Senators on a key panel continued slogging through a lengthy list of proposed amendments to a comprehensive immigration reform bill Tuesday, even as the legislation's opponents reminded congressional leaders that they'll continue to fight against "amnesty."

The 18-member Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved an amendment proposed by top Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa to address student visa security issues highlighted in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing.  

That measure, which requires that student visa information be shared in real-time with Border Patrol officers at the nation's major ports of entry, is designed to repair the communication error that led to a friend of bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev entering the United States despite the expiration of his student visa. 

While the panel adopted a handful of proposals by GOP members, other Republican efforts to change the legislation failed, including one provision backed by Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a Gang of Eight member and top Republican negotiator on the immigration reform effort. 

The committee rejected an amendment proposed by Sen. Jeff Sessions, a leading opponent of the bill, that would have required that visa holders be verified using biometric screening -- like fingerprints or eye scans -- when exiting the country.

While Democrats said they were sympathetic to the need for more security at the nation's ports of entry -- a proposal recommended by the 9/11 Commission Report and mandated by Congress but never enforced -- senators also warned of an eye-popping price tag of billions of dollars to implement the system.

Immigration reform proponents also objected to the amendment's mandate that the massive security overhaul be in place before undocumented immigrants can apply for probationary legal status.

Mark Wilson / Getty Images file photo

Sen. Jeff Sessions proposed two amendments to the immigration bill that were rejected by the committee.

That proposal failed 6-12.

Rubio, who is not on the Judiciary Committee but was an important GOP drafter of the original legislation, was "disappointed" that the biometric tracking proposal was not adopted and will fight for it when the bill comes to the Senate floor, a spokesman said. 

"Immigration reform must include the best exit-system possible because persons who overstay their authorized stay are a big reason we now have so many illegal immigrants," said Rubio spokesman Alex Conant in a statement. "We wanted the Judiciary Committee to strengthen the legislation by adding biometrics to the new exit system, and we were disappointed by this morning's vote." 

Sessions, who has proposed a total of 49 changes to the bill, failed to win support from other committee Republicans for a proposal that would have capped the number of legal immigrants receiving green cards at 1.2 million per year. That measure failed, with all others on the 18-member panel voting against it.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who has also been a vocal critic of the bill as written, argued that the Sessions amendment would undermine legal immigrants -- a "fundamental pillar of our country."

Cruz proposed an amendment that would have dramatically increased caps on visas available for high-skilled foreign workers, whom he called an "unambiguous good for our country." Bill drafters -- mindful of the delicate negotiations between business and labor groups that led to a compromise annual cap of 65,000 -- said the high maximum could hurt American workers seeking the same jobs. The amendment fell 4-14.

As the committee's markup negotiations were under way, a contingent of House Republicans held a press conference a few blocks away to remind House and Senate leaders that they'll continue their vocal opposition to a pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants.

"There's another viewpoint here" said Iowa Rep. Steve King, one of the loudest critics of "amnesty" on Capitol Hill. "It is not the one that's being stampeded in the Senate and may be stampeded in the House."

King -- who described the immigration bill as "far, far worse than Obamacare" predicted a rising tide of opposition to the bill in the Republican-led House -- an assessment echoed by Texas Rep. Steve Stockman.

Alluding to the eight senators who collaborated behind closed doors to draft the legislation now being amended in the Senate, Stockman said that a "Gang of Millions" will make its voice heard to defeat the sweeping bill.

"The people are stronger than the Gang of Eight," he said.

At the end of Tuesday's session, the committee had accepted a total of 36 amendments. Over 300 were submitted by the committee's members. 

The markup is expected to continue Thursday morning. 

Related Stories:

• Recent controversies threaten to bog down Obama's second-term agenda
• IRS mishandling of Tea Party reviews still unresolved, audit charges

This story was originally published on Tue May 14, 2013 6:20 PM EDT

Then there were three controversies for the Obama administration… The latest: AP says Justice Department secretly obtained two months of phone records in possible leak case… Latest developments with the IRS story… Why did the IRS focus on the small fish -- but not the big ones?... Obama outraged by IRS story, as well as Benghazi “sideshow”… Some perspective, per Charlie Cook: Much of the outrage right now is selective outrage… Dems put changing the filibuster back on the table?... Rubio PAC airs TV ad defending Ayotte … And Christie goes negative.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama speaks at a Democratic fundraiser in New York City, May 13, 2013.

*** Then there were three: Finding itself already under siege on two different fronts -- the Benghazi and IRS stories -- the Obama administration now encounters a third controversy, and this one features one of the most influential news organizations in the world. The Associated Press revealed yesterday afternoon that the Justice Department “secretly obtained two months of telephone records” of AP reporters and editors “in what the news cooperative's top executive called a ‘massive and unprecedented intrusion’ into how news organizations gather the news.” Per NBC’s Michael Isikoff, DOJ confirmed that it obtained these phone records without notifying the news organization, saying the step was needed to avoid "a substantial threat to the integrity" of an ongoing leak investigation. When it rains, it pours, as the conservative Drudge Report gleefully notes. While this Justice Department move is sweeping, chilling for journalists (why didn’t DOJ attempt to negotiate?), and an apparent attempt to intimidate future leakers, let’s don’t forget that Congress asked the Obama administration to investigate all the national-security leaks. “Republicans accused the administration of deliberately leaking classified information, jeopardizing national security in an effort to make Mr. Obama look tough in an election year — a charge the White House rejected. But some Democrats, too, said the leaking of sensitive information had gotten out of control,” the New York Times says.

*** Three makes it harder: While the president’s defiant tone on Benghazi probably would have been enough to quell things under normal circumstances, the times aren’t normal right now. The rule of three (toss in IRS and AP) means the president’s credibility is truly on the line right now with the public. No amount of denial or outrage will be as persuasive to the public right now and the president’s political foes know it. And that’s why you saw some senators yesterday going even further, hitting the White House on the implementation of health care or Mitch McConnell who attempted to use the IRS news to connect the dots and claim a concerted effort was taking place all over the government to target conservatives or limit freedoms. Many of these charges are baseless but the environment right now for the White House is a mess and they are in a position where it’ll be a lot easier for issues to stick to them. The Teflon is wearing off. 

*** Latest developments with the IRS story: The IRS controversy is only growing as more organizations come forward about exactly how the IRS went about investigating conservative groups. The Washington Post: “Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved with investigating conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status… IRS officials at the agency’s Washington headquarters sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations.” (However, it’s unclear in the story if these Washington employees were only targeting conservative groups or if they were scrutinizing a wider scope of groups applying for tax-exempt status.) What’s more, Politico notes That the IRS’s acting commissioner “first learned about the agency’s targeting of conservative political groups more than a year ago, the agency revealed Monday.” As for the White House, the president claimed he only heard about the IRS story when it went public on Friday. Jay Carney later said, the White House Counsel’s office was made aware of the IG investigation in late April but that the president was NOT informed at the time and that the Counsel’s office wasn’t told many specifics about the report.   

*** Focusing on the small fish -- but not the big ones: Also regarding the IRS story, the New York Times’ Confessore makes a great point: While the IRS scrutinized relatively small conservative-sounding groups in their application for tax-exempt 501c4 status, the agency has hardly lifted a finger when it comes to the bigger political players. “The I.R.S. has done little to regulate a flood of political spending by larger groups — like Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, co-founded by Mr. Rove, and Priorities USA, with close ties to President Obama… ‘We’ve complained about a few big fish and we’ve heard nothing from the I.R.S.,’ said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, which filed many of the complaints with the agency. ‘We would far rather see scrutiny of these big fish — the groups that spent hundreds of millions of dollars to influence elections — than to see the resources spent on hundreds of small groups that appeared to spend very little on elections.’” One of the unintended consequences of this IRS story: It probably will set back any effort to close the loopholes that allow overtly political organizations to obtain tax-exempt status and to shield their donors.

*** Obama outraged by IRS actions and Benghazi “sideshow”: In his news conference with British Prime Minister Cameron yesterday, President Obama called the IRS story “outrageous,” saying: “If, in fact, IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that had been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous and there's no place for it. And they have to be held fully accountable.” But in the outrage department, the president got a lot more animated when the topic turned to Benghazi, making it clear he believes it’s nothing more than a partisan sideshow. “The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. What we have been very clear about throughout was that immediately after this event happened we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were. It happened at the same time as we had seen attacks on U.S. embassies in Cairo as a consequence of this film. And nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days.”

*** Dems put changing the filibuster back on the table? Largely lost by all the Benghazi/IRS/AP coverage has been this fact: Senate Republicans have used procedural tactics to so far block many of Obama’s nominees, including his picks to head the Labor Department and EPA. That has spurred Democrats and their allies to reconsider ways to change the Senate’s 60-vote threshold, which has been used for even the most routine of measures. The Hill: “Senate Democrats frustrated with the GOP’s blocking of a string of President Obama’s nominees are seriously weighing a controversial tactic known as the ‘nuclear option.’ The option — which would involve Democrats changing Senate rules through a majority vote to prevent the GOP from using the 60-vote filibuster to block nominations — was raised during a private meeting Wednesday involving about 25 Democratic senators and a group of labor leaders.” Remember, it was that same “nuclear” option threat that spurred Senate Democrats and Republicans to reach the “Gang of 14” compromise to approve some of George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.

*** It’s the eye of the beholder: That said, political analyst Charlie Cook provides an important historical perspective: Right now, much of the controversy the White House is facing is selective outrage. “Whether the White House is in Democratic or Republican hands, we have to put up with a degree of selective outrage from one side and the turning of a blind eye from the other,” Cook writes. “Democrats who were quick to pounce on any possible transgression during George W. Bush’s presidency are noticeably quiet these days. At the same time, one wonders whether the same Republicans who are frothing over Benghazi would have been quite as vigilant had they been in Congress after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983, which killed 220 U.S. Marines, 18 sailors, and three Army soldiers.” And that selective outrage makes many of the “Nixon” comparisons seem VERY premature right now. Regarding Nixon, Watergate, and that administration’s cover-ups, the condemnation -- of activity that went straight to the top -- was bipartisan.

*** Rubio PAC airs TV ad defending Ayotte: We’ve been covering politics for a while, but we don’t think we’ve ever seen this -- a possible presidential candidate’s PAC airing a TV ad to help a COLLEAGUE who represents an early-nominating state. “Sen. Marco Rubio's political action committee is going up with a TV ad defending New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte's votes on gun control. ‘Safety, security, family - no one understands these things like a mom, and no one works harder for them than this one,’ the ad says, showing a photo of Ayotte. ‘A former prosecutor, Kelly Ayotte knows how to reduce gun violence.’”

*** Christie goes negative: And it’s rare you see this, too: A political candidate who’s leading his opponent by 30-plus points is going negative. But that’s exactly what New Jersey Chris Christie is doing with this new TV ad. As Politico writes, “Sky-high approval ratings be damned — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is going on air next week with an ad that paints his Democratic rival Barbara Buono as a tax-hiker who is yoked to unpopular former governor Jon Corzine, POLITICO has learned.The spot, which begins running Monday, is part of an $800,000 ad buy over the course of roughly a week.” Per last week’s NBC/Marist poll, Christie was leading Barbara Buono 60%-28% among registered voters.

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

Since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, certain independent advocacy groups have played an increasingly large role in political campaigns, spending an estimated $250 million during the 2012 presidential race. Now, news that some Internal Revenue Service employees targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups that engaged in political advocacy has reignited the debate over whether some of these organizations are abusing their tax-exempt status.

And some observers are concerned that the furor over the IRS singling out those groups could result in less legitimate scrutiny if the agency backs away from the political hot potato.

President Barack Obama on Monday called the targeting of conservative groups “outrageous,” and politicians from both sides of the aisle demanded accountability from the agency.

At issue is a type of nonprofit group called a 501(c)(4). The tax code allows people to form such a group under the rubric of a “social welfare organization” for the purpose of informing the public on issues like vanishing rain forests or gun control.

While contributions to a 501(c)(4) aren’t tax deductible, they do offer one big advantage to donors: The money given does not need to be publicly disclosed. 

What 501(c)(4) groups can do is advocate -- through advertising and by other means -- for or against a particular view: that Americans need to take action to conserve energy, for example.

What they can’t do, according to IRS regulations, is spend most of their funds on outright campaigning for a candidate. Campaign election activity cannot be their primary activity.

It’s up to the IRS to determine whether a 501(c)(4) group has crossed the line and has become primarily a campaign group.

The $250 million estimate from the Center for Responsive Politics makes 501(c)(4) groups important, but not dominant players on the political stage. Groups called super PACs, which are required to disclose their donors, spent more than twice as much as the 501(c)(4)s, according to the same estimate.

Lawrence Noble, a campaign finance lawyer who was general counsel for the Federal Election Commission and now heads a group called Americans for Campaign Reform that calls for taxpayer funding of elections, said that the IRS scrutiny of certain conservative groups -- and the resulting furor -- “is not totally surprising since Congress and the IRS have failed to clearly spell out what activity is permissible for a 501(c)(4). Instead, the IRS relies on vague ‘factors’ that come down to a ‘we know it when we see it’ standard. Congress must set clearer rules for what is permissible for these organizations to do.”

The 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision changed the playing field for 501(c)(4)s by allowing them to spend money in elections for federal office.

The decision led to “a dramatic increase in the number of C4’s getting involved in politics generally,” said Paul Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan group that has called for greater scrutiny of such groups. They “serve as a pretty convenient tool for legally laundering money from other entities -- business corporations, for example -- that might not want their names being disclosed publicly to their customers or to their shareholders.”

But the Citizens United decision did not repeal the IRS regulations stating that campaigning in elections cannot be a 501(c)(4)’s primary activity.

Ryan said his group has long criticized the IRS “for its slow or complete lack of enforcement of the restrictions on 501(c)(4) groups getting involved in candidate elections. Notwithstanding our criticism, we find it wholly inappropriate that the agency used partisan screening criteria in order to decide which groups to take a closer look at.”

The Campaign Legal Center’s position is that the IRS should be scrutinizing all 501(c)(4) groups “regardless of their political ideologies,” Ryan said. “It would truly be an unfortunate development if these recent revelations of IRS missteps led to even less enforcement generally across the board of C4 groups that may in fact be violating or abusing our tax laws.”

Noble sounded a similar note: “My concern is that the wrong lesson will be learned from this incident and it will be used to deter any attempts to make sure that the political activity of C4 organizations stays within the bounds of the law.”

Professor Donald Tobin at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, an expert on how tax laws apply to political activity, explained that “the IRS is always in a very precarious position” in trying to enforce rules on 501(c)(4) organizations since “whenever a group is being investigated, it may complain that it is being done for political reasons.”

Tobin said one consequence of the recent IRS revelations is that “it may make IRS even more skittish in its regulating in this area.” He added, “The IRS is not particularly interested in regulating in this area; it does not produce a lot of revenue and it’s outside the agency’s core function of trying to obtain revenue.”

The agency, Tobin said, has a difficult task in searching for abuse of 501(c)(4) status: “The IRS needs some way of culling through the mass of information that they get” in order to figure out which groups need further scrutiny. “The IRS does need some sorting device.”

But, he said, “I wish the IRS had looked for a neutral term like ‘party’ rather than ‘Tea Party.’”

Related stories:

• Obama: IRS targeting of conservative groups 'outrageous'
• The White House's terrible, horrible Friday spills over
• IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups

This story was originally published on Tue May 14, 2013 3:43 AM EDT

President Barack Obama on Monday derided the controversy over inter-agency talking points drafted in the wake of last year’s Benghazi attack, saying that charges of a politically motivated cover-up are a “sideshow” and  little more than a “political circus.” 

Jim Bourg / REUTERS

President Barack Obama talks about the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya as Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron listens during a joint news conference in the East Room of the White House, May 13, 2013.

“The whole thing defies logic,” Obama said at a White House event with British Prime Minister David Cameron. “And the fact that this whole thing keeps getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations.” 

The president  defended his administration against persistent allegations that it tried to disguise the Benghazi attack as a spontaneous riot instead of an act of terror – charges Obama dismisses as little more than a “political circus.” 

Those accusations again dominated headlines last week, when leaked emails showed that State Department officials suggested changes to the official talking points crafted after the Sept. 11, 2012 incident. That attack on the diplomatic compound left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Those changes included the deletion of mentions to specific terrorist groups. 

On Monday, Obama said those edits reflected the intelligence agency’s lack of immediate clarity about exactly what prompted the attack, which occurred at the same time that a video offensive to Muslims had prompted spontaneous riots elsewhere in the Middle East. 

“The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow,” he said. “What we have been very clear about throughout was that immediately after this event happened, we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were.” 

“There’s no there, there,” he said of the leaked emails, which congressional investigators reviewed earlier this year but which were not reported on until last week. 

Noting that National Counterterrorism Center chief Matt Olsen specifically labeled the assault “an act of terrorism” just days after attack, Obama said Republicans who characterize the administration’s response to the attack as anything other than due diligence on the part of intelligence officials are merely trying to exact political damage on their Democratic opponents. 

“Who executes some sort of cover up or effort to tamp things down for three days?” he asked. 

Despite the president’s evident frustration with the GOP’s line of questioning on Benghazi, the administration will get little respite from congressional skeptics, who have pledged to keep probing its response to the Libya attack. 

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has asked that Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Admiral Mike Mullen – the two officials who conducted an independent review of the incident on behalf of the State Department – be interviewed by investigators. 

Issa has said that the independent review failed to adequately question top State Department officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. 

Senators John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire have called for a Joint Select Committee to investigate the matter. 

The three Republicans said that the president's statements Monday run counter to his public descriptions of Benghazi in the weeks after the deaths. 

Obama "repeatedly and specifically refused, in the heat of his re-election campaign, to label Benghazi a terrorist attack," they wrote in a statement Monday afternoon. 

This story was originally published on Mon May 13, 2013 3:42 PM EDT

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa – The immigration reform proposal pending before Congress could be a dicey proposition for Republican presidential contenders come 2016, when they visit this first-in-the-nation caucus state.

Republicans in Washington are in virtual agreement that they must do more to broaden the party’s appeal to the increasingly influential bloc of Hispanic voters. And many of those GOP leaders argue that supporting an immigration reform law that includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is a good starting point.

But the party’s eventual standard-bearer in 2016 will likely have to run a gauntlet of primaries that begins with Iowa’s caucuses. And catering to the Hawkeye State’s voters could force White House hopefuls to the right – not just in 2016, but in deciding how to posture themselves toward the immigration reform law making its way through Congress this year.

Matthew Holst / Matthew Holst / AP

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks at the Iowa GOP Lincoln Dinner event, Friday, May 10, 2013, at the Hotel at Kirkwood Center, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Two senior members of the state’s Republican congressional delegation – longtime Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Steve King – have been some of the most outspoken critics of the “Gang of Eight” bipartisan immigration overhaul currently making its way through the Senate committee process. Both dished out plenty of red meat to the party faithful during speeches at Friday night’s Lincoln Dinner.

“It gives amnesty to and legalizes everybody who's in America illegally today,” King said of the Senate proposal, invoking a word – amnesty – that reflects deep conservative trepidation toward immigration reform. “This bill destroys the rule of law, and it forever produces contempt for the rule of law.”

“We can't afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. And, I want you to know, I learned a lesson, and I want you to know that I — and we — screwed up in 1986,” Grassley said. “The lesson learned: you reward illegality, and you get more of it.”

Their words amount to a caution sign for Republican presidential hopefuls with designs of competing in the Iowa caucuses in 2016.

Some Republicans, like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican co-author of the Gang of Eight proposal, probably have no choice but to embrace the legislation and its path to citizenship because of their close involvement in its creation. And indeed, Rubio and his conservative cachet might help bring some conservatives on-board with the eventual bill.

“I think that he is one of the people that's been trying to work to find a reasonable approach toward that, that would secure our borders and would find a reasonable way to deal with people who have been here a long time,” Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, R, told NBC News. “I'm going to see what Marco Rubio says about it. I trust him.”

Other would-be Republican presidential candidates can afford to be more circumspect.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, one such potential hopeful who’s previously called for immigration reform, told reporters in Iowa that the Senate bill needs tougher border-security provisions, especially for it to have any chance of passing the Republican-controlled House. To that end, Paul termed himself the “bridge” between the two chambers.

“I'm the bridge between people who won't consider it at all to people who want it,” he said. “I'm in the middle such that I'll vote for it if I think it'll do the right job and it creates border security, doesn't create a new pathway to citizenship, and allows people to get in an existing line, the same way someone in Mexico City would get in line.”

“So I think there's a lot of room for me to help the bill, but we'll see,” Paul added.

But it’s also easy to imagine at least one Republican contender running to the right on the issue of immigration in hopes of outflanking his competitors in Iowa. That temptation – and its repercussions – was on full display during the 2012 primaries, when Mitt Romney used immigration to run to the right of his primary challengers. But his comments during that drawn-out primary came back to haunt him during the general election, when Romney notched a record-low performance among Hispanic voters for a recent Republican presidential nominee.

Regardless of their stance, A.J. Spiker, the Iowa Republican Party’s chairman, cautioned White House hopefuls to be ready to answer questions about their approach to immigration come 2016.

“The one thing I think Republicans agree on, absolutely, on immigration is a secured border,” he said. “After that, you really do head off in some different directions.”

He added: “So what I believe is that whatever a candidate's position is, when they come to Iowa, they're going to have to explain their position to Iowa Republicans. They're going to have to explain why they supported X; why they supported X over Y.”

This story was originally published on Mon May 13, 2013 1:42 PM EDT

The White House’s terrible, horrible Friday spills over… Why the IRS story packs a bigger political punch… The White House’s slow response to both the IRS and Benghazi stories… Q&A time for Obama: He holds joint press conference with British PM David Cameron at 11:15 am ET… Recapping Rand Paul’s speech in Cedar Rapids, IA… New Gomez internal shows him trailing Markey by just 3 pts… New Cuccinelli ad focuses on the economy, taxes.. And Herseth Sandlin won’t run in SD.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney during his daily news briefing at the White House, Friday, May, 10, 2013. Carney responded on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, calling on top-to-bottom review of the Obama administration after the IRS admitted that it had targeted conservative groups during the 2012 election.

*** The White House’s terrible, horrible Friday spills over: Everything that happened last Friday -- the reporting on the revisions to the Benghazi talking points, the news that the IRS had targeted conservative groups, reporters pummeling White House Press Secretary Jay Carney at his briefing -- represented the White House’s worst day since the first presidential debate. And it all spilled over to the Sunday shows and today’s news. As the Washington Post now reports, “At various points over the past two years, Internal Revenue Service officials singled out for scrutiny not only groups with ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ in their names but also nonprofit groups that criticized the government and sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution, according to documents in an audit conducted by the agency’s inspector general.” Indeed, the IRS story is bigger long-term problem for the Obama administration than perhaps it realized on Friday afternoon when its initial response lacked a real sense of outrage.

*** IRS story packs a bigger political punch: One reason why is because Benghazi has already been litigated so much (at congressional hearings, at two presidential debates, during Susan Rice’s consideration for the secretary of state job). But Friday’s revelation that the IRS had targeted conservative-sounding names (and not liberal-sounding ones) in applications for tax-exempt status will trigger new congressional hearings and new questions for the president and his team. More significantly, the IRS news is a political gift to a Republican Party whose base was strained on immigration (remember that Heritage Foundation study?) and even on guns (remember the tough questions Sens. Kelly Ayotte and Jeff Flake were getting?). Now, you’re seeing a GOP base united by two things they absolutely dislike: President Obama and the Internal Revenue Service. The news also is a gift to Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, or any incumbent Republican in Washington hoping to avoid a tough primary in 2014 -- they get to demagogue the heck out of this story and show they will stand up for the Tea Party.

*** Slow ride, take it easy: For the Obama White House, if there’s one common theme to both the Benghazi and IRS stories, it’s how slowly it responded to them. It’s something that Sen. Dianne Feinstein alluded to on “Meet the Press” yesterday when NBC’s David Gregory asked her what she would have liked to see Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton do different after Benghazi. “Oh, to move faster. To say, ‘Yes, this was in fact a terrorist act.’ I mean, it was so evident.” When Gregory asked her why the administration dragged its heels, Feinstein responded, “I think this is a cautious administration. You see it in other respects.” That’s a kind interpretation. On Benghazi, the White House is essentially leading reporters to believe they were ultimately refereeing a bureaucratic turf fight between the CIA and State. But they also, when questioned, claim they’d do nothing differently other than -- perhaps -- delay giving a public accounting even further in the hours and days after the attack. When it comes to this Benghazi controversy, the questions for non-partisans (because partisans are searching only for what supports what they believe): Why did State push for the big change in the talking points? Was this about pushing back on the CIA, because it thought the agency was deflecting responsibility since the Benghazi outpost was more CIA than State? Was this about State doing CYA regarding CIA warnings about diplomatic security?

*** Q&A time for Obama: Don’t be surprised if these two stories -- Benghazi and the IRS -- come up at President Obama’s joint press conference with British PM David Cameron at 11:15 am ET. Afterward, Obama travels to New York City, where he hits two DNC fundraisers and then a joint DSCC/DCCC event. Also today, Vice President Biden delivers the commencement address at the University of Pennsylvania.

*** Cedar Rapids: Outside of Washington… Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) had a pretty important weekend in Iowa. The dispatch from NBC’s Mike O’Brien: “On Friday, Sen. Rand Paul put his stake in the ground for a possible run in 2016 by mocking the Obama administration and delivering a blistering critique of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. The administration has been criticized for failing to provide security during the attack and for its characterization of the incident afterward. Speaking at the Iowa GOP’s annual Lincoln Dinner, Paul questioned the initial response to the attacks and asked, ‘First question to Hillary Clinton: Where in the hell were the Marines?’ ‘It was inexcusable, it was a dereliction of duty, and it should preclude her from holding higher office,’ the Kentucky Republican added to loud applause” at the Lincoln Day Dinner in Cedar Rapids, IA. Also, speaking of Paul in Iowa, don’t miss the story in the Washington Post about Rand Paul’s concerted effort to reach out to evangelicals, a core GOP constituency that Rand’s father Ron, rarely courted and usually alienated.

*** New Gomez internal poll shows him trailing Markey by 3 points: In Massachusetts’ special Senate election, which takes place next month, the Gabriel Gomez (R) campaign has released an internal poll (conducted May 5-7) showing him trailing Ed Markey (D) by just three points, 46%-43%, with 11% undecided. That’s in contrast to independent surveys conducted around the same that finds Markey with larger leads (46%-38% per WBUR and 52%-35% per Suffolk). According to the Gomez internal poll, the Republican has a 14-point lead among independents (50%-36%) and is carrying Republican by a 94%-3% clip. Yet Markey leads among Democrats by just 73%-12%. (The question to ask: Does that continue to hold up?) The timing of the release of this Gomez internal poll is important: It comes after Democrats had hammered Gomez on news that he “claimed a $281,500 income tax deduction in 2005 for pledging not to make any visible changes to the facade of his 112-year-old Cohasset home… But Gomez and his wife, Sarah, were already barred from making any changes to the exterior of their home under the bylaws of the local Historical Commission, raising the question as to whether their donation — the price of which is based on the loss of value in their real estate — had any monetary worth.” Meanwhile, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has a new web video hitting Markey for the “bounced check” scandal of the early 1990s.

*** New Cuccinelli ad focuses on the economy, taxes: In Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli (R) is up with his second TV ad of the race, and the spot is all about the economy. “Small businesses are the backbone of our economy,” Cuccinelli says to the camera. “But they are being overtaxed and over regulated I’ve a plan to make Virginia an engine for job growth It starts with closing tax loopholes and putting an end to special interest giveaways. We’ll use the savings to cut taxes for those who’ve earned it.” Last week, NBC's Mike O'Brien reported that Cuccinelli's $1.4 billion tax plan "would cut the personal income tax rate to 5 percent (down from 5.75 percent) and reduce the corporate tax rate to 4 percent (from 6 percent)... [T]he attorney general would help offset the $1.4 billion price tag for his tax cuts by identifying and eliminating 'outdated exemptions and loopholes that promote crony capitalism.'" 

*** Herseth Sandlin won’t run in SD: And in South Dakota, here’s a big recruiting loss for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: Stephanie Herseth Sandlin won’t run for the Senate. MSNBC’s Jessica Taylor gets comment from the DSCC, which had been bullish on Herseth Sandlin’s chances of getting into the race: "There will be a strong Democratic candidate that can seize on the divisive GOP primary and provide South Dakotans with a clear alternative to the dysfunction on the Republican side. Mike Rounds is like the second coming of Tommy Thompson.”

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

As procrastinating Americans raced to confirm brunch plans and flower deliveries for Mother’s Day, the president of the United States took a policy-oriented approach to the holiday, pitching the benefits of his health care reforms to moms nationwide.

Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama speaks on the Affordable Care Act on May 10, 2013 in the East Room of the White House.

During an event at the White House, President Barack Obama decried “misinformation” about the law and urged parents not to be “bamboozled” by those critical of the law’s lingering criticisms about the 2009 legislation. 

Flanked by female supporters, the president praised the legislation’s provisions, including new rules that eliminate price hikes relating to women’s health and allow young people to stay on their parents’ insurance plans for longer.

“This is too important for political games,” he added. “Most moms and dads don’t think about politics when their kid gets sick.” 

The Affordable Care Act was passed in 2009 over the vigorous objections of Republicans, but most of its sweeping provisions are only beginning to be implemented now. The process of enacting the reforms has had a rocky start; bill drafter and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat, warned that businesses confused about the law could face a “train wreck.” 

Obama conceded that “undoubtedly there will be some mistakes and hiccups as this thing gets started up” but that the program’s implementers are quickly responding to problems.

Touting the legislation’s specific benefits to women, Obama reminded foes that the 2012 election results mean the “law is here to stay.” 

“The same folks who fought tooth and nail a couple years ago and tried to make political hay out of ‘Obamacare’ are still telling tall tales about its impact,” he said. 

At the outset of his remarks, the president offered a tongue-in-cheek reminder to those who may have forgotten the upcoming Mother’s Day holiday.

He joked that, early in his marriage to wife Michelle, he wondered aloud why such a fuss is made over moms for one day in May. 

“Because every other day is Dad’s day,” she responded. 

This story was originally published on Fri May 10, 2013 3:47 PM EDT

The battle to define health-care’s implementation… Obama holds implementation event at 2:40 pm ET, while House Republicans hold another vote next week to repeal the law… When a talking point isn’t a talking point… The Gang of Eight sticks together during first day marking up the immigration legislation… Rand Paul speaks in Iowa tonight, and he represents the anti-“compassionate conservative” crowd… Bosom Buddies: Biden talks up his relationship with Obama… First Read’s weekly 2016 round-up… And grinding things to a halt.

Deborah Cannon / AP

President Barack Obama speaks during a visit to the Applied Materials facilities in Austin, Texas, Thursday, May 9, 2013.

*** The battle to define health care’s implementation: In recent weeks, President Obama has stressed the importance of the health-care law’s implementation at a Planned Parenthood conference, and he also argued at a White House news conference that implementation affects just a fraction of Americans (mostly the uninsured). Today, he returns to the topic when he holds a 2:40 pm ET event -- with women and families, just before Mother’s Day -- on the health-care law that’s fully up and running by next year. Per the White House, the audience for this event will consist of representatives from women’s organizations who “will help amplify the benefits of the Affordable Care Act for women and help us communicate … the benefits that are now available to them and their families.” This comes, of course, as Republicans are doing the opposite: emphasizing how chaotic the implementation will be. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said yesterday, “The president should rethink the purpose of this event. I hope he will use it instead as a platform to prepare women for the actual consequences many of them will soon face under Obamacare.” This also comes as House Republicans will vote next week to repeal the health-care. GOP leaders say this will be the 38th vote to repeal or replace parts of the health-care law (four of which were changes that the president signed into law), according to NBC’s Frank Thorp.

*** The name of the game: getting Americans to enroll: As we’ve indicated before, this is a different type of campaign and policy fight. White House will be doing events like today a lot more between now and April 2014 (the end of the enrollment period). The name of the game for them is convincing younger HEALTHIER uninsured Americans to enroll. Why? Because without younger healthier Americans, the numbers don’t work. As for the GOP, this is their last shot at stopping this law, and they know it. Once it’s in place and Americans are enrolled, they’ll have a harder and harder time trying to unwind it. Time is not on their side.

*** When a talking point isn’t a talking point: The news today on the Benghazi front once again puts the spotlight on Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The issue in question appears to be just how active the State Department was in trying to rewrite the talking points in the hours and days after the attack. Both the Weekly Standard and ABC News have versions of the same story, quoting specific email exchanges between the CIA, the White House, and State suggesting it was the State Department that kept insisting on revisions. While the politics of this continues to get ugly -- especially as it relates to conservative groups targeting Hillary Clinton, the latest is from Karl Rove’s American Crossroads -- every day creates more questions for Clinton’s State Department. So expect more Republicans to do what Speaker Boehner did yesterday (calling on the White House to release all emails related to the incident) or what Sen. Lindsey Graham did as well (calling on Clinton to come back and testify before Congress).

*** The Gang sticks together -- so far: NBC’s Carrie Dann covers the first day of the Senate Judiciary Committee marking up the Gang of Eight’s bipartisan immigration legislation. Bottom line: The legislation was largely kept intact. “As expected, Democrats on the 18-member Senate Judiciary Committee were joined by two Republican members of the bipartisan Gang of Eight in opposing the most stringent border security amendments offered by opponents of the bill, ranging from a massive influx of boots on the ground at the nation’s southern border to delays to the program that would make undocumented immigrants eligible for a probationary legal status.” More: “But the panel also adopted a total of 21 amendments, including eight proposed by Republicans. Those included measures to beef up oversight of the legislation’s implementation, offer greater flexibility to the Department of Homeland Security to allocate funds for technology and infrastructure, and include private landowners in a task force consulting on border security.” As leading opponent Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), said: “The Gang stuck together – as we’d been told they would – on anything that significantly impacted their legislation that they drafted with their friends.”

*** Enter Rand Paul: Still almost 1,000 days before the first votes in the 2016 contest, Republicans right now are split into two camps about how to move forward after their two-straight presidential losses. The first camp -- highlighted by all the George W. Bush nostalgia from his presidential library opening last month -- wants the GOP to return to “compassionate conservatism.” These are the people (think Jeb Bush, the Bush campaign alums, the RNC, and Marco Rubio) who support comprehensive immigration reform, believe the party must do a better job of appealing to minorities, and think there’s a role for government (albeit not as much as Democrats do). The other Republican camp largely found its voice in REACTION to the Bush years and President Obama. These folks don’t believe in a role for government; they’re suspicious (if not downright hostile) to military force; and they don’t think it’s a priority for the GOP to woo minority voters. Representing this camp is former presidential candidate Ron Paul and his son Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who speaks tonight at the Iowa GOP’s Lincoln Day dinner in Cedar Rapids, IA. You could call this second camp -- which includes Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) -- the anti-“compassionate conservatives.”

*** Can a small political machine conquer the GOP? Politico has a different story on Paul: Can his relatively small team have success in 2016, if he runs? “When Rand Paul touches down in Iowa Friday, it will be almost exactly three years to the day after his landslide 2010 Senate primary victory – an unlikely and decisive triumph over the Republican establishment that instantly transformed Paul into a national political phenomenon. Now, as Paul weighs a 2016 presidential bid, a different kind of challenge confronts him: Can the plain-spoken former Bowling Green ophthalmologist build a campaign to back up his popular appeal? For all Paul’s success as a media brand and a mobilizer of the conservative grassroots, the Kentucky senator has done relatively little since 2010 to assemble a political machine around his own personality. For now, the Rand Paul project is a high-wire act that works largely without a net.”

*** Bosom Buddies: In other 2016 news, Vice President Biden spoke to historian Douglas Brinkley for an article in Rolling Stone, and the gist Biden gives Brinkley: “Look at how close Obama and I are.” As Brinkley writes, “Never before have a president and vice president been as close personally and professionally as Barack Obama and Joe Biden – just think about the past 80 years. FDR switched out VPs with the regularity of a farmer rotating his crops. Harry Truman had little use for the lightweight Alben Barkley. Dwight Eisenhower never really trusted Richard Nixon... Of course, Al Gore and Dick Cheney were formidable presences in the past two White Houses. But by the time both of those men left Washington, their relationships with their bosses were strained.” Biden tells Brinkley in the interview: “I spend an average of four to five hours a day with him, every single day… Literally, every meeting he has, I'm in. You don't have to wonder what the other guy's thinking; I don't have to guess where the president's going. So it's been really great.”

*** First Read’s weekly 2016 round-up: After the Benghazi hearing Wednesday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) landed back in the GOP crosshairs after a four-year hiatus... But she’s still leading potential GOP contenders Chris Christie (R-NJ) and Bob McDonnell (R-VA) in potential 2016 matchups in their home states, despite their over-60% approval ratings, according to new NBC/Marist polls... Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) took aim at Clinton on FOX and in a USA Today op-ed… The political world discovered that Christie had lap-band surgery, and he also told NBC’s Brian Williams: “I'll worry about the presidency if and when I ever decide to run for it. But if you're saying to me, how do I feel as a Republican? I'm a damn good Republican and a good conservative”  … Vice President Joe Biden (D) told a Sierra Club volunteer that he was against the Keystone Pipeline but, he added, “I am in the minority.” … Gov. Bobby Jindal’s (R-LA) voucher plan was struck down by the Louisiana Supreme Court … Martin O’Malley is dealing with the fallout of a prison scandal and he went nose-to-nose with the Dalai Lama. No word if he gave him a Flacco jersey, too. … New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) went on air with his “Clean Up Albany” campaign that sounds and looks like a message one could hear from a presidential candidate… And Paul Ryan (R-WI) criticized progressivism and again said Republicans have to do a better job selling their agenda to the nation.

*** Grinding things to a halt: Yesterday, we noted that there were some mixed numbers when it comes to measuring the state of the Republican Party’s brand. On the one hand, our NBC/Marist poll found the GOP with an upside-down fav/unfav in the crucial state of Virginia, 37%-53%, and a Pew poll found respondents blaming Republicans by 20 points (42%-22%) for failing to better work with President Obama on key issues. On the other hand, the same Pew survey showed the Republican Party either even or slightly ahead of Democrats on top issues like guns, the economy, and immigration. But here’s a legitimate question to ponder: Is the GOP’s full-scale obstruction is the best way to improve the party’s long-term standing? Consider all the recent activity, per CQ Roll Call’s David Hawkings: Senate Republicans have blocked Obama’s nomination to head the Labor Department, Tom Perez, from moving to the floor; Senate Republicans also BOYCOTTED a hearing to prevent advancement of Gina McCarthy’s nomination to lead the EPA; and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker John Boehner announced their refusal to name recommendations to serve on the federal health-care law’s Independent Payment Advisory Board. Several years ago, any of these stories would have been closely scrutinized news. Now? They’ve become routine.

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

Kicking off his latest jobs tour at a high school in Texas, President Barack Obama told students that making quality education affordable and accessible was a key ingredient to jump-starting the U.S. economy.

Speaking at Manor New Technology High School in Austin to 400 students and teachers, Obama praised the school’s innovative education approaches, saying that both superior education and more policies to help the middle class were key to creating good jobs and attracting skilled workers.

“Thanks to the grit and determination of the American people, we’ve cleared away the rubble of the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes,” said Obama, “We’re poised for progress.”

To “reignite the true engine of middle-class growth,” the president said, the country has to become a magnet for good jobs, help people develop the education and skills for the jobs, and ensure workers can “achieve a decent living.”

With a veiled jab at inaction in Congress, Obama said where he could, he was “just going to go ahead and take actions on my own” and later today would be issuing executive orders “that I'm convinced will spur innovation and help businesses create more jobs.”

Those two executive orders, first laid out in the president’s State of the Union address, will focus on strengthening manufacturing and ensuring government data is available in machine-readable formats.

Obama praised Manor Tech for the way it is working to equip its students. The school, focused on preparing students for STEM careers in science and mathematics, selects students each year through a blind lottery, and has won plaudits for its academic success since its opening in 2007.

The president pointed out how students had been putting their knowledge to work, pointing out projects he saw on his tour of the school, including building musical instruments from mathematics equations and the use of robots and other technology.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama greets students after speaking on the economy and job creation after touring Manor New Technology High School in Manor, Texas, May 9, 2013.

And, according to the president, too much public speaking can never be a bad thing. “While most high school students in America give a handful of speeches by the time they graduate,” he noted, “a student at this school might give as many as 200.”

Obama joked, “That’s a lot of speeches. I can relate.”

But, the president pointed out, one reason the school has been a success is that it has been available to all students, regardless of their socioeconomic status.

 “The majority of students in Manor don’t come from wealth or privilege,” Obama said, noting the success the school had not only in keeping its students in school but helping them attend college.

“Folks around here are doing something right,” Obama added, “and I think the rest of the country can learn from what you’re doing -- because I’ve always believed that the best ideas usually don't start in Washington, they trickle up to Washington.  So I’ve come to listen and learn and highlight some of the good work that's being done.”

“There are too many kids in America who are not getting the same kinds of opportunity through no fault of their own,” said Obama. “We can do better than that. Every young person in America deserves a world class education. We’ve got an obligation to give it to them.”

“We’re not just a collection of individuals, we’re one American family,” said the president. “If we follow Manor's example, if we give every child the chance to climb new ladders of opportunity, if we equip every American with the skills and education they need to succeed in the jobs of the future, if we make sure that hard work pays off and responsibility's rewarded, if we fight to keep America a place where you can make it if you try, then you're not just going to be the ones that prosper, we'll all prosper, and together we'll write the next chapter in America's great history.”

This story was originally published on Thu May 9, 2013 5:37 PM EDT

Kicking off a first day of edits to comprehensive immigration reform legislation, lawmakers on a key Senate panel grappled Thursday over efforts to secure the nation’s borders and prevent a new wave of illegal entrants.

As expected, Democrats on the 18-member Senate Judiciary Committee were joined by two Republican members of the bipartisan Gang of Eight in opposing the most stringent border security amendments offered by opponents of the bill, ranging from a massive influx of boots on the ground at the nation’s southern border to delays to the program that would make undocumented immigrants eligible for a probationary legal status.

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) (C) confers with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) (R) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) (L) during the Senate Judiciary Committee's markup for the immigration reform bill on Capitol Hill May 9, 2013 in Washington, DC.

But the panel also adopted a total of 21 amendments, including eight proposed by Republicans. Those included measures to beef up oversight of the legislation’s implementation, offer greater flexibility to the Department of Homeland Security to allocate funds for technology and infrastructure, and include private landowners in a task force consulting on border security. The panel also accepted an amendment by ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley that would widen the areas subject to border security strategies beyond the most high-risk sectors.

In the seventh hour of negotiations otherwise largely devoid of fireworks, frustrated foes of the legislation lamented the defeat of seven GOP amendments throughout the day.

“The Gang stuck together – as we’d been told they would – on anything that significantly impacted their legislation that they drafted with their friends,” said leading opponent Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.  

“The committee has consistently rejected any attempts to put real teeth in this bill to secure the border,” alleged Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. “And if it doesn’t have real border security, in my opinion, this bill will not pass.”

Throughout the day, bipartisan drafters of the legislation emphasized their belief that the original legislation has tough border security measures and noted that they are open to improvements.

Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin, a member of the Gang of Eight, said opponents were wrong to accuse the committee of “stiff-arming” suggestions from GOP members.

 “We’ve accepted eight Republican amendments,” he said. “We’re open to good ideas from both sides.”

A frustrated Sen. Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the bipartisan drafting group,  suggested that Cruz and other foes of the bill decry the “false issue” of inadequate border security while working to cut the legislation’s centerpiece provision to offer a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

The dispute spotlighted tensions in the committee as proponents of reform reject amendments intended to upset the legislation’s delicate compromises without appearing close-minded to legitimate efforts to improve the bill.

Republican Gang of Eight members Sens. Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham were joined by Orrin Hatch in voting down a Cruz-sponsored measure that would have tripled the amount of agents on patrol and quadrupled resources like drones and helicopters at the border.

Opponents of that amendment said it would be both prohibitively expensive and unnecessarily at a time when the number of border patrol agents is at an all-time high; it failed five votes to thirteen.

The panel also rejected a Grassley amendment that would have delayed the process of making undocumented immigrants eligible to apply for provisionary legal status until the Department of Homeland Security demonstrated “effective control” of the southern border for six months.

Gang of Eight members argued that waiting to make undocumented immigrants come forward would ultimately delay the implementation of other components of reform – like a workplace-verification system – and would therefore hurt the bill’s larger goal of preventing more illegal immigration.

“I think it would be the wrong approach to delay bringing people out of the shadows,” said Flake.

By the same margin, the committee voted down a measure proposed by Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah that would have required fast-track congressional approval of the Department of Homeland Security’s border security plan before undocumented immigrants could apply for Registered Provisional Immigrant status.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who does not serve on the Judiciary panel but is a crucial Republican supporter of the bill, said in a statement that he is "encouraged" by the process so far.

"There’s still a long way to go, but I am encouraged that we are witnessing a transparent and deliberate process to accept input to improve this legislation," he said.

The panel’s markup process will continue next Tuesday.

Related stories:

• Immigration reform's enemies, allies prep for battle
• Conservative group pegs cost of 'path to citizenship' at $6.3T

This story was originally published on Thu May 9, 2013 6:34 PM EDT

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is asking the White House and State Department to hand over emails related to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, which House committees were able to see, but not keep or share, during their investigation into the response to the attack.

"Last I remember, the president said, and I'll quote, 'Would be happy to cooperate with the Congress in any way the Congress wants,'" Boehner said. "Well, this is his chance to show his cooperation so that we can get to the truth of what happened in Benghazi."

Boehner is asking for two sets of emails, both of which are related to whether the White House tried to change the initial characterization of the attack in Benghazi from a potential terrorist attack at the hands of Islamic radicalists to a spontaneous demonstration in response to an anti-Islam YouTube video.

The emails, according to Boehner, show a senior State Department official telling her superiors that the Libyan ambassador said the attack "was conducted by Islamic terrorists." This email was sent the day after the attack, which was days before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said on Meet the Press and other Sunday news shows that it was the result of a spontaneous demonstration.

The second set of emails, Boehner said, were between the White House and State Department officials, where they "insisted on removing all references to the terrorist attack to protect the State Department for providing inadequate security."

Asked if he thought the White House was lying about the response to the attack, Boehner said, "You can characterize it any way you want, but somebody clearly decided they didn't like the references to Islamic terrorism and made changes in this document."

Boehner's comments come after an emotional House committee hearing Wednesday into the Obama administration’s response to the attack, in which Gregory Hicks -- the former deputy chief of mission in Libya for the United States and the No. 2 diplomat there -- provided testimony saying he was "stunned" when the Obama administration was still claiming the attack was related to the viral anti-Islam video when they had been told otherwise.

"My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed," Hicks told the committee Wednesday when he was asked about Rice's comments on the talk shows. 

Hicks told the committee he asked Undersecretary of State Beth Jones after Rice's interviews why they were saying "there was a demonstration when the embassy had reported only an attack."

Hicks said Jones answered by saying, "I don't know," but "the sense I got was that I needed to stop the line of questioning."

This story was originally published on Thu May 9, 2013 12:56 PM EDT

GOP shifts its focus to Hillary…  Beyond  the politics of yesterday’s Be nghazi hearing…  Deep in the heart of Texas: Obama heads to Austin, TX to talk jobs, manufacturing, and technology at 2:05 pm ET and 5:40 pm ET… Census: African Americans had a higher turnout rate in 2012 than whites did… The editing of the Senate immigration bill begins… GOP brand -- is it struggling or improving? Some mixed numbers…  A Democrat enters SD SEN race, but it’s not a top-tier candidate... And Jessica Taylor looks at the seats Dems have to defend to keep their Senate majority.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton makes remarks after being honored with a Distinguished Leadership Award from the Atlantic Council in Washington, May 1, 2013.

*** GOP shifts its focus to Hillary: Wednesday’s congressional hearing probing last year’s attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi revealed this political development: Key parts of the conservative movement are turning their attention from President Obama to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “I find it stunning that four and a half months after the attack, Secretary Clinton still has the gall to say it wasn’t us,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said at yesterday’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing. Added Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): “Tell me, who is Cheryl Mills?... She is the fixture for the secretary of state; she is as close as you can get to Secretary Clinton.” In addition, for the first time since Feb. 2008 (when Obama overtook Hillary in the Democratic presidential contest), Republican groups inundated our inboxes with emails about Clinton. The GOP oppo organization American Rising: “Benghazi Hearing Raises Serious Questions About Clinton.” The Karl Rove-backed American Crossroads: “Hicks told Clinton at 2am it was terrorism.” Here was Citizens United’s David Bossie (who was behind the “Hillary: The Movie”): “The Need For A Select Committee Is More Evident Than Ever.” And Drudge’s front page for most of yesterday looked like a time warp to when the Clintons were the constant focus of conservative attacks.

EDITOR'S NOTE: NBC's Lisa Myers reports that Hicks never told Clinton at 2 am that the attack was terrorism. He said in his testimony that he had previously told that to the State Department and said it was not necessary to say it again. "I had already reported that the attack was -- had commenced and that twitter feeds were asserting that Ansar Sharia was responsible for the attack," former Benghazi Deputy Chief of Mission Greg Hicks told Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa Wednesday during testimony. Issa asked, "You didn't have that discussion with her only because it was assumed that, since you had already reported that the cause of the attack was essentially Islamic extremists, some of them linked to al- Qaida?" Hicks responded, "Yes." Myers followed up with Hicks' attorney who affirmed that Hicks did not tell Clinton personally that this was a terrorist attack.

*** But underneath the politics: Before wiping away yesterday as entirely a political exercise (and a LARGE part of yesterday had the feel of politics), don’t overlook what was discovered and what is clearly a very credible whistleblower in Greg Hicks. Ironically, what yesterday’s House hearing “revealed” was something that was already uncovered by the Pickering-Mullen report on Benghazi: systemic mistakes at the State Department when it comes to the issue of diplomatic security. The “coverup” charges appear to be an overreach, but what’s not an overreach is the focus on the failures at State and the apparent attempt by some at the White House to help State buy time before having the fingers pointed at its failings in the initial hours and days of the attack. And this happened on Clinton’s watch, pure and simple. If she is going to be running for president, her time atState is going to be an issue -- the good, the bad and the ugly. And it doesn’t take a political media genius to use Hicks’ description of his phone call back to State and resurrect Clinton’s famous 3:00 am phone call TV spot. Benghazi probably won’t haunt Clinton in 2016 in a big way, but it’s not going away, either.

*** The “vast right-wing conspiracy” is back: Yet as Democrats prepare for Hillary’spossible political comeback, so are Republicans and conservatives. Consequently, the GOP’s shift in focus shouldn’t be surprising, especially with 2016 on the horizon. But what’s striking is how sudden the transition seemed yesterday. Also striking is that it comes at a time when Clinton is enjoying her highest polling numbers, even among Republicans. In the April NBC/WSJ poll, 56% of respondents had a favorable view of her, including 23% of Republicans. (Compare that with Obama’s 8% among GOP respondents in the same poll.) Make no mistake: That Republican number is going to change for Clinton if she runs for president. So mark May 8, 2013 on your political calendars. That’s the date when Republican Party returned to what was its favorite pastime for a good part of the last 16 years (from 1992 to 2008): going after the Clintons. Folks, the “vast right-wing conspiracy” is back…

*** Deep in the heart of Texas: Turning from yesterday’s Benghazi hearing to today’s top political event… President Obama heads to Austin, TX to kick off his new “Middle Class Jobs and Opportunity Tour.” Per a White House official, the president today will announce launching a promise he made in his State of the Union to establish “three new Manufacturing Innovation Institutes, which are partnerships among business, universities and community colleges, and government to develop and building manufacturing technology.” Obama also will call upon Congress “to take action on his proposal to create a one-time $1 billion investment to create a network of 15 manufacturing innovation institutes across the country.” As the AP wrote earlier this week, “President Barack Obama is launching a series of quick jaunts around the country to remind Americans he’s still got jobs and the economy on his mind.” As our own recent NBC/WSJ poll showed, the public seems frustrated that Washington isn’t focused on the economy anymore. The White House is attempting to respond to that. We’ll see if they can sustain the effort -- something they’ve been unable to do before. Here’s Obama’s schedule today in Austin: He delivers remarks at Manor New Technology High School at 2:05 pm ET, and then he speaks at Applied Materials Inc. at 5:40 pm ET. 

*** Census: African Americans had a higher turnout rate than whites did in ‘12: With Obama today in Texas -- where whites make up a minority of all residents -- perhaps it’s only fitting to relay this U.S. Census data from 2012: “About two in three eligible blacks (66.2 percent) voted in the 2012 presidential election, higher than the 64.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites who did so… This marks the first time that blacks have voted at a higher rate than whites since the Census Bureau started publishing statistics on voting by the eligible citizen population in 1996.” The New York Times has more on this data: “The overall turnout rate nationwide was 61.8 percent in 2012, a decline from 63.6 percent four years earlier. Researchers cautioned that their estimates might overstate how many people voted across all categories, because they are based on surveys in which people were asked whether they had voted — a ‘socially desirable’ activity. Some researchers cautioned against treating 2012 as a watershed moment for the black vote. For example, Michael P. McDonald, an associate professor at George Mason University — using the same data but with a slightly different calculation — determined that black voters first turned out at a higher rate than whites in 2008.”

*** Let the editing of the immigration bill begin! The Senate Judiciary Committee today begins marking up the “Gang of Eight” bipartisan immigration bill. NBC’s Carrie Dann: “With the Gang of Eight’s immigration measure coming under the legislative magnifying glass this week, senators on a key committee are sharpening their red pencils in preparation to edit the 844-page bill. The 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have proposed 300 amendments to the legislation, ranging from protections for gay couples, to border-security fixes, to efforts to dismantle the bill’s central goal of creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.” More Dann: “While observers do not expect that the bill willundergo dramatic changes in the committee process -- with bipartisan proponents of reform on the panel likely to stick together to resist substantial changes to their core legislation -- the high-profile debate is sure to elevate the often-dull ‘markup’ process to must-see TV for anyone with a dog in the immigration fight.”

*** GOP brand -- is it still struggling or improving? After the 2012 election, the Republican National Committee embarked on a soul-searching mission to see what was wrong and deliver recommendations for how to fix them. The result was a 97-page reportwith suggestions on issues ranging from women, Hispanics, blacks, Asians, gays, and young voters. Yet beyond that report – and besides about half of the Republican Party working to pass comprehensive immigration reform – how is that re-branding effort going? Well, there are mixed numbers. Yesterday, our NBC/Marist poll found the Republican Party’s fav/unfav rating at 37%-53% among registered voters in Virginia – a state Republicans need to win in future presidential contests. Also yesterday, a Pew poll found respondents blaming Republicans by 20 points (42%-22%) for failing to better work with President Obama on key issues. On the other hand, the Pew poll showed the Republican Party either even or slightly ahead of Democrats on top issues like guns (GOP 42%, Dems 39%), the economy (GOP 42%, Dems 38%), and immigration (GOP 38%, Dems 38%).

*** Democrat enters SD SEN race, but it’s not a top-tier candidate: So the first Democrat has announced he’s running in South Dakota’s open Senate contest: two-time Housecandidate Rick Weiland. The Hill: “According to the Argus Leader, Weiland already has the support of his former boss, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D). The two spoke prior to Weiland's announcement and, Daschle said, ‘I encouraged him with great enthusiasm.’” Weiland told the paper that he had also spoken with U.S. Attorney Brendan Johnson (D) — son of retiring Sen. Tim Johnson (D) — before announcing his plans, and Johnson had indicated he was unlikely to enter the race. ‘He’s focused on his job. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t feel that Brendan (wasn’t) going to get into this race,’ Weiland said.” The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee says that this DOES NOT mean that former Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) is passing on the race. But if Weiland is the only Dem candidate, it’s hard to think that Democrats will have a puncher’s chance in South Dakota in 2014.

*** Democrats on defense: And speaking of the 2014 Senate races, MSNBC’s Jessica Taylor looks at the seats Democrats have to defend to hold on to the majority.

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

This story was originally published on Thu May 9, 2013 9:06 AM EDT