Obama at the G-8: It could have been worse… Germany visit: 2013 vs. 2008… Obama on Syria, NSA surveillance, and Bernanke… McCaskill backs “Ready for Hillary” Super PAC… House to vote on abortion ban… Biden to talk gun control… Not-so Great Scott… And revenge is a dish best served … by running for office. 

*** It could have been worse: As President Obama today wraps up his G-8 meetings in Northern Ireland before heading to Germany later this afternoon, it’s safe to say that this hasn’t been a very successful overseas trip for President Obama. At least so far. He was hoping to get a big show of early support on a free-trade agreement with Europe (the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), but he got some pushback (especially from France). And regarding Syria, there wasn’t much of an agreement on anything, especially from Russia. Of course, it could have been worse -- the U.S. will still host the first round of talks on the trade partnership next month in DC, and Obama’s meeting with Putin was at least cordial (yet still awkward). At least Putin didn’t make any cannibal references while sitting next to the president. That said, the White House is hoping to turn things around with a successful speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Germany tomorrow. But even that seems like an uphill climb. Der Spiegel doesn’t exactly roll out the welcome mat for Obama like they did in 2008.

Ian Langsdon / AP

President Barack Obama, left, and French President Francois Hollande attend a round table meeting of G-8 member countries at the G-8 Summit at the Lough Erne golf resort in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, on Tuesday, June 18, 2013.

*** 2013 vs. 2008: NBC’s Andy Eckhart notes:  “Germany meets the superstar" was the headline on the cover of Der Spiegel weekly before his visit during the 2008 campaign. Some 200,000 Germans cheered him on. In this most recent issue of Der Spiegel, Eckhart notes the cover features Obama in Kennedy’s shadow with the tagline, „The Lost Friend“ and then it has an „angst-ridden report about fraying ties. "Kennedy's visit to Berlin was an almost ecstatic celebration of a protective alliance," it wrote. But it said nearly 70 years after World War II and two decades after the end of European communism, "the trip of (JFK's) no-less-charismatic successor will likely be a prosaic family gathering." Commentators note that Germans, like other ardent Obama supporters, are frustrated by impasses on slowing climate change and closing Guantanamo Bay prison.“ Needless to say, expectations are a LOT lower for Obama’s reception in Germany than they were five years ago. 

*** Obama on Syria: So what did we learn from Obama’s Charlie Rose interview from last night? Well, he outlined his Syria policy (or as some argue, his non-policy) a bit more. “We know what it's like to rush into a war in the Middle East without having thought it through. And there are elements within the Middle East who see this entirely through the prism of a Shia-Sunni conflict and want the United States to simply take the side of the Sunnis,” he said. “And that I do not think serves American interests.” He went on to say, “And we have a legitimate need to be engaged and to be involved. But for us to do it in a careful calibrated way sometimes is unsatisfying, because what people really typically want is a clean solution, a silver bullet, ‘Here's what we're going to do,’ and we just move forward.”

*** Obama on NSA surveillance: In his interview with Charlie Rose, the president also commented on the controversies surrounding the NSA surveillance programs. “The way I view it, my job is both to protect the American people and to protect the American way of life which includes our privacy,” he said. “And so every program that we engage in, what I've said is ‘Let's examine and make sure that we're making the right tradeoffs.’” He went on to say, “If you're a U.S. person, then NSA is not listening to your phone calls and it's not targeting your emails unless it's getting an individualized court order.” Obama’s comments came as a new Pew poll shows that Americans are split on the NSA surveillance story, with 49% saying that Edward Snowden’s release of the classified information serves the public interest, versus 44% who say it harms the public interest. (Strikingly, younger people strongly say that the NSA leak serves the public interest, which might not be that surprisingly given that the younger generation has a greater expectation that things are more open and transparent.) Also today, the House Intelligence Committee holds an open hearing at 10:00 am ET with NSA Director Keith Alexander. 

*** Obama closer than ever to replacing Bernanke? Perhaps the biggest news that Obama made in the Charlie Rose interview was that Ben Bernanke isn’t going to serve another term as Fed chairman. Why? Because Obama spoke of his service in the past tense. ROSE: “Some people would like to see you announce that you are reappointing Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Fed.” OBAMA: “Well, I think Ben Bernanke's done an outstanding job. Ben Bernanke's a little bit like Bob Mueller, the head of the FBI where he's already stayed a lot longer than he wanted or he was supposed to.” ROSE: “But if he wanted to be reappointed, you would reappoint him?” OBAMA: “He has been an outstanding partner along with the White House, in helping us recover much stronger than, for example, our European partners, from what could have been an economic crisis of epic proportions.”  

*** McCaskill backs “Ready for Hillary” group: In 2016 news today, the group “Ready for Hillary” announced the support of Sen. Claire McCaskill, whom it says is the first member of Congress to get on board of the Super PAC that’s supporting Hillary’s candidacy (though that doesn’t have official ties with the former Secretary of State). It’s also notable because McCaskill was an early Obama supporter in ’08. This McCaskill news comes after former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm has been assisting Ready for Hillary, too. One thing that was clear to us yesterday, there seems to be a concerted effort to recruit prominent Democratic women early to Hillary’s side. That said, let’s everybody take a deep breath and realize, the only “news” a top Democratic official can make now about 2016 is announcing their intention NOT to support Clinton.  At this point, announcing support for her is not exactly NEWS. 

*** House to vote on abortion ban: Remember when, right after the 2012 election, Republican establishment types wanted to move beyond abortion and the culture war? Well, months later House Republicans today hold a vote on a measure that would prohibit abortion after 20-22 weeks of pregnancy. The New York Times: “Aware of the risks inherent in abortion politics, Republican leaders have moved to insulate themselves from Democrats’ criticism that they are opening a new front in the “war on women.” Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, will manage the debate on the bill when it reaches the House floor, a role that would customarily go to the sponsor, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona. And in a last-minute revision, House leaders slipped in a provision that would allow for a limited exception in cases of rape or incest, but only if the woman had reported the crime.” Those limited exceptions come after Franks drew criticism for saying that the incidents of pregnancy from rape were “very low.” Per NBC’s Frank Thorp, the vote takes place around 6:00 pm ET. 

*** Biden to talk gun control: Meanwhile, at 1:00 pm ET, Vice President Biden delivers remarks on reducing gun violence. But after the administration’s defeat on the Senate background-check vote, Biden’s focus will be on the executive orders that the administration has pursued on guns. “Senior administration officials said the vice president will deliver a ‘progress report’ touting completion of a slew of executive actions — including writing emergency management plans for schools and churches and training police to respond to active shooters,” the Washington Post reports. “Sure, these steps might make communities safer and better prepared to respond to gun violence. But, gun-control advocates said, they are baby steps that do relatively little to prevent the next mass shooting.” More: “Biden plans to announce that the administration has completed or made significant progress in 21 of 23 executive actions first rolled out on Jan. 16, according to senior administration officials.” 

*** (Not so) Great Scott: Folks, the fact that this new Quinnipiac poll is being touted as good news for incumbent Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) shows just how endangered he is come 2014. Yes, his approval rating has increased from 36% to 43% from 36%. And, yes, he’s now trailing Charlie Crist by 10 points (47%-37%) instead of 16 (50%-34%) in a hypothetical gubernatorial match up. But those are rough, rough numbers for a politician facing re-election next year. You never want to see your approval rating below 45%, and you never want your ballot number to be in the 30s… 

*** Revenge is a dish best served … by running for office: After it became pretty clear that Senate Republicans wouldn’t allow Elizabeth Warren to officially head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Warren decided to run for the U.S. Senate, and she beat incumbent Republican Scott Brown. (It raises the question if Brown might still be in the Senate if Republicans had been willing to accept her appointment.) And now Donald Berwick -- who headed Medicare and Medicaid for the Obama administration as a recess appointee but who never even received a Senate confirmation hearing -- is following the Elizabeth Warren route. Yesterday, he announced he was running for Massachusetts’ open gubernatorial seat in 2014 as a Democrat. In addition, it’s possible that Richard Cordray, Obama’s recess appointment at the CFPB, could run for Ohio governor. As one plugged in Hill Democrat emails us, “Remember, there’s historic precedent for blocked nominees seeking revenge through future elected office.  If things had gone differently in the 80s, Jeff Sessions would currently be toiling as an obscure federal judge in Alabama, not leading the charge against the immigration bill.”   

http://is.gd/ccxyrR%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">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%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Facebook and also on http://is.gd/hkhSDT%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Twitter. Follow us @http://twitter.com/#!/chucktodd">chucktodd, @http://twitter.com/#!/mmurraypolitics">mmurraypolitics, @http://twitter.com/#!/DomenicoNBC">DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

President Barack Obama and key congressional leaders may agree on current national security surveillance policies, but a heated debate is under way outside Congress -- perhaps most fiercely between two former and powerful vice presidents, Dick Cheney and Al Gore. And their rhetorical clash seems to suggest that the national security consensus that has existed since Sept. 11, 2001 may be getting harder to maintain.

On Sunday, Cheney unabashedly defended the National Security Agency’s program to monitor phone and email data and was scathing in his criticism of Obama’s handling of the War on Terror. Two days earlier, Gore challenged the constitutionality of the surveillance in an interview with a British newspaper, saying, "I think that the Congress and the administration need to make some changes in the law and in their behavior so as to honor and obey the constitution of the United States.”

Fred Watkins / AP

Former Vice President Dick Cheney speaks on Fox News Sunday June 16, 2013.

“I don't pay a lot of attention, frankly, to what Barack Obama says,” Cheney told Chris Wallace of Fox News. Cheney added that the president is “just dead wrong on the status of the threat” from al Qaida, disputing Obama’s judgment that the struggle against al-Qaida is winding down. “The threat is bigger than ever,” he contended.

Cheney took personal ownership of the NSA surveillance program saying, “We set up this program back in the weeks after '01 … We did it in my office, in the West Wing.” If only the NSA surveillance had been in effect before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, he said, “we might have been able to prevent 9/11.”

But Gore, in an interview with The Guardian – the newspaper which first published contractor Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA surveillance – denounced the program as unconstitutional, “not right” and “not really the American way.”

The Cheney-Gore clash was a reminder that one can’t debate war on terrorism issues – from surveillance to Guantanamo – without considering the prelude of policies from George W. Bush.

Progressive activists who gathered over the weekend at the American Constitution Society’s annual convention in Washington voiced dismay over Obama’s conduct of the war on terrorism, including revelations about the NSA as well as his use of drones to kill Americans and others overseas.

But American Civil Liberties Union deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer suggested that the fact that Obama, not Bush, is in the White House may not matter as much as people thought it did when they voted back in 2008.

“We are starting to see a kind of indifference of the ‘Security State’ to the character of the particular administration,” argued Jaffer. “It doesn’t matter who’s in power; these policies just seem to grow and grow. I think the surveillance disclosures of the last week are some evidence of that. The logic of these security polices is so strong that it doesn’t matter that much who’s in power.”

Last week the ACLU filed suit against the Obama administration, asking a federal court in New York to order the NSA data collection to cease.

Jaffer disputed Obama’s statement on June 7 that the NSA data collection “was not secret” because “every member of Congress has been briefed on this program” and that NSA programs “have been authorized by broad bipartisan majorities repeatedly since 2006.”

Jaffer said, “Most members of Congress didn’t know about this meta-data program, they didn’t have access to the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) memos, they didn’t have access to a lot of the crucial information about the scope of the program.” So, he said, “It’s not true to say that there was congressional oversight.”

As chagrined as some progressives are about Obama, of course they haven’t forgotten Bush and Cheney. Georgetown University law professor David Cole said that Bush and Cheney had engaged in “criminal action” by approving waterboarding of captured terrorists.

A member of the audience, Shahid Buttar, executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, told the panelists that the Obama administration had failed to “to pursue executive accountability for torture, as is required under international law” thus, he said, “ensuring that torture will recur by making it OK to permit the Bush administration’s abuses.”

But former Obama administration official Marty Lederman, who served in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel from 2009 to 2010 and from 1994 to 2002, replied, “What is it exactly that this accountability would consist of – but for I guess prosecution of President Bush and Vice President Cheney – which I don’t think would be particularly healthy for our public right now.” 

Cole said Bush and Cheney need not be criminally prosecuted but he urged that a bipartisan commission to formally investigate torture.

Representing the Bush era on the panel was John Bellinger, an attorney at Arnold & Porter in Washington who served both in the Justice Department in the Clinton administration and as legal adviser to the State Department under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from 2005 to 2009.

“We really need to restore bipartisanship,” Bellinger told the skeptical crowd. “It is very easy to demagogue these issues from either the right or the left … .”

Looking out over the audience – which contained many law students who might seek future employment in a Democratic administration – Bellinger said, “I hope many of the people in this room will serve in government. When you are in government, you’ve got to work with Republicans, you’ve got to work with Democrats. And the way to do it is not to go bashing the other side calling them ‘criminals,’ impugning their motives.”

As Buttar pointed out, there are two types of bipartisanship: the kind Bellinger was urging, which pursues continuity in national security policies, and the more populist kind, which unites libertarian Republicans such as Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky with Al Gore and other progressive Democratic critics of NSA surveillance.

This story was originally published on Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:54 PM EDT

The series of controversies in Washington over the last month have taken a political toll on President Barack Obama, according to one new poll released Monday that showed his ratings slipping.

Even as Americans mostly back the National Security Agency’s controversial practices involving the “data-mining” of phone and internet records, Obama’s own approval rating has suffered slightly, driven by drops in support among independent voters.

A CNN/ORC poll released Monday found that Obama’s approval rating – the number of Americans who say he is doing a good job as president – is now under water; that is, more Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling his job than approve. Forty-five percent of Americans said in the CNN poll that Obama is handling his job well, while 54 percent said they disapprove of the job Obama is doing as president.

That’s a drop from just three weeks earlier, when a series of national polls, including CNN’s, found Obama’s approval rating holding steady amid a series of controversies involving his administration’s handling of the targeting of conservatives by the IRS, the crafting of talking points on the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, and revelations that the Justice Department had targeted journalists’ phone records as part of a leak investigation.

The weeks since then have seen the administration being forced to respond to an explosive new controversy, this one involving the disclosure of classified domestic surveillance techniques undertaken by the NSA. And though the administration has won supporters in both parties for these practices, the feeding frenzy in Washington appears to finally be taking some toll on the administration.

The most pronounced shift in CNN’s numbers over the last three weeks came among independent voters, the pivotal voting bloc that has counted increasing numbers of disaffected Republicans among its ranks. Obama’s approval vs. disapproval rating among independents went from 47 percent approval and 49 percent disapproval in mid-May to 37 percent approval and 61 disapproval in the most recent CNN/ORC poll, which was conducted from June 11-13.

That mirrors the results of the June 4 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, which found that Obama’s favorability rating among independents had fallen from 37 percent in April to 28 percent most recently.

The slippage is further demonstrated on the question of whether Obama is seen as honest and trustworthy. Forty-nine percent of Americans said in June’s poll that such a label applies to Obama, versus 50 percent who said it does not. (That question was 58 percent to 41 percent in favor of Obama several weeks ago, and again, the number of independents who said they would call Obama honest and trustworthy dropped by 12 points over the past few weeks.)

Sasha Mordovets / Getty Images Contributor

President Barack Obama arrives at the G8 venue of Lough Erne on June 17, 2013 in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland.

Obama also suffers from a sharp negative shift among younger voters, though the sample size in both polls was higher than for most other sub-categories.

The figures in this one poll, though, could suggest that several weeks’ worth of difficulty have had a cumulative effect on Obama. Sixty-one percent of Americans said they disapprove of the way Obama is handling the government’s surveillance of U.S. citizens, while just 35 percent approve.

But whether any of these controversies is able to diminish the president’s long-term political standing remain to be seen.

And Monday’s CNN poll isn’t all bad news for Obama, either. Even amid the lingering IRS, Libya and Justice Department controversies, Americans appear to slightly favor the controversial NSA monitoring practices themselves that prompted the most recent outcry from civil libertarians.

A majority of Americans don’t think the Obama administration has overreached in its pursuit of terror suspects. Thirty-eight percent of Americans said they were content with the way the Obama administration had balanced between preserving civil liberties and fighting terrorism; another 17 percent said Obama hadn’t gone far enough in curbing liberties to pursue terror suspects. But of all three views, a plurality of 43 percent said the administration has gone too far in disregarding civil liberties.

Americans were mostly split on whether the NSA was right or wrong to collect domestic phone data for analysis, the program at the NSA uproar. Fifty-one percent of Americans said the administration was right to continue that practice, which had begun during President George W. Bush’s administration, versus 48 percent who said such a practice was wrong.

Americans were also more forgiving of the NSA’s monitoring of foreigners’ internet communications in the name of pursuing terrorist suspects. Sixty-six percent of Americans said the government was right to undertake such a program, versus 33 percent who said it was wrong.

The June CNN/ORC poll was conducted June 11-13, and has a 3 percent margin of error for its entire pool of respondents. The subsample of self-described independents has a 4.5 percent margin of error. By reference, the May CNN/ORC poll was conducted from May 17-18 and has a 3 percent margin of error for its overall sample, and a 5 percent margin of error for its subsample of independents.

This story was originally published on Mon Jun 17, 2013 2:12 PM EDT

Organizing for Action -- the old Obama campaign apparatus -- is out with its first TV ad, and it defends the federal health-care law.

"What the impact of ObamaCare?" the ad's narrator asks asks. "The truth is, Americans are already seeing the benefits. She's seeing more seniors for free wellness visits. He received a $150 rebate from his health insurance company. And next year, she can expand her small business -- thanks to tax credits that cover up to half of her workers' health insurance."

The ad concludes, "Better coverage and lower costs -- that's what ObamaCare means for them. Get all the facts at BarackObama.com/HealthCare." NBC News has learned the ad is airing on national cable news, and it's part of a seven-figure ad buy over the summer.

This ad comes as the most recent NBC/WSJ poll found that just 37 percent of Americans said the health-care law was a good idea, versus 49 percent who said it was a bad idea.

That 49 percent on bad idea was the highest negative rating on that question since the NBC/WSJ poll began asking it in 2009.

It also comes as the law's opponents have outspent supporters on TV ads by a 5-to-1 ratio since 2010, per Kantar Media CMAG.

Cold  War tensions are back as G-8 summit begins… A test of Obama’s international leadership… Cheney vs. Gore on NSA surveillance… New Yorker: Everything you wanted to know about the Gang of Eight... Boehner to abide by Hastert Rule on immigration?... What does Rowhani’s win mean for the U.S.?... Poll: Markey leads Gomez by double digits… And Manchin gears up … for 2018!!!

*** Cold War tensions are back: As the G-8 summit in Northern Ireland begins today, we probably aren’t the only ones having flashbacks to the early 1980s. With Russia alone among the G-8 nations in backing the governing Assad regime, the old divides have resurfaced in dramatic ways. On Sunday, Russian President Putin publicly lectured British Prime Minister David Cameron on Syria in a joint appearance, saying, “As regards to the supplies of weapons to the Assad government, … I believe you will not deny that the blood is on the hands of both parties. ... And there’s always a question, who is to be blamed for that?” A new Snowden-leak story about how the U.S. and British intelligence agencies eavesdropped on world leaders -- including then-Russian President Medvedev -- at a London conference in 2009 is sure to add to the tensions. And if that wasn’t enough, there’s a new allegation from New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft who claims Putin stole one of his Super Bowl rings. All of this is the backdrop when President Obama meets with Putin at 6:30 pm ET.

*** A test of Obama’s international leadership: As we wrote on Friday, this G-8 summit has become a test of Obama’s second-term international leadership. Can he stare down Putin? Can he keep the Western allies on the same page when it comes to arming the Syrian opposition? Can he articulate exactly what the U.S. strategy is beyond just hoping Assad will step aside and allow a political peace process to begin? Bill Clinton’s criticism of the president’s Syrian policy wasn’t nearly as impactful domestically as it was internationally. All this comes at a time when the president appears, well, a tad smaller today than he the last time he was in Europe. Over the past month, little has gone well for the administration as it’s been nicked by several different cuts -- Syria, the NSA leaks and surveillance debate, and the IRS story. And now there’s a new CNN poll showing that Obama’s approval rating has declined to 45%. As Team Obama is fond of saying, everyone gets their turn in the barrel. And right now, the Obama folks are definitely in the barrel. The potential good for them: That situation can always change. Indeed, it was just a year ago when the Obama campaign suffered a tough spell in May and June (poor jobs reports, “the private sector is doing fine”), and that situation changed in July, August, and September. Perhaps it’s a June thing. What they have to hope it’s not is some sort of second-term pall setting over them because that can be hard to shake. Appearance or illusion of weakness only creates actual political weakness. Bottom line: Obama needs to some meaningful progress, and it must gall him that his fate, at least internationally when it comes to Syria, is in the hands of Putin.

*** Cheney vs. Gore on NSA surveillance: Here’s a fun exercise -- looking at the NSA surveillance debate through the lens of two former vice presidents: Dick Cheney and Al Gore. For starters, Cheney “told ‘Fox News Sunday’ the National Security Agency-led programs have to remain confidential to keep the information from enemies and that he and other U.S. intelligence officials were concerned about a nuclear attack. ‘It was 19 guys with box cutters and airplane tickets,’ but the next time it could have been a ‘nuclear attack,’ the 72-year-old Cheney said. He said former NSA contractor Edward Snowden exposing the gathering of information on phone calls and emails has done ‘enormous damage’ to the United States' anti-terror programs and called Snowden a ‘traitor.’” And here’s Gore, via National Journal: “In a long interview with The Guardian published on Friday, Gore said that the NSA surveillance is ‘not really the American way.’ And that's not the least of it: ‘This in my view violates the constitution. The fourth amendment and the first amendment—and the fourth amendment language is crystal clear...It is not acceptable to have a secret interpretation of a law that goes far beyond any reasonable reading of either the law or the constitution and then classify as top secret what the actual law is.’” It’s time for someone to step up and moderate a debate on surveillance between these two -- we are happy to moderate!

/

President Barack Obama gestures during a speech at the Belfast Waterfront on Monday, June 17, 2013, in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

*** Everything you wanted to know about the Gang of Eight: As the Senate begins another week debating the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” immigration reform legislation, don’t miss Ryan Lizza’s New Yorker piece. It has everything you needed to know about the politics inside the Gang of Eight -- the McCain-Schumer relationship and how it developed, the tension between McCain and Rubio, improved relations between Schumer and Dick Durbin, and even McCain taking some of the blame for the bad relationship with the White House. (Another sign the Old McCain is back?) Bottom line takeaway from this piece: This is Chuck Schumer's show, he put this team together, and he seems to be keeping them together.  

*** Boehner to abide by the Hastert Rule on immigration? But that’s the Senate. When it comes to the House, the Washington Examiner’s David Drucker reports that Speaker John Boehner won’t bring any immigration-reform legislation to the House floor if it doesn’t have a majority of Republicans backing it, according to sources familiar with Boehner’s plans. From the piece: “One GOP strategist noted that Boehner is navigating a different set of dynamics than Reid in the Senate. In particular, House Republicans are likely to suffer a greater voter backlash in the 2014 elections is they back the wrong immigration reform bill than they would if they simply did nothing on the issue. ‘There is no national crisis with an artificial deadline the president can trump up and trot out on the nightly news,’ the GOP strategist said. ‘Boehner is under no pressure to put the Senate bill on the floor.’” Make no mistake: Boehner is facing two different pressures: 1) from Republicans who are convinced that the GOP must fix its problems with Latino voters; and 2) from conservatives in his caucus who are opposed to immigration reform -- and, frankly, anything President Obama is supporting. The question is: Which pressure will win out?

*** What does Rowhani’s win mean for the U.S.? Turning to international politics, there was a PRETTY BIG development in Iran over the weekend: In a surprise, the most moderate of the actual candidates Hassan Rowhani won that country’s presidential contest. The New York Times: “But while the election of the new president, Hassan Rowhani, a former nuclear negotiator who is considered a moderate compared with the other candidates, was greeted by some administration officials as the best of all likely outcomes, they said it did not change the fact that only the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would make the final decision about any concessions to the West. Even so, they said they wanted to test Mr. Rowhani quickly, noting that although he argued for a moderate tone in dealing with the United States and its allies when he was a negotiator, he also boasted in 2006 that Iran had used a previous suspension of nuclear enrichment to make.” 

*** Poll: Markey leads Gomez by double digits: Before next week’s special Senate election in Massachusetts, a Boston Globe poll released on Sunday shows Ed Markey (D) leading Gabriel Gomez (R) by double digits among likely voters, 54%-43%. One of the reasons why Gomez is trailing is that he isn’t running up the score among independents, which a Republican candidate needs to do in order to win in deep-blue Massachusetts. “Gomez is the candidate poll respondents find more likable and he holds the lead among unenrolled voters — the critical bloc of independents whose support he’ll need to top a Democrat in Massachusetts. But that margin is only 9 percentage points. Analysts believe that for a Republican to win in Massachusetts, he must win the unenrolled vote by a 2-to-1 margin.”

*** Manchin gears up … for 2018! Are we the only ones who think Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and his political team are overreacting a bit here? After all, Manchin isn’t up for re-election until 2018!!!! “Sen. Joe Manchin, co-author of a plan to expand background checks on gun sales, is launching a TV ad to defend himself from attacks by the powerful National Rifle Association,” Politico says. “Manchin will begin running the TV ad later this week, although details on how much the West Virginia Democrat will spend on the ad buy and its content were still being finalized on Sunday. Manchin will pay for the ad out of his reelection campaign.” If you were wondering if Manchin was going to run for re-election, well you have your answer -- 5 ½ years early!

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

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio on Sunday said the comprehensive immigration reform bill is almost "ready to go" but still needs substantial border security fixes, dismissing accusations from conservative critics that he has been manipulated by veteran Democratic lawmakers in their efforts to pass the bill. 

"I think it's an excellent starting point, and I think 95, 96 percent of the bill is in perfect shape and ready to go," he said of the bill, which is being debated in the Senate this month. "But there are elements that need to be improved."

Asked about rhetorical jabs from some immigration reform opponents during an appearance on ABC's "This Week," Rubio dismissed conservative commentator Ann Coulter's charge that he is "being played" by Sen. Chuck Schumer, another member of the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" that drafted the original legislation. 

"Quite frankly, I don't even know what that means," he replied. 

"I recognize there is a division among conservatives about [immigration reform.] I respect other people's views on it," Rubio added. "I understand why they are frustrated by it. I just hope people understand that the reason why I've undertaken this is because this is a major problem that's hurting our country."

The Florida Republican, who has said the comprehensive bill will not pass without the beefed-up border security requirements, declined to engage in "hypotheticals and ultimatums" about whether he could vote for the bill without those fixes.  

"I think the debate now is about what that border security provision looks like," he said. "And if we do that, this bill will have strong bipartisan support. If we fail, we're going to keep trying, because at the end of the day, the only way we're going to pass an immigration reform law out of the House and Senate so the president can sign it is, that it has real border security measures within it."

On CNN's State of the Union program Sunday, Rubio's "Gang of Eight" colleague Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J. said that negotiators are open to more specificity on the border plan but that its "triggers" must not impede the bill's path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. 

"I would simply say to our colleagues we are open, if you want greater specificity about what that border plan looks like, we're open to that," he said. "But what we cannot have and what I cannot support and what I believe the community cannot support at the end of the day is that we're going to have triggers that can never be achieved in terms of border security as an impediment to the pathway to legalization and citizenship.

And the New Jersey lawmaker warned that, without embracing that legalization plan, Republicans will face political extinction.

'The road to the White House comes through a road with a pathway to legalization," he said. "Without it, there'll never be a road to the White House for the Republican Party."

The United States might have been able to prevent the deadly Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington had controversial National Security Agency surveillance practices been in place at the time, former Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday. 

The former No. 2 in the Bush administration defended the NSA's ability to monitor phone and email data, and labeled as a "traitor" the analyst who has admitted to having leaked details about the classified program.

Harry Hamburg / AP file photo

Former Vice President Dick Cheney speaks at the Center For Security Policy dinner at Union Station in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2009.

"As everybody who's been associated with the program's said, if we had had this before 9/11, when there were two terrorists in San Diego — two hijackers — had been able to use that program, that capability, against that target, we might well have been able to prevent 9/11," Cheney said on "Fox News Sunday."

And Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C., a hawkish Republican who's vocally defended the NSA practices, suggested another attack is even made more likely if the monitoring is curtailed. 

"I believe we should be listening to terrorists, known terrorist emails, following their emails and following their phone calls. And if they're emailing somebody and the United States or calling a number in the United States, I would like to get a judge's position to monitor that phone call," Graham said on "Meet the Press" on NBC. "If we don't do that, another attack on our homeland is very likely."

Many of the broad surveillance practices referenced by Cheney were initiated following the 9/11 attacks, prompted by President George W. Bush, who argued for broader government powers to prevent future attacks. But revelations that the government was routinely collecting so-called "meta-data" from phone providers like Verizon and other communications companies has prompted a new debate over what limits should be put on domestic government surveillance. 

President Barack Obama has also called the NSA's practices an important tool for his administration. Asked on CBS whether Obama felt as though any American's privacy had been violated, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said: "He does not."

McDonough also suggested that Obama will endeavor to speak more publicly about the program in the coming days, and touted the administration's work to more fully brief lawmakers about the programs and build in more oversight.

Obama has also asserted that he has scaled back some practices undertaken during the Bush administration — a claim which drew a sharp rebuke from Cheney. 

"I don't pay a lot of attention, frankly, to what Barack Obama says," Cheney said. "I find a lot of it is, in other areas — the IRS, Benghazi — not credible. I'm obviously not a fan of the incumbent president."

As to Edward Snowden, the former Booz Allen analyst who has claimed responsibility for first leaking details of the classified NSA program, Cheney said it was one of the worst breaches of intelligence he could imagine.

"I think he's a traitor," Cheney said of Snowden. "I think it's one of the worst occasions, in my memory, of somebody with access to classified information doing enormous damage to the national security interests of the United States."

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Ga., the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Snowden should face prosecution. 

"He needs to look an American jury in the eye and explain why he has disclosed sources and methods that are going to put American lives in danger," said Chambliss.

McDonough was far more reluctant to attach any label to Snowden, explaining that he did not want to prejudge any investigation.

Cheney, though, additionally suggested that Snowden's decision to flee to Hong Kong — where he is thought to currently reside — could mean that he was working with the Chinese government. (McDonough said he could not comment as to Snowden's whereabouts or cooperation with the Chinese.)

"I am very, very worried that he still has additional information that he hasn't released yet, that the Chinese would welcome the opportunity and are probably willing to offer immunity — or sanctuary, if you will — in exchange for what he presumably knows or doesn't know," he said.

NBC's Carrie Dann contributed to this report.

As the United States prepares to begin sending direct military aid to rebels in Syria, Republican lawmakers criticized the White House for failing to act sooner and urged action to prevent a "blow up" among the war-torn country's neighbors. 

"The whole region is about to blow up," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham on NBC's Meet the Press, citing the potential effects of Syria's instability on Jordan, Egypt and Israel. "And our foreign policy to me -- I don't understand it.  Whatever it is is not working."

The White House announced Thursday that U.S. officials believe the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own people in the conflict there. Reports indicate that the aid sent to rebels will take the form of small arms and ammunition provided through a CIA program, which Graham says would not go far enough. 

"If we don't do more than add AK-47s into the mix, [Bashar al-Assad] will continue to win," Graham said. "And the King of Jordan is going to become toast."

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on Fox News Sunday, said the Syrian crisis has not been "well-handled" and that it's "not clear"  what the United States' mission is. 

"The question is whether now you're a day late and a dollar short," Cheney said. 

Graham and others advocate for a no-fly zone in the area, a measure the White House says would be costly and may not guarantee success.

"People need to understand that a no-fly zone is not some type of silver bullet," Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters at a briefing Friday. 

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on Meet the Press that the president should listen to the recommendations of military leaders. 

"I think that the military alternatives have got to be examined almost day to day.  And I assume that's what [Obama's] doing," he said. "And if the military says that we need to implement a no-fly zone, we ought to do it right away."

Speaking to religious conservatives Friday, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush said that welcoming immigrants to the United States will be an economic boon because they are hard-working, family-oriented and “more fertile.”

/

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush speaks at the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference on June 14 in Washington.

"Immigrants create far more businesses than native-born Americans,” Bush said in remarks to the Faith and Freedom Coalition in Washington D.C. “Immigrants are more fertile, and they love families, and they have more intact families, and they bring a younger population. Immigrants create an engine of economic prosperity."

Bush, who is mulling a 2016 bid, also argued that there are too few young people paying into a system to support a larger number of older Americans because native-born fertility rates are going down. 

While Bush’s arguably awkward phrasing earned Twitter jabs, data shows that immigrants do have a higher fertility RATE than women born in the United States.

According to 2011 data from the National Center for Health Statistics, the birth rate for foreign-born women is substantially higher than that of U.S. born women, at 87.8 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44. (It was 58.9 for women born in the United States.)

In fact, the Pew Research Center calculated that, in 2010, about 23 percent of all births in the country were to mothers born abroad, even though only about 13 percent of the total population was foreign-born. 

But it’s also worth noting that the immigrant birth rate dropped sharply  -- down 13 percent -- between 2007 and 2010.

This story was originally published on Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:40 AM EDT

What’s the endgame for Syria?... And what happens next week at the G-8 summit in Northern Ireland… NBC/WSJ poll on a war-weary public… A tale of two different conferences today: Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan speak at Faith and Freedom in DC, while Chris Christie speaks at the Clinton Global Initiative… Bill Clinton grabbing headlines and Hillary Clinton defining TBD… And House GOP to hold immigration meeting on July 10.

*** What’s the endgame for Syria? After months of internal deliberations, the Obama White House yesterday announced its first significant effort at trying to intervene in the Syrian civil war. The decision comes after the White House confirmed the Assad regime has been using chemical weapons, and it comes amid growing public pressure on the White House to do more -- from John McCain on the right to Bill Clinton on the left. But here’s our question: What is the administration’s ultimate policy toward Syria? And what’s the endgame? While this issue isn’t a domestic political problem for Team Obama, it has become an international one where its international credibility is on the line. It was striking to see the administration announce this change in policy on a conference call while the president was attending an LGBT event at the White House. Of course, with the G-8 summit in Northern Island coming up next week, it’s very likely that President Obama uses it to announce some form of an international coalition to support the opposition.

Stringer / REUTERS

Members of the Free Syrian Army run to avoid a sniper in Deir al-Zor, June 13, 2013.

*** And what happens next week in Northern Island? But the G-8 isn’t united against Assad. The old G-7 might be, but country No.8 -- Russia -- is in a different place. The end game the president HOPES is a reality is that the ramped up international effort to support the opposition in Syria convinces Russia to back off its support of Assad. But with Assad’s forces winning, can a negotiated settlement be reached? What’s the incentive? Maybe the best criticism of the president on this issue came from someone on the left, actually: former Carter NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski, who noted the lack of U.S. leadership globally in trying to force China and Russia to see this issue through the prism of the Western powers and key Arab allies. 

*** A war-weary public: The White House’s change in Syria policy comes as the American public is EXTREMELY hesitant to intervene directly in Syria's civil war. According to our NBC/WSJ poll released last week, just 15 percent of respondents said they favor U.S. military action when asked to pick a response to stop the killing in Syria, and only 11 percent wanted to provide arms to the opposition. Folks, that’s just one-in-four Americans who support the policy the White House announced yesterday. By comparison, a plurality of respondents -- 42 percent -- preferred to provide only humanitarian assistance, and 24 percent believe the U.S. shouldn't take any action. Perhaps more significantly, those attitudes cut across party lines and almost all demographic groups. "Whether you voted for Romney or Obama, they have the same opinion on Syria," said Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey with the Democratic firm Hart Research.

*** A tale of two conferences: Another round of potential 2016 Republican hopefuls today addresses the Ralph Reed-founded Faith and Freedom Coalition gathering in DC, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI). Among yesterday’s Faith and Freedom speakers were Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rand Paul (R-KY), as well as Rick Santorum. But more than 700 miles away, in Chicago, Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is speaking to a different audience -- the Clinton Global Initiative. At 5:00 pm ET, Christie shares the stage with former President Bill Clinton at a session entitled “Cooperation and Collaboration: A Conversation on Leadership.” Of course, don’t forget that Christie’s participation at the Clinton Global Initiative comes just after his recent appearance with President Obama on the Jersey Shore. Yet don’t miss Ralph Reed’s very conciliatory remarks about Christie, which were VERY different than he got from the CPAC folks who didn’t invite the New Jersey governor to their confab earlier this year. “We’re sorry he didn’t come, but Chris Christie is pro-life,” Reed said. “We’re hoping he’ll be here a year from now.”

*** Christie trailing the pack among Republicans and conservatives: But we’ll remind you of these numbers: While Christie has plenty of crossover appeal per our most recent NBC/WSJ poll, he trails other Republican 2016ers in fav/unfav scores among GOP and conservative respondents. He’s got a lot of work to do if he’s going to win the support of the voters you need these days to secure the ’16 GOP nod. No one has higher negative ratings among Republicans and core conservatives than Chris Christie. From our poll going back to December:

Among Republicans:
Paul Ryan (62%-13%)
Rand Paul (53%-6%)
Marco Rubio (49%-6%)
Jeb Bush (48%-7%)
Chris Christie: (40%-16%)
Scott Walker (21%-5%)
Ted Cruz (21%-6%)

Among conservative respondents:
Paul Ryan (58%-11%)
Rand Paul (47%-5%)
Marco Rubio (45%-6%)
Jeb Bush (44%-7%)
Chris Christie (33%-15%)
Ted Cruz (21%-6%)
Scott Walker (19%-5%).

*** Bill grabbing headlines and Hillary defining TBD: Yesterday, we wrote that Hillary Clinton -- over the past four years -- has emerged with her own brand that’s distinct and separate from her husband’s. But we certainly got a reminder how Bill Clinton can still grab headlines (on Syria), even on a day that was supposed to be about Hillary’s debut with the Clinton Global Initiative. That must have given former Hillary campaign staffers a negative flashback back to ’08, when they would constantly get frustrated at how the Big Dog could throw them off…. As for Hillary’s speech yesterday, she is starting to define “TBD.” She laid out the issues she wants to focus on (early childhood development, opportunities for women, economic mobility) And now she’s launching “Too Small to Fail,” which is her early childhood initiative.

*** House GOP to hold immigration meeting on July 10: Lastly, NBC’s Frank Thorp reported yesterday that House Republicans will hold a “special GOP conference meeting” on July 10 to discuss immigration reform. Folks, if you wanted a sign that the Gang of Eight bill is probably going to pass the Senate and that it’s likely headed to the floor of the House for a vote, it’s this House GOP meeting. The meeting is also a sign that House Speaker John Boehner is trying to telegraph to his members that they need to come up with a solution to whatever the Senate ultimately passes. Bottom line: Boehner is laying the groundwork to show membership there is no House consensus, so they might be stuck with the Senate solution.  

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 

The United States and its allies have concluded that the government of Bashar Assad has used chemical weapons in Syria's protracted civil war, leading President Barack Obama to broaden aid — including military support — to opposition groups.

The intelligence community concluded with "high confidence" that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons — including the nerve agent sarin — "on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year."

"The intelligence community estimates that 100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons attacks in Syria to date; however, casualty data is likely incomplete," said Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes.

The use of chemical weapons crosses the so-called "red line" first established by Obama last year, which he said would prompt the administration to alter its posture. The administration said on Thursday that Obama had decided to broaden support to the Supreme Military Council, a principal opposition group in Syria, and Rhodes said that assistance "will include military support."

Rhodes declined to specify what kind of military support the United States would provide to the SMC, but noted that Obama had not decided to establish a no-fly zone, as some Republicans have demanded.

Rhodes cited the "great and open-ended cost" associated with establishing a partial or complete no-fly zone over Syria, seeming to suggest that the prospect of such action, for now, was unlikely.

He added: "We're looking at a wide range of types of support we can provide both to the political opposition and to the SMC on the ground. I'm not going to be able to detail every single type of support that we are providing, but it's suffice to say it's important to note that it is both the political and the military opposition that will be -- that is and will be receiving U.S. assistance."  

Slideshow: Syria uprising

/

A look back at the conflict that has overtaken the country.

Launch slideshow

Reuters reported that Obama administration officials have said that any arming of the rebels would likely be limited to small arms and ammunition rather than anti-aircraft weapons.

Obama first laid out his "red line" in August.

"We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized," Obama told reporters at that time. "That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

The president noted earlier this year that there had been preliminary indications of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. But he resisted taking action until he said the intelligence community could conclude with certainty that such weapons had actually been used by Assad.

To that end, Rhodes said that the United States and its allies had begun acting in April to assist the SMC by providing increased support in response to Assad crossing a "red line."

But Rhodes also noted that the United States had prepared for "multiple contingencies" — military, diplomatic, or economic — to help put pressure on the Assad government.

"We're going to make decisions about further actions on our own timeline," he said, later adding: "We're looking at a wide range of types of support we could provide."

The topic of Syria is sure to loom large next week as the leaders of the world's largest economies gather for the G8 conference in Ireland.

The Obama administration had come under pressure from hawkish Republicans in Congress to take a more active role in ousting the Assad regime, either by directly arming rebels, or by enforcing a partial or complete no-fly zone in Syria.

“I applaud the president’s decision and I appreciate it," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one such hawk, said Thursday on the Senate floor.

"But the president of the United States had better understand that just supplying weapons is not going to change the equation on the ground [or] the balance of power. These people – the Free Syrian Army – need weapons, heavy weapons to counter tanks and aircraft, they need a no-fly zone, and Bashar Assad’s air assets have to be taken out and neutralized. We can do that without risking a single American airplane."

Said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio: "It is long past time to bring the Assad regime's bloodshed in Syria to an end. As President Obama examines his options, it is our hope he will properly consult with Congress before taking any action."

It’s not just Republicans who have directly or indirectly put pressure on the president for more action.  Former President Bill Clinton reportedly told McCain in a closed-press event Wednesday that he agreed with the Arizona senator about the need for Obama to act more forcefully to support Syrian rebels, saying Americans expect their presidents to be able to “see down the road” and set aside public opinion.

Slideshow: The lives of Syrian rebels

NBC News

People resisting the army of President Bashar al-Assad in northern Syria cope with loss and prepare for fighting.

Launch slideshow

But there are delicate considerations involved in the administration's decision to become more involved. Namely, the U.S. is worried about navigating a thorny relationship with Russia, which has been resistant to apply much pressure to the Assad regime.

Some U.S. officials have also expressed concern that arms supplied to rebels could fall into the hands of fighters who could eventually pivot to use those very arms against U.S. interests or allies.

And then there is the issue of scarce political appetite among most Americans for increased military involvement in Syria following more than a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Just 15 percent of Americans said in June's NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that they favor U.S. military action in Syria; only 11 percent want to provide arms to the opposition. A plurality of respondents -- 42 percent -- prefer to provide only humanitarian assistance, and 24 percent believe the U.S. shouldn't take any action.

NBC's Mark Murray and Carrie Dann and Reuters contributed to this report.

Related:

• 'Long overdue': Reactions to White House announcement on Syria
• Kids wage war in Syria, UN report says
• Analysis: A battle may be won, but war will rage on for Syria's Assad

This story was originally published on Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:17 PM EDT

Americans really, really, really don’t trust Congress.

That’s been born out in poll after poll, but a new number from Gallup shows that Americans currently have the least faith in Congress of any of the major institutions they’ve polled.

Ever.

That means that  – since Gallup started the poll in 1973 – no institution from a list of 16 has been trusted less than Congress is now, including: big business, the medical system, newspapers, television news, HMOs and banks.

The Gallup poll shows that just 10 percent of Americans say they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in Congress, down three points from last year. That low level is relatively consistent between Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

“This is the lowest level of confidence Gallup has found, not only for Congress, but for any institution on record,” Gallup wrote Thursday.

As usual, the poll found that Americans have the most confidence in the U.S. military, at 76 percent.

This story was originally published on Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:11 PM EDT