’s prone to hyperbole and verbal tics (“literally” he is). And yes, he hasn’t had much practice with TV interviews in the past few months (an Obama campaign OVER-correction from the gay-marriage news). But Biden is also a strong debater. And he has the same thing going for him that benefitted Dick Cheney against John Edwards eight years ago: gravitas. You might disagree with him on the issues, but Biden knows A LOT about national security and foreign affairs, about domestic policy, and about the judiciary. He’s the elder statesman facing off against a young (but also smart) opponent. Yet this is also a challenge for him. With the Obama campaign promising -- and with Democratic partisans hoping for -- an aggressive Biden, the vice president has to walk a fine line between being aggressive but also keeping that gravitas. That’s his challenge tomorrow night.

*** Ryan’s challenge: Meanwhile, Paul Ryan’s challenge is potentially more daunting: He has to defend BOTH his record and also Mitt Romney’s. And as we’ve seen over the past few weeks, Ryan’s record and budget plan have diverged from Romney’s. Examples: While Romney has criticized the health-care law’s $716 billion in Medicare savings, Ryan’s own budget assumes those same savings; while Romney maintained at last week’s debate that “I’m not going to cut education funding,” Ryan’s budget leads to long-term spending reductions in education; while Romney opposed the auto bailout, Ryan voted for it; while Romney has hit Obama for the looming defense cuts, Ryan voted for the Budget Control Act of 2011 that contains them; and while Romney has blasted Obama for not embracing Simpson-Bowles, Ryan voted against the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. Also, Romney certainly lowered debate expectations for his running mate yesterday, when he told CNN: “This is, I think, Paul's first debate. I may be wrong. He may have done something in high school, I don't know.” Did Romney really say “high school”? Not exactly the best way to help the young Ryan look presidential (or vice-presidential).

*** Issa’s hearing on Libya: So the vice-presidential debate is tomorrow’s big political story. But what is shaping up to be today’s is Darrell Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform hearing on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya. How concerned is the Obama administration about today’s hearing, which starts at noon ET? Concerned enough that the State Department -- after weeks of near-silence -- yesterday gave a tick-tock of what happened in Libya, and that tick-tock doesn’t even remotely match what UN Ambassador Susan Rice said in the days after the attack (that it was sparked by that anti-Islam video and that it wasn’t premeditated). Of course, the Obama administration has since revised its story, and it’s better to be late than never. But there’s no doubt that today’s hearing is going to be – at the very least -- a headache for the White House. An example: Today’s Washington Post report on the State Department concluding, back in July, “that the risk of violence to diplomats and other Americans in Libya was high and that the weak U.S.-backed government in Tripoli could do little about it.” Just askin’, but where is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Why isn’t the administration sending her out to help explain what happened? Isn’t this her turf? Also, did the intelligence community really let Susan Rice go out FIVE DAYS after the attack and say what she said? They didn’t know FIVE DAYS LATER that there was not a single protest at all in Benghazi?

*** Romney’s statement on abortion: Speaking of headaches, this could be one for Mitt Romney. In an interview yesterday with the Des Moines Register’s editorial board, Romney said: “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” That statement could very well surprise many of his conservative supporters. And Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul emailed this response to National Review: “Gov. Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life.” Saul gave this other statement to NBC News: "Mitt Romney is proudly pro-life, and he will be a pro-life president." We imagine that conservative commentators will be biting their tongues over Romney’s statement to the Des Moines Register. But it’s pretty remarkable – in today’s day and age – for a GOP presidential nominee to say there’s no abortion-related legislation that would become part of his agenda. By the way, you know Romney’s doing well when social conservatives bite their collective tongue.

*** New NBC/WSJ/Marist polls of FL, OH, VA: Just how big was Romney’s bounce after the debate? And did it continue beyond the immediate days afterward? We’ll be releasing new NBC/WSJ/Marist polls tomorrow morning that will give us a good answer. Before last week’s debate, we measured the contests of Florida (where it was Obama 47% Romney 46%), Ohio (Obama 51% Romney 43%), and Virginia (Obama 48% Romney 46%). Well, after the debate, we went back into the field in those same three states. Stay tuned for the results.

*** Team Obama’s tactical advantage over Team Romney: If Obama ends up winning the presidential contest, it could very well come down to this: Team Obama has a tactical advantage over Team Romney, and that’s especially true when it comes to advertising strategy. Politico has this example: “Voters in Columbus, Ohio, saw 30-second television ads for both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney while watching ‘Wheel of Fortune’ on their CBS affiliate over three days in September. For Obama’s team, the order per spot cost $500. For Romney’s, the price tag on the order was more than five times steeper at $2,800 per ad.” What’s going on here? Politico explains, “Romney places his commercials on a week-to-week basis, rather than booking time well in advance, and typically pays more so that his ads don’t get preempted and to spare his campaign the hassle of haggling over time as prices rise.” Folks, this is the equivalent of an NFL team -- in terms of tactics and ad-buying strategy -- going up against a high school team. And here’s another example we’ve heard: For weeks, the Obama campaign has been hammering Romney on the “Big 10 Network.” Only until recently has the Romney campaign also decided to advertise on the channel, about five weeks AFTER the start of football season. In a close race, the little things matter.

*** This week’s 10 hottest markets: And by the way, here are this week’s 10 hottest advertising markets in the presidential contest (in terms of advertising points from Oct. 8-14):

1. Orlando, FL (Obama/1600, Romney/1600, ROF/775, Priorities/630, ROF/215)
2. Norfolk VA (Romney/1500, Obama/1300, ROF/1200, Priorities/350, NRA/300)
3. Cleveland, OH (Romney/1500, Obama/1500, AmCrossroads/1200, Priorities/400)
4. Denver, CO (Romney/1500, Obama/1500, AmCrossroads/1200, Priorities/300)
5. Toledo, OH (Romney/1500, Obama/1500, AmCrossroads/1100, Priorities/300, NRA/250)
6. Des Moines, IA (Romney/1500, Obama/1300, ROF/1000, Priorities/350, American Future Fund/360)
7. Roanoke, VA (Romney/1500, ROF/1500, Obama/750, Priorities/300, NRA/400)
8. Cedar Rapids, IA (Romney/1500, Obama/1300, ROF/780, American Future Fund/415, Priorities/400)
9. Green Bay, WI (Romney/1500, ROF/1500, Obama/500, Priorities/500, NRA/400)
10. Tampa, FL (Romney/1,500, Obama/1500, ROF/675, NRA/250)

*** Combing with “47%” and Medicare: And speaking of ads, the Obama campaign is out with a new TV spot that combines Romney’s “47%” remark with the Ryan budget plan for Medicare. The ad concludes, “You’re no victim. You earned your benefits. Don’t let Mitt Romney take them away.”

*** Polling update: Latest polls: Gallup switched its tracking poll to likely voters and now has Romney leading 49-47%. Among registered voters, Obama leads 49-46%. In the states: OH: CNN/ORC has Obama up 51-47% among likely voters and up 53-43% among registered voters; NH: WMUR/University of New Hampshire has Obama up 47-41%, but Obama lead has shrunk from 15 points in the poll 10 days ago; PA: Siena has Obama up 43-40%.

*** On the trail: Romney spends another day in Ohio, hitting a town hall (with Chris Christie) in Mt. Vernon at 11:35 am ET, a restaurant visit in Delaware at 2:25 pm, and a rally in Sidney at 6:45 pm.

Countdown to VP debate: 1 day
Countdown to 2^nd presidential debate: 6 days
Countdown to 3^rd presidential debate: 12 days
Countdown to Election Day: 27 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

SAN ANTONIO, TX -- Rick Santorum today suggested it would be better to stick with President Obama over a candidate that might be "the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future” -- a shot at chief rival Mitt Romney.

"You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there," said Santorum. "If you’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future.”

For the second day in a row, the former Pennsylvania senator brought an Etch A Sketch on the trail as a prop to remind voters of Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom's response to a question about whether Santorum is pushing Romney too far right to win over moderate voters in a general election. "Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes," Fehrnstrom said Wednesday on CNN. "It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again."

The comment gave plenty of ammunition to Santorum and Newt Gingrich, both of whom have made the well-known children's toy a staple of their stump speeches.

Speaking at the USAA headquarters here, Santorum showed optimism about his chances in the delegate rich state of Texas. He told the crowd the primary would not be over by the time the Lone Star State votes on May 29.

"It's the second-biggest delegate prize, and you're going to have an important role. This race will not be over when Texas is coming around," he said.

Santorum's viability hinges on picking up a majority of the 155 delegates that will be up for grabs here. When asked about his path to the nomination, Texas plays a key role.

Still, the GOP hopeful avoided calling on Newt Gingrich to leave the race, though senior campaign advisers have said the former House speaker remaining in the race is cutting into their vote totals and that they would like to receive the former House speaker's support.

Santorum said his campaign has been in contact with both the Gingrich and Romney campaigns, though he declined to give specifics of the conversations.

"I’m worried about being a candidate. I’m not worried about anything else right now,” Santorum told reporters who asked about the nature of the conversations.

Accompanying Santorum on the trail today was billionaire-backer Foster Freiss, who is a chief contributor to the pro-Santorum Super PAC Red, White and Blue Fund. They will attend a fundraiser in Dallas on Thursday afternoon.

*** UPDATE *** The Romney camp responds with this statement from the former Massachusetts governor: “I am in this race to defeat Barack Obama and restore America’s promise. I was disappointed to hear that Rick Santorum would rather have Barack Obama as president than a Republican. This election is more important than any one person. It is about the future of America. Any of the Republicans running would be better than President Obama and his record of failure.”