What’s worse for the Obama White House: For the controversies to be full-scale scandals that go all the way to the top?... Or for them to be the result of bureaucratic incompetence?... The latest IRS developments… On Obama’s Morehouse speech… Two unions now oppose the Senate immigration bill… Getting the Hillary ’08 band back together -- or not… And Virginia, meet E.W. Jackson.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

President Barack Obama crosses the South Lawn as he returns from travel to Atlanta via Marine One, at the White House, May 19, 2013.

*** Scandal or bureaucratic incompetency? Here’s a question for the Obama White House to ponder: What’s worse, for all the controversies -- especially the IRS targeting conservative-sounding groups -- to be a full-fledged scandal that goes all the way to the top? Or for them to be the result of bureaucratic incompetence? You could make an argument that the latter outcome could be just as damaging to the president, because it raises doubts about his competency and the public’s trust in government. As Time’s Joe Klein wrote last week, “It can, and will, be argued that the president is to blame for lousy management… Some in the Administration are saying that civil-service rules prevent Obama from firing the midlevel bozos. But what about the higher-ups? Why haven't the Democrats proposed a full-scale review of civil-service laws…? Such laws certainly hinder effective governance, which the Democrats are supposedly selling.” Of course, there are plenty of examples where you can argue that government has worked. Think of the rebuilding after Hurricane Sandy. Or the response to the Boston bombings. But government working in a crisis vs. government working every day are two different issues. And it’s never a good story when a White House has to respond to examples when the government ISN’T working for the American people.

*** Competency questions pile up: After all, the Democrats are the party of government, and Obama got elected, in part, by pushing competency (at least compared with the previous administration). The White House should hope its problems are political in nature, because that’s something they’ve proven adept at dealing with. But the competency questions for this administration are piling up: The Veteran’s Administration is a mess; their explanation on Benghazi is about the lack of communication and security procedures; and the IRS explanation is overworked and mistake-prone bureaucrats in Cincinnati. Right now, the White House is benefitting from those congressional Republicans who are desperately searching for “scandal.” What the White House should fear more is if Republicans use their “government is too big” argument to go to core of competency. 

*** The latest IRS developments: It’s worth noting that today’s “news” about the White House counsel being informed of the IRS audit was first confirmed at a Jay Carney press briefing last week. A senior administration also confirms to NBC News that White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler did NOT inform the president. What’s not clear is if she gave a heads up to the rest of the senior staff. And what’s also not clear is how much detail Ruemmler was offered about the audit itself. Meanwhile, the Sunday New York Times offered a lengthy piece tracing what went wrong in that Cincinnati IRS office. “While there are still many gaps in the story of how the I.R.S. scandal happened, interviews with current and former employees and with lawyers who dealt with them, along with a review of I.R.S. documents, paint a more muddled picture of an understaffed Cincinnati outpost that was alienated from the broader I.R.S. culture and given little direction. Overseen by a revolving cast of midlevel managers, stalled by miscommunication with I.R.S. lawyers and executives in Washington and confused about the rules they were enforcing, the Cincinnati specialists flagged virtually every application with Tea Party in its name. But their review went beyond conservative groups: more than 400 organizations came under scrutiny, including at least two dozen liberal-leaning ones and some that were seemingly apolitical.”

*** Obama’s Morehouse speech: Also on Sunday, President Obama delivered a very personal commencement address at Morehouse College in Atlanta, GA. “Keep setting an example for what it means to be a man,” he told the graduates at the historically black college. “Be the best husband to your wife, or you’re your boyfriend, or your partner. Be the best father you can be to your children. Because nothing is more important.” The president added, “I was raised by a heroic single mom, wonderful grandparents -- made incredible sacrifices for me… But I sure wish I had had a father who was not only present, but involved. Didn’t know my dad. And so my whole life, I’ve tried to be for Michelle and my girls what my father was not for my mother and me. I want to break that cycle where a father is not at home, where a father is not helping to raise that son or daughter. “I want to be a better father, a better husband, a better man.” And pair Obama’s commencement address with the one his wife delivered on Friday at another historically black college (Bowie State): “Instead of dreaming of being a teacher or a lawyer or a business leader, they’re fantasizing about being a baller or a rapper… Please reject the slander that says a black child with a book is trying to act white.”

*** Two unions now oppose Senate immigration legislation: On the topic of immigration… The National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, a union representing 12,000 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officers, “will publicly oppose the Senate Gang of Eight immigration plan Monday, giving critics of the overhaul effort additional political ammunition as they work to defeat legislation working its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee,” NBC’s Carrie Dann reports. The reason for the opposition: The union believes the legislation “would fail to address an ‘insurmountable bureaucracy’ at the federal agency overseeing immigration documents.” Dann adds that this union joins the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council in its opposition to the Gang of Eight measure.

*** Getting the band back together -- or not: It should be hardly surprising that folks like Howard Wolfson, Patti Solis Doyle, and Mark Penn would NOT work on a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign if she decides to run in 2016, as the Washington Post reports. After all, none of these people went on to join her at the State Department like other trusted Hillary Inc. aides did. What’s more, Solis Doyle was sacked as campaign manager after Clinton lost Iowa. If Clinton runs, it would likely be a combination of trusted former aides, as well as some new blood. That’s often true for plenty of repeat presidential candidates. Yet there’s another way to look at this Washington Post piece: It’s a message to many outside of Hillary World, especially those who were critical of the ’08 Hillary campaign, that the whole band won’t be getting back together if she runs in ’16. And those folks might see this as a positive development.

*** Meet E.W. Jackson: Virginia Republicans this year are conducting an intriguing experiment in Virginia, a state Obama has twice carried in presidential contests, that’s elected Democrats to U.S. Senate seats the last three times senate elections have been held: Can it win in 2013 with a ticket of candidates who are best known for being VERY conservative and VERY outspoken on social issues? Well, here is E.W. Jackson, a black minister who was nominated to be the GOP’s Lt. Gov. nominee joining Ken Cuccinelli at the top of the ticket. “The newly minted Republican nominee for lieutenant governor of Virginia once compared Planned Parenthood to the Ku Klux Klan and bemoaned black voters’ ‘slavish devotion’ to the Democratic Party — past statements that are likely to inflame the culture-war politics of the state’s 2013 elections,” Politico writes. Indeed, Jackson makes Cuccinelli look moderate on social issues. And this is what happens when you nominate candidates via a convention rather than a primary. Does anyone think that Jackson would have won the GOP’s Lt. Gov. primary? For what it’s worth, the nomination of Cuccinelli as attorney general four years ago was seen by some Republicans as a problem (and a potential opportunity for the Democrats). As it turned out, the top of the ticket could shield itself at the time. Of course, “LG” is more of a “running mate” feel and will be more difficult for Cuccinelli to shield himself from Jackson.

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

Obama White House moves to stop the bleeding… Success on whether the controversies stay a one-week story rather than a months-long one depends on the follow-through, especially regarding the IRS controversy… But it also depends on whether the GOP overplays it hand… Classic Obama: White House takes days to find the right response… Don’t lose sight on Syria… House votes to repeal Obamacare… Sanford’s first day back… And new Quinnipiac poll: McAuliffe up slightly in Virginia.

*** Trying to stop the bleeding: After his most difficult stretch of days since winning re-election, President Obama on Wednesday tried to stop the bleeding with two different moves just more than an hour apart -- all in an effort to keep a bad week from turning into a bad month and perhaps ending any chances of a serious legislative agenda. First, at 5:00 pm ET, his White House released 100 pages of emails and documents related to the crafting of the talking points to describe the Sept. 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi. The emails revealed more agency politics (between CIA and the State Department) than electoral politics (as Republicans had accused). Second, a little after 6:00 pm ET, Obama delivered a statement announcing that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew had accepted the resignation of the acting IRS commissioner in the wake of the controversy that the tax agency had targeted conservative-sounding groups for additional scrutiny in their application for tax-exempt status. The president also announced that new safeguards would be put in place to prevent it from happening again, and he pledged to work with Congress to get it fixed. And today at noon ET, he holds a news conference -- with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan -- where he’ll likely answer reporters’ questions about both actions. There was also an effort to stop the bleeding on a third front: The White House said it supports the re-introduction of a media-shield bill after the Justice Department’s seizure of AP phone records. (Of course, it’s the somewhat watered down version of the shield law that had originally passed the House in 2009 and died in the Senate when Dems had 60 votes.)  

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

President Barack Obama delivers a statement from the East Room of the White House, May 15, 2013.

*** Success depends on the follow-through… : So will yesterday’s actions keep a bad week from turning into a bad month? The answer: It depends on the follow-through, especially as it relates to the IRS issue, which has always been the most problematic controversy for the White House because it’s the easiest one for the public to understand. The immediate challenge for the White House -- besides disciplining IRS employees who engaged in this targeting -- is to find a tough-guy replacement whom the public knows and trusts (a retired Republican, CEO, top cop, you get the idea) to take over the agency’s reins. Make no mistake, this IRS issue has united a Republican Party that had been fraying on topics like immigration, the budget and to a lesser extent guns. So the real test for the White House is to stick to the follow-through and not allow the Republican Party to own it. The more bipartisan the outrage is at the IRS (and assuming there is no connection to the administration in some meaningful way), the more the White House believes it can insulate itself politically on the issue. But if credibility cannot be restored at the IRS, it really does hamper the administration’s ability to implement health care and it certainly doesn’t help get Republicans on board with immigration reform. It’ll be QUITE easy for a Republican to argue: Obama can’t run the IRS, what makes you think he can run health care or secure the border? 

*** … And also whether the GOP overplays its hand: But there’s also a danger for Republicans: Do they overplay their hand when it comes to the IRS? Already, the Benghazi talking-point emails don’t reveal the political conspiracy that many Republicans and conservatives had openly theorized, and they also reveal that Susan Rice -- whose reputation was dragged through the mud -- was a relatively innocent victim (though no one likes to be exposed as someone who was simply following a set of talking points about which they had little input). What’s more, the Benghazi emails have all come down to State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland’s concerns. Were they simply about trying not to hinder the investigation into the Islamic extremists in the attack (as Democrats say)? Or were they about trying to clean the State Department’s hands (as Republicans allege)? By the way, as for how government works, this email release reveals something that many in Washington have known for years but the public is less familiar with: These emails show how deputies are often the ones making key governmental decisions, with the principals later signing off.

*** Taking days to find that right response: All that said, yesterday’s moves were typical of Team Obama -- it often takes them days to find a suitable response to a controversy. Think Jeremiah Wright (which it finally solved with a famous speech), the bitter/cling remarks (which it first embraced and them condemned), and the BP spill (which took several tries to strike the right tone). Obama supporters argue that taking time to find the right response is more of a virtue than a vice, especially when dealing with complex issues. Additionally, they might say this criticism is more of a reflection on a 24-7 media culture than demands immediate answers and explanations. But there’s also no doubt that the White House would prefer finding a suitable response on Day 1 than Day 4 or 5. And, as we said above, we’re not sure the Obama White House has still found that sweet-spot response on these controversies; a lot is riding on its replacement pick to head the IRS.   

*** Don’t lose sight on Syria: While today’s news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan will likely be dominated by questions regarding the domestic controversies over the last several days, don’t lose sight how important Erdogan’s visit is regarding Syria. The situation there has become a HUGE problem for Turkey, which is the United States’ most important ally in the Middle East besides Israel. And Turkey wants the U.S. to take a greater role in resolving the civil war in Syria. 

*** House votes to repeal Obamacare: Also today, around 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm ET per NBC’s Luke Russert, the House will hold its 38^th vote -- per NBC’s count -- to repeal part or all of the federal health-care law. House Republicans are quick to point out that today’s vote is only the third time Republicans have voted to FULLY repeal the law; the other efforts were regarding parts of the law. As the New York Times wrote earlier this week, “Three dozen is a lot for a bill that currently has no prayer of becoming law. But the figure …  actually understates the amount of time Republicans have devoted to litigating and trying to dismantle the president’s biggest legislative accomplishment. The repeal vote, which is likely to occur Thursday, will be at least the 43rd day since Republicans took over the House that they have devoted time to voting on the issue. To put that in perspective, they have held votes on only 281 days since taking power in January 2011. (The House and Senate have pretty light legislative loads these days, typically voting only three or four days a week.) That means that since 2011, Republicans have spent no less than 15 percent of their time on the House floor on repeal in some way.”

*** Are we witnessing Holder’s last hurrah? Before 5:00 pm yesterday, the biggest story in Washington was Eric Holder’s combative hearing with House Republicans. Few punches were pulled, and personal frustrations surfaced rather easily. There is clearly no love lost between Holder and Darrell Issa, for instance. While the hearing was all over the map, Holder struggled to explain when he recused himself in the national security leak investigation. While he explained WHY he recused himself, the fact he had nothing in writing or could not say when was something that just seemed odd for America’s top law enforcement official to admit. How does he not have the recusal in writing? Don’t lawyers put everything in writing?

*** Sanford’s first day back: Don’t miss Jessica Taylor’s dispatch of Mark Sanford first day back on Capitol Hill. “As Sanford took his official oath late Wednesday afternoon, he echoed the same themes of redemption he used in his winning campaign. ‘I stand before you with a whole new appreciation for the God of second chances,’ Sanford said. The Republican’s return nearly 13 years after he left Capitol Hill is all the more remarkable for his having overcome the scandal that derailed his governorship.” 

*** New poll: McAuliffe up slightly in Virginia: And in Virginia’s gubernatorial race, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Terry McAuliffe (D) with a slight lead over Ken Cuccinelli (R) among registered voters, 43%-38%. That pretty much mirrors our NBC/Marist poll from last week, which had it McAuliffe 43%, Cuccinelli 41% with registered voters -- although among likely voters, the numbers were reversed: Cuccinelli 45%, McAuliffe 42%. 

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 

In another finding from the new NBC News/Marist poll, 55 percent of Virginia residents say they want stricter laws governing the sale of firearms, versus 36 percent who want them left the same.

Reflecting Virginia's status as a key national swing state -- President Obama twice won it by the same margin he won the national popular vote -- those numbers are virtually identical to the national ones from the April NBC/WSJ poll.

But there are fascinating political, demographic and geographic differences inside these numbers.

Eighty-two percent of Democrats in Virginia want stricter gun laws, compared with 56 percent of independents and just 29 percent of Republicans.

What's more, only 30 percent of gun owners and 38 percent of those living in households with guns favor stricter gun laws, suggesting a deep divide on this issue between gun owners and non-gun owners.

But that's not the only split: 68 percent of women in the state want stricter gun laws, versus just 41 percent of men who do.

And there's geography. A whopping 70 percent of those living in the Northern Virginian suburbs just outside of Washington, D.C., support stricter gun laws. That's compared with the Northern Virginian exurbs (49 percent), the central and western part of the state (49 percent), the Richmond area (49 percent), and the Tidewater region (59 percent).

The NBC/Marist poll was conducted April 28-May 2 of 1,218 adults in Virginia, and it has a margin of error of plus-minus 2.8 percentage points.

NBC/Marist poll shows it’s neck and neck in Virginia… McAuliffe 43%, Cuccinelli 41% among registered voters… Cuccinelli 45%, McAuliffe 42% among likely voters… Good news for McAuliffe: It’s early, he has room to grow, and the GOP’s fav/unfav is way upside down in the state… The bad news for him: The poll doesn’t show Cuccinelli with an ideological problem just yet… Voters are relatively down on the VA GOV field, but are upbeat about the state’s direction… Looking ahead to 2016 in Virginia: Hillary tops McDonnell, while McDonnell beats Biden… Separate NBC/Marist poll shows Christie crushing Buono, 60%-28% among registered New Jersey voters… Looking ahead to 2016, Hillary is ahead of Christie, but the New Jersey governor leads Biden… From Appalachian Trail to Comeback Trail: Sanford beats Colbert Busch, 54%-45%... And House committee holds Benghazi hearing at 11:30 am ET.

*** Neck and neck in Virginia: Six months out until Virginia’s gubernatorial contest, Democrat Terry McAuliffe and Republican Ken Cuccinelli are locked in a close contest, according to a new NBC News/Marist poll. McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chairman, gets the support of 43% of registered voters and Cuccinelli, the state’s attorney general, gets 41%; 16% say they are undecided. That’s a different result from a recent Washington Post poll of the race, which had the Republican leading by five percentage points. But a deeper look in this NBC/Marist survey, and it’s clear Cuccinelli has a slight advantage. It starts with intensity: 53% of Cuccinelli backers strongly support him, versus 47% who express similar support for McAuliffe. What’s more, among likely voters -- not always the best way to measure a contest this far out -- Cuccinelli has a slight edge over McAuliffe, 45%-42%. The race also features a clear gender gap, with McAuliffe leading among female registered voters (50%-34%) and Cuccinelli ahead with men (49%-34%).

Patrick Kane / AP

Ken Cuccinelli, Republican candidate for governor of Virginia and Virginia attorney general, speaks during the 65th Annual Shad Planking Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at the Wakefield Sportsmen's Club in Wakefield, Va.

*** Good news, bad news: The good news for McAuliffe is that he has plenty of room to grow (44% of voters say they’re unsure/never heard of him, compared with 32% who say that about Cuccinelli). And the Republican Party is a potential drag for Cuccinelli: The GOP has a 37%-53% fav/unfav rating in the state, versus the Democratic Party’s 44%-46% score. Yet so far, before any negative advertising begins, the poll doesn’t show the party dragging Cuccinelli down -- his fav/unfav is 42%-27%. In addition, despite what some opinion leaders might believe, Cuccinelli doesn’t have an ideological problem right now, either. Per the poll, 27% say he’s too conservative, but a plurality of 39% think his ideology is just right. By comparison, 28% see McAuliffe as too liberal, and 33% say he’s just right. And the two men essentially run even on candidate-quality questions, although Cuccinelli has a slight edge on some of them, including ones where Democrats usually outperform Republicans.

-- Who better understands people like yourself? (Cuccinelli 34%, McAuliffe 30%.)
-- Who do you trust more to do what’s best for Virginia? (Cuccinelli 39%, McAuliffe 33%.)
-- Who is closer to you on social issues? (Cuccinelli 33%, McAuliffe 31%.)
-- Who cares more about the middle class? (McAuliffe 31%, Cuccinelli 30%.)
-- Who shares your values? (Cuccinelli 35%, McAuliffe 29%.)

*** Down on the gubernatorial field but upbeat on the state’s direction: Strikingly (and perhaps not surprisingly), only 52% say they are satisfied with the field of gubernatorial candidates in Virginia. That’s compared with 61% who say that it in New Jersey (more on that gubernatorial contest down below). That said, all the state’s politicians are pretty popular. Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell’s approval rating is at 61% (what scandal?); Cuccinelli’s approval rating as attorney general is at 51%; and President Obama’s approval in the state is at an equal 51%. What’s more, if McDonnell were allowed to run for re-election, he’d lead McAuliffe by 15 points, 51%-36%. And a whopping 61% believe the state is headed in the right direction. Bottom line: The state is in good shape, and the Cuccinelli-McAuliffe contest could largely come down to which candidate can do a better job of selling that he would follow the Warner-Kaine-McDonnell path -- the conservative attorney general or the former DNC chair? It’s clear voters don’t really want change. It’s why when you look at this survey, everything points to the GOP holding the slight advantage as the party in power.

*** Looking ahead to 2016: And our NBC/Marist poll has some fun 2016 numbers to chew on when it comes to Virginia. In a hypothetical matchup, Hillary Clinton leads McDonnell in the state by 11 points, 52%-41%. Let those numbers sink in -- despite McDonnell’s 61% approval rating, he trails Clinton by double digits. However, in a hypothetical contest against Vice President Biden, McDonnell leads, 49%-42%. That said, nearly six-in-10 (58%) don’t want McDonnell to run for president. The NBC/Marist poll of Virginia was conducted April 28-May 2 of 1,095 registered voters (margin of error of plus-minus 3.0 percentage points) and 692 likely voters (plus-minus 3.7 percentage points).

*** In New Jersey, Christie is crushing his Dem opponent: In this year’s other gubernatorial contest -- in New Jersey -- Republican Gov. Chris Christie leads his Democratic challenger Barbara Buono by more than 30 points among registered voters, 60%-28%, according to a separate NBC/Marist poll. Strikingly, 42% of Obama voters are supporting the incumbent governor. What’s more, 69% approve of Christie’s job performance, and 82% back his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Meanwhile, 56% of registered voters approve of President Obama’s job in the state, and 46% approve of Sen. Bob Menendez’s (D-NJ) job.

*** Christie and his party, and Christie and 2016: The poll also explains why Christie is disagreeing with his national party some of the time. The GOP’s fav/unfav in the survey is 34%-59%, versus the Democratic Party’s 50%- 43% score. Yet despite Christie’s sterling numbers in this political environment, Hillary Clinton tops him in a hypothetical 2016 contest in New Jersey, 52%-41%. But Christie beats Biden by pretty much the same margin, 51%-40%. That said, 55% of registered voters in New Jersey don’t want their governor to run for president. The NBC/Marist poll of New Jersey was conducted April 28-May 2 of 1,080 registered voters, and it has margin of error of plus-minus 3.0 percentage points.

*** From Appalachian Trail to Comeback Trail: Turning from future contests to last night’s contest, former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) beat Elizabeth Colbert Busch (D) in the special congressional election in South Carolina, 54%-45%.. MSNBC’s Jessica Taylor put it well: Sanford’s political career since ’09 has had plenty of ups and down -- “more ups and down than the mountains of the Appalachian Trail.” And his victory last night represented one of the ups. Interestingly, Sanford now comes to Congress owing nobody, and he has a bully pulpit at his disposal if he wants to use it. Yet the biggest takeaway from last night is that in today’s political climate, ideology trumps all. You could be a disgraced politician, and you could have been fined for breaking state ethics rules. But as long as you belong to the right political party in your state or district, you’re likely going to win. That said, Democrats are certainly trying to use this silver lining after their defeat: “House Republicans’ outreach to women voters now has Mark Sanford as the face. Republicans now have to defend him and stand with him until Election Day,” DCCC Chair Steve Israel said in a statement last night.

*** House committee holds Benghazi hearing: The final story we’re watching is today’s Benghazi hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which takes place at 11:30 am ET. The Washington Post: “Republican lawmakers, who have spent months seeking to tie President Obama to last year’s deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, are increasingly focusing their probe on a new target: former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton. The GOP-led investigation of the Sept. 11, 2012, assaults that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others now centers heavily on the State Department and whether officials there deliberately misled the public about the nature of the assault.”

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 “Seinfeld” special election in SC… Sanford vs. Colbert Busch is entertaining, but it means absolutely nothing for 2014 or 2016… What will decide the close race: GOP and African-American turnout… Polls close at 7:00 pm ET… A sign for 2016? Chris Christie has weight surgery… When will the budget negotiations truly begin?... Republicans vs. Republicans on immigration… Democrats vs. Democrats on guns… And Benghazi surfaces again.

*** The “Seinfeld” special election: On the one hand, you couldn’t dream of a more entertaining and colorful special congressional election featuring a disgraced politician (Republican former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford) and the sister of comedian Stephen Colbert (Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch). On the other hand, it’s a race that appears to signify, well, nothing, especially as it relates to 2014 and 2016. If Sanford wins -- in a district where Mitt Romney beat President Obama by 18 percentage points, 58%-40% -- it will be due simply to the district’s GOP tilt. And if Colbert Bush wins, it will be due simply to Sanford’s flaws and past baggage. As political observer Charlie Cook writes, “If Sanford wins by any kind of margin, it means that Republican voters simply held their noses and voted for him anyway. If Colbert Busch wins, it most likely means that a lot of Republicans chose to stay home rather than vote for either a candidate whom they thoroughly disapprove of or one with whom they thoroughly disagree.” Folks, this is the “Seinfeld” special election: It’s entertaining as heck, but it means absolutely nothing.

*** The two factors to watch: That said, the toss-up election hinges on two things. One, do Republicans and conservative voters turn out? If they do, Sanford is going to win; if they don’t, he’ll lose. Two, do African-American voters show up? “In the 2010 general election, African-American participation was about 18%. If it's that strong Tuesday, Colbert-Bush may win,” longtime GOP political consultant Richard Quinn told MSNBC’s Jessica Taylor. Polls close at 7:00 pm ET, and the congressional contest is to replace Republican Tim Scott, whom Gov. Nikki Haley (R) appointed to serve in the U.S. Senate.

Randall Hill / Reuters

Former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford makes a point to the moderators during a debate with Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch in Charleston, S.C. April 29, 2013.

*** Sanford’s ups and downs: As MSNBC’s Taylor points out, Sanford’s political career “has had more ups and downs than the mountains of the Appalachian Trail.” Just consider: He was a one-time conservative star (and potential 2012 presidential candidate) bucking the Obama administration on the stimulus. Then he disappeared from the state in 2009, telling his staff he was hiking the Appalachian Trail -- only to be discovered that he was in Argentina with his mistress, whom he later called his “soul mate.” Sanford left office after paying an ethics fine for state travel. But a year later, his protégé -- Nikki Haley -- became governor. Then this year in 2013, he ran for his old House seat, winning the GOP run-off for the nomination. Afterwards, more adversity surfaced: An AP report showed that his ex-wife, Jenny Sanford, accused him of trespassing. Now? He finds himself in a toss-up contest. Later tonight, we’ll find out if Sanford truly revived his political career or if it’s officially over.

*** Christie weighing his options? New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who’s  up for re-election this year, told the New York Post that he secretly had "lap-band stomach surgery" to lose weight. From the article: "He told The Post he was thinking of his four kids and how it was time to start improving his health when he decided to have the procedure. 'I've struggled with this issue for 20 years,' he said. 'For me, this is about turning 50 and looking at my children and wanting to be there for them.'  He also insisted that, contrary to what observers may say, the effort to slim down was not motivated by thoughts of a presidential bid. 'It's so much more important than that,' he said." The Post adds that Christie checked into a surgery center on Feb. 16 -- under a false name -- to undergo the procedure.  If this isn’t a sign he’s thinking about running for president, we don’t know what is. Remember, Christie had previously said that his health was pretty good… In fact, he called himself one of the healthiest fat guys in the country. So if this is for health reasons, then he wasn’t totally forthright before. For what it’s worth, we know the issue of his weight has been discussed with him by supporters and consultants as a political issue, and that it’s something he needed to deal with in some form if he ever did decide to run for national office.

*** When will the budget negotiations truly begin? Yesterday, there were two interesting moving parts as it relates to budget debate. The first: President Obama golfed with two Senate Republicans (retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Sen. Bob Corker) who are viewed as POTENTIAL partners on a possible budget deal. The second development: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, frustrated by Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) objection to go to a House-Senate conference on the budget, called the freshman senator “a schoolyard bully,” Politico reports. “‘My friend from Texas is like the schoolyard bully,’ Reid said. ‘He pushes everybody around and is losing, and instead of playing the game according to the rules, he not only takes the ball home with him but changes the rules. That way no one wins except the bully who tries to indicate to people he has won. We’re asking Republicans to play by the rules and let us go to conference.’” And these two moving parts raise this question: When do the budget negotiations, if they’re ever going to happen, begin? At a conference committee? (Republicans, despite their demand for regular order, appear to be resisting that. Not only on the Senate side, but House Republicans haven’t exactly been aggressive in trying to get the conference started.) So does that mean there will be formal talks outside of GOP leadership? That’s the White House hope. They have targeted the Georgia and Tennessee GOP senators (Isakson, Chambliss, Corker and Alexander) as credible negotiating partners. If the negotiations are going to occur, they need to start taking place soon. It’s now May.  

*** Republicans vs. Republicans on immigration: Immigration has become a political battle … solely on the right. NBC’s Carrie Dann: “A new study from the conservative Heritage Foundation estimates that granting a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants will cost US taxpayers at least $6.3 trillion. Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector co-authored the long-anticipated study, which is sure to be cited frequently by foes of the immigration reform effort as lawmakers take up legislation to overhaul the nation’s system. But the study also drew swift criticism from Republicans supporting the reform effort, who called the Heritage Foundation's estimate politicized, exaggerated and flawed in its methodology.” In fact, check out this comment from former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R): “The Heritage Foundation document is a political document; it’s not a very serious analysis… This study is designed to try to scare conservative Republicans into thinking the cost here is going to be so gigantic that you can’t possibly be for it.”

*** Democrats vs. Democrats on guns: Is Mayors Against Illegal Guns turning into the Club for Growth, or as First Read called them back in 2009, The Club for (Democratic) Growth? Politico reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s staff has tried to persuade the Bloomberg-backed group not to target vulnerable Democrats in red states on guns because it could lead to a shrinking majority or make it easier for a Republican takeover of the Senate. “It didn’t work,” Politico notes. “Ads from the Bloomberg-funded Mayors Against Illegal Guns are going up soon in Alaska, Arkansas and North Dakota — three states with Democratic senators who broke with the White House on last month’s background checks vote.”

*** Benghazi surfaces again: And speaking of political battles, the GOP-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be holding a hearing on the Benghazi attack on Wednesday. And here’s the news that has already leaked out: “A small team of Special Forces operatives was ready to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi last year after Libyan insurgents attacked the U.S. mission there, but was told it was not authorized to board the flight by regional military commanders, according to a career State Department official scheduled to testify before Congress on Wednesday,” per NBC’s Lisa Myers. This career State Department official -- Gregory Hicks -- seems like a credible witness (though he’s represented by high-powered GOP lawyers Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing). The thing to watch on Wednesday is whether Hicks’ testimony reveals that all the attention on Benghazi is MORE than a politically motivated investigation into not only the Obama White House but also the Hillary Clinton-led State Department. At a minimum, one thing this investigation has revealed is that there was an attempt to change the initial talking points regarding what happened. Question now is who was pushing for this change at the time? Was it the White House or was it State? Seems like there is more evidence that this was a bigger issue for State than for the White House. Of course, within a few days, the talking points became out of date and moot.

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

It used to be that being a businessman was a sterling credential on a political resume.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, and his allies, annihilated that axiom in 2012, morphing Republican challenger Mitt Romney into an outsourcing, job-killing, vulture capitalist who had something to hide by not releasing (more of) his tax returns. 

That playbook is now in full effect again. But this time it’s being employed by a Republican, Ken Cuccinelli, against a Democrat Terry McAuliffe, best known as a prolific Democratic fundraiser and Clinton ally.

“If you have nothing to hide… then release the documents,” a Cuccinelli video says, excerpting McAuliffe himself, urging the Democrat to release his tax returns. On Thursday, Cuccinelli released eight years of tax returns.

The video is full of quotes from President Obama and former Obama adviser David Axelrod to Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi  -- all from when they were calling on Romney to release his for the sake of “transparency.”

It’s just the latest page in the Cuccinelli playbook against McAuliffe. Earlier this month, the campaign released a blistering video, slamming McAuliffe for his involvement in Greentech Automotive. It blasts him for not creating the jobs he said it would and noting that the car plant was essentially outsourced to Mississippi – instead of creating jobs in Virginia.

It even uses this quote from ex-president Bill Clinton, under whom McAuliffe was DNC chair: “I would buy a new car from Terry. But a used car? I am not so sure about a used car.” (Beth Reinhard at National Journal has previously written about how Republicans are using the Romney playbook against McAuliffe.)

“Terry McAuliffe is running on a perceived business acumen, and that is his credential to talk about jobs and the economy, which is the core of his candidacy,” an operative close to the Cuccinelli campaign said. “That is quickly being taken away from him and discredited, and that will leave him rudderless.”

As for the comparison to the anti-Romney strategy, principally used by Super PAC Priorities USA, which ran brutal ads in Virginia, the operative did not shy away from it.

“It’s not that the Democrats and Terry made these arguments,” the operative said. “It’s that they made these arguments a few months ago, which puts them in a very tough position to defend a candidate, who directly opposes a position they took a few months ago. … To the degree that draws attention to Terry and the position that puts him in, all the better.”

Democrats see it as nothing more than a way to grab attention and change the subject. Cuccinelli -- whose conservative views on everything from gay marriage and abortion to investigating climate scientists at the University of Virginia have called into question whether he is in step with this state Obama won twice -- has also been under the microscope for his investments in a company called Star Scientific. Cuccinelli's office was representing Virginia in a tax lawsuit Star Scientific filed. 

"It's been a month of editorials and front-page stories highlighting Ken Cuccinelli's ethics problems and lack of transparency, so it's no surprise that he's trying to change the subject with misleading attacks,” said Josh Schwerin, press secretary for McAuliffe. “Even the most conservative editorial board in Virginia is calling Ken Cuccinelli's attacks an attempt to distract from his ongoing conflict of interest scandal. Ken Cuccinelli has zero credibility when he is refusing to answer questions about why he failed to disclose that he bought stock in a company while he was supposed to be pursuing them for unpaid taxes."

Noticing the Romney strategy, the Richmond Times-Dispatch wrote, “The move serves two purposes: It deflects attention from the Star Scientific flap, and it flips the traditional partisan script.”

There’s also a question as to whether employing the Romney strategy will work against McAuliffe, because there were two steps to the strategy behind the Priorities USA ads. It wasn’t just that Romney was a rich guy, there was also a policy pivot to his support of tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest.

It’s a point that even Republican pollster David Winston made to the Washington Post. “It’s how you translate it [into] what McAuliffe would do if he were elected,” he said. “Here are these interesting points. Now why does this matter in terms of policies?” 

As the Times-Dispatch concluded: “This is all mildly entertaining, though it has about as much relevance to issues such as education and transportation as the size of a candidate’s hat. No matter. Last week Republicans tried to make political hay out of McAuliffe’s decision to skip the Shad Planking, an event about which few voters know and even fewer care. It is going to be that kind of campaign.”

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 23, 2013 12:00 PM EDT

Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who is running for his old congressional seat, responded to a complaint that he trespassed at the home of his ex-wife, Jenny Sanford, by saying that he simply was watching the Super Bowl with his son.

"It's an unfortunate reality that divorced couples sometimes have disagreements that spill over into family court. I did indeed watch the second half of the Super Bowl at the beach house with our 14 year old son, because as a father I didn't think he should watch it alone," Sanford said. "Given she was out of town I tried to reach her beforehand to tell her of the situation that had arisen, and met her at the back steps under the light of my cell phone when she returned and told her what had happened.

Sanford continued, "There is always another side to every story, and while I am particularly curious how records that were sealed to avoid the boys dealing with embarrassment are now somehow exposed less than three weeks before this election, I agree with Jenny that the media is no place to debate what is ultimately a family court matter, and out of respect for Jenny and the boys, I'm not going to have any further comment at this time."

According to the AP, Sanford is required to appear at a court hearing to answer the complaint on May 9, two days after the special election for South Carolina’s first congressional seat, featuring him and Democratic nominee Elizabeth Colbert Busch.

Sanford is also set to debate Colbert Busch on April 29 -- campaign spokesman Joel Sawyer said there are no plans to change his debate schedule.

*** UPDATE *** NBC News has obtained the complaint, filed with a Charleston County circuit court, charging that Sanford “entered into a pattern of entering onto [Jenny Sanford's] property” and that she had told him “on a number of occasions that this behavior is in violation” of their divorce court order. 

Here is a link to the complaint.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) is urging a federal appeals court to overturn a three-judge panel's decision to declare an anti-sodomy law unconstitutional.

The Washington Blade reports that Cuccinelli filed a formal "petition with the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond asking the full 15-judge court to reconsider a decision by a three-judge panel last month that overturned the state's sodomy law. The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 on March 12 that a section of Virginia's 'Crimes Against Nature' statute that outlaws sodomy between consenting adults, gay or straight, is unconstitutional based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2003 known as Lawrence v. Texas."

Steve Helber / Steve Helber / AP file photo

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli speaks at a press conference Thursday, June 28, 2012.

Cuccinelli will be formally nominated as the Republican nominee in this year's governor's race by the state party at its convention May 18.

The move could potentially have repercussions for his gubernatorial bid in a state Barack Obama won in both 2008 and 2012. It also comes just as the U.S. Supreme Court is considering two cases dealing with gay rights, after the national party has urged Republicans to accept gays and lesbians, and as Senate Republicans like Rob Portman of Ohio and Mark Kirk of Illinois have announced their support for same-sex marriage.

Cuccinelli will be running against likely Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chairman and major Bill and Hillary Clinton fundraiser, in what is sure to be one of the most closely watched races this year.

More background from the Blade:

"The March 12 ruling of the appeals court's three-judge panel overturned a lower court decision upholding the conviction of a 37-year-old man charged in 2005 with soliciting a 17-year-old woman to engage in oral sex. The Attorney General's office argued that the Supreme Court's Lawrence decision didn't apply to cases involving minors. But 4th Circuit Appeals Court Judge Robert King, who wrote the majority opinion, said the Lawrence decision rendered the Virginia sodomy statue 'facially' or completely unconstitutional. He stated other laws could be used to prosecute an adult for engaging in sex with a minor and that the Virginia General Assembly would likely have authority under the Lawrence decision to pass a new law specifically outlawing sodomy between an adult and a minor."

A House race pitting a liberal comedian’s sister against a strict, conservative opponent might seem like a strange place for a GOP donor to turn blue.

But at least 16 donors to Elizabeth Colbert Busch, the Democratic nominee for Congress in South Carolina’s 1^st congressional district, have also given recently to a Republican – in some cases, one of the 16 Republican candidates vying for their party’s nomination to challenge Colbert Busch in the May 7 general election.

But when asked why they decided to switch – or in some cases, straddle – sides this time, these donors spoke not of a sudden political conversion, but rather the desire to give a little help to their friend Lulu, as those who know Colbert Busch call her. 

Bruce Smith / AP

Elizabeth Colbert Bush, the sister of comedian Stephen Colbert, shares a laugh with reporters after voting in Mount Pleasant, S.C., on Tuesday, March 19, 2013.

The mantra “all politics is local” rings true for John LaVerne, the owner of Charleston’s Bulldog Tours, which offers ghost walks and culinary tours of the historic city. Usually a Republican voter, LaVerne gave his friend Colbert-Busch $250 after donating the same amount to Mitt Romney’s campaign in May 2012.

LaVerne said the Democratic nominee “blew me away” when they met three years ago, and he has been telling his Republican friends that “she’s the smartest candidate out there.”

Another connection: Colbert Busch’s daughter works for LaVerne as Bulldog’s operations manager.

“[Colbert Bush] raised her kids by herself, all three of them, and they’re all three phenomenal people,” he said. “That says a lot.”

Despite the attention to her candidacy aided by her brother’s celebrity, Colbert Busch is considered an underdog against either of her would-be Republican opponents, former Gov. Mark Sanford or Curtis Bostic. A runoff GOP primary will decide between Sanford and Bostic, but the district is solidly Republican.

Still, Colbert Busch can point to some of these crossover voters as evidence of the kind of bipartisan appeal she would need to win this special election to fill the former House seat of now-Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.

Thomas Doyle, the owner of Palmetto Carriage Works, feels the same way as LaVerne about Colbert Busch – she’s his mother’s best friend and was his confirmation mother at the Cathedral at St. John the Baptist, which is why, out of “my loyalty to Lulu,” he donated $500 to her campaign.

Politically, though, Doyle said they couldn’t be further apart, which is why he voted last Tuesday for Republican Teddy Turner, son of CNN mogul Ted, who came in fourth with 8 percent in the primary.

Doyle said politicians don’t affect him much, so if it turns out his donation helps her win, “more power to her.”

Even Doyle’s vote for Turner was shaped by personal relationships: his wife works at Charleston Collegiate School, where Turner is an economics teacher. “So I really didn’t have much choice there,” he said, laughing.

That’s just the way local races in South Carolina work, Charleston lawyer Mark Tanenbaum said.

“A lot of people know that when they have a friendship with candidates, you contribute when you’re asked to,” he said. “We all see each other, know each other, and feel an obligation to a certain extent so long as in the long run it’s not going to defeat our ideals.”

Tanenbaum, a Democrat, donated to both Colbert Busch, whom he supports, and one of the Republicans who sought to oppose her, state Rep. Chip Limehouse, who came in seventh. 

“I’ve known Chip Limehouse for quite some time. He’s a friend of mine; he asked me if I would give him some money just for the primary. He knew that if he got into the general election that I was not able to support him,” Tanenbaum said. 

Charles Way, president of real estate firm The Beach Company, gave $1,000 to Limehouse and $500 to Colbert Busch less than a month later. “They’re both good friends of mine,” he said, adding that his actual vote would remain “between me and the polling place.” 

The party-flipping goes both ways: one Charleston businessman, a lifelong Democrat, gave $1,000 to Tim Scott’s congressional campaign in 2010 after Scott sat him down personally, telling him he would be an “independent thinker” in the House of Representatives.

Scott, now a Senate appointee, turned out to be a “tremendous disappointment,” the businessman said. So by 2013 he was ready to make a contribution to Colbert Busch, with whom he was already friendly.

“I had known Lulu and thought very highly of her but had not thought of her in a political context before,” he said.

Even if Colbert Busch makes the most out of her donations, from Republican friends and others, she’s still running in a district that Romney won by 10 percent in 2012 – a reality that Robert New, a Romney donor who also gave to Colbert Busch, acknowledged.

“There are certainly some people on the waterfront who are unhappy [with Sanford],” said New, the owner of a Charleston waterfront business who became friends with Colbert Busch when she worked for a shipping company. New said many port businesspeople were turned off by Sanford’s anti-earmark stance that he took to Washington during his first congressional tenure in the 1990’s.

“But,” he added, “I still think she’s an outside shot.”

Forget the “sequester.” There’s a campaign going on involving accusations of corruption, bankruptcy, race and President Obama, gender politics, grave-digging, and even drilling for oil in Beverly Hills.

The election is Tuesday, and it’s to run the second-largest city in America.

This is Los Angeles, where scandal and celebrity sometimes go hand-in-hand with governance. So it should be no surprise that the candidates are hitting each other by digging deep for dirt.

Current Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s term-limited. Villaraigosa has had tremendous highs and lows in his two terms. He served as the 2012 chairman of the Democratic National Convention, and a key spokesman as part of President Barack Obama’s outreach to Hispanics. But Villaraigosa has also gone through a divorce while mayor following his affair with a TV reporter. Just in December, actor Charlie Sheen, who went through his own high-profile collapse, tweeted out a picture with his arm around the mayor, saying he’s a guy who really “knows how to party!”

Villaraigosa’s exit has set off a race featuring a bundle of candidates, who have aimed the daggers at each other.

California has a so-called jungle primary. If no one gets more than 50 percent of the vote Tuesday, then the top two finishers - regardless of party - advance to a one-on-one runoff May 21.

A recent USC/L.A. Times poll showed Democratic City Councilman Eric Garcetti as the narrow front runner with 27%, just ahead of another Democrat, City Controller Wendy Greuel, who pulled in 25%.

Coming in third in the poll was conservative talk-show host Kevin James with 17%. James is hoping to vault into one of the top-two spots with the help of an attention-grabbing ad, blasting Garcetti and Greuel as corrupt government insiders.

The flashy ad uses actors, depicting Garcetti and Greuel digging a grave and dumping a body in the ground. It’s a play off of Greuel using the all-too-common budget metaphor of knowing where the bodies are buried.

When talking to black voters in particular, the candidates are all trying to show who is most like Obama.

Hoping to also crack the top two is another councilwoman, Jan Perry, who is African American. Perry over the weekend went to church with Rep. Maxine Waters (D), where Perry brought up Obama.

"I beseech you,” she said, per the L.A. Times, “turn out like you turned out for Obama. If you do that, you will deliver me."

Greuel and Garcetti also hit black churches and also invoked Obama. Garcetti noted he was Obama’s Southern California chairman, and Greuel said one of her offices was used by Obama’s campaign, which must be “good karma.”

Perry and Greuel, the top-two women in the race, have been involved in their own back and forth. Greuel blasted Perry for filing for personal bankruptcy in the 1990s -- something to which Perry admits, but blames on her husband’s law practice.

Greuel hit Perry with a mailer with this headline: “A History of Financial Mismanagement” and warns, “Don’t Let Her Bankrupt L.A.” Perry hit back with a letter from women supporters, who call the attack “morally reprehensible. … As a woman and mother you should know that there are certain lines you simply do not cross."

Meanwhile, Greuel is also in an imbroglio with Garcetti. She hit him for his family’s financial stake in potential oil and gas drilling in Beverly Hills.

"If you don't believe that you're ever going to drill for oil, if you don't believe it's going to make you money, then why not terminate the lease?" she said, per the L.A. Times.

Garcetti called it a “distraction” and essentially accused Greuel of being in the pocket of Big Labor.

Polls open at 10:00 am ET/7:00 am PT and close at 11:00 pm ET/8:00 pm PT.

This story was originally published on Mon Mar 4, 2013 1:33 PM EST

It's unclear if the tragic shooting at Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School -- as well as the subsequent ones across the country -- will lead to passage of gun-control legislation in Congress. But they might have had this immediate result: transforming the politics and focus inside the Democratic Party, at least in solid-blue districts and states.

Look no farther than Tuesday's upcoming Democratic special congressional primary in Illinois to fill Jesse Jackson Jr.'s vacant seat in the Chicago area, where Cook County Chief Administrative Officer Robin Kelly has become the front-runner, thanks in large part to the issue of guns.

"Robin Kelly has spent her career fighting to get deadly weapons off our streets," goes one of her TV ads. "In Congress, Kelly will keep taking on the NRA, fighting to ban assault weapons and outlaw high-capacity ammunition clips."

Recommended: Third Republican comes out in support of Hagel; 15 others ask Obama to withdraw nomination

A super PAC funded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Independence USA, has spent more than $2 million in the race to both endorse Kelly and knock two of her opponents with strong gun-rights records, including former Congresswoman Debbie Halvorson (the only white candidate running in this multi-candidate field).

"In the race to replace Jesse Jackson, watch out for Debbie Halvorson. When she was in Congress before, Halvorson got an 'A' from the NRA," argued an Independence USA TV ad, adding: "Debbie Halvorson -- when it comes to preventing gun violence, she gets an 'F.'"

Another ad by the group goes, "In the race for Congress, the big issue -- fighting gun violence. Debbie Halvorson and Toi Hutchison both earned an 'A' from the NRA. They can't be trusted."

(Hutchison has since dropped out of the race and has endorsed Kelly, providing more evidence that Kelly is the candidate to beat on Feb. 26.)

Recommended: GOP's weak position on the sequester

While this is just one race occurring in a city that has been plagued by gun violence, next week’s special primary highlights three important points:

1. The National Rifle Association has become anathema to many Democratic voters. That’s especially true in the wake of the organization’s combative public relations campaign after the Newtown shootings, which included the NRA invoking President Barack Obama’s daughters in an advertisement attacking the president. According to last month’s NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, just 20 percent of Democrats had a favorable view of the NRA, versus 57 percent who had an unfavorable view. (That’s compared with 64 percent of Republicans and even 49 percent of independents who hold a favorable view of the organization.) In past Democratic primaries, an NRA endorsement was either a badge of honor or something that at least wasn't viewed as a major liability. That may not be true anymore, at least in congressional districts like this one in Illinois.

2. Bloomberg’s organizations have become a countervailing force. Mark Glaze, the executive director for another Bloomberg organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, argues that one of the biggest reasons why gun-control laws have been weakened over the past decade is because “the NRA has been the only game in town.” But as the Illinois race has proved, Bloomberg’s groups are willing to spend millions in races on behalf of candidates supporting gun control. (Interestingly, the NRA has not spent money in this particular Democratic primary.) As one Democratic strategist tells First Read, “Candidates no longer have to fear the NRA mobilizing disproportionate force against them. They just need some backup.”

3. But does this apply outside of urban areas? That could be the biggest question moving forward after Tuesday’s race. While the NRA is unpopular with Democrats and while Bloomberg’s group have displayed their muscle, does that also hold true in places like West Virginia (where Democrats will be competing to replace retiring Sen. Jay Rockefeller) or even in Iowa (which has open Senate and House seats in 2014)? “West Virginia and Illinois will always be different,” Glaze says, noting that states like West Virginia have “more hunting, more guns, and less crime.” He adds, “That creates a different political dynamic.” Indeed, the NRA is running newspaper ads in states like Arkansas, Louisiana, and North Carolina -- where Democratic senators are running for re-election next year -- opposing the Obama administration’s gun-control proposals.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld will not run for the Senate, the latest Republican to decline a bid for the Senate seat vacated by John Kerry.

“While I am grateful for the kind expressions of support and encouragement which I have received, I will not be a candidate for United States Senator from Massachusetts in the special election this year,” Weld said in a statement released Monday.

Weld -- who currently works for the M.L. Strategies in Boston, the government relations and consulting arm of the Mintz Levin law firm -- ran for the Senate in 1996 as the Republican nominee -- and lost to Kerry.

Weld follows former Sen. Scott Brown (R) in declining a run. Brown bowed out of consideration Friday and is widely believed to be mulling a bid for governor next year.

The Boston Herald reported that Mitt Romney's son Tagg is thinking about a run, but insiders don't believe that is likely.

Most believe Brown's exit all but clears the path for the winner of the Democratic primary between Reps. Ed Markey and Stephen Lynch.

Other potential Republicans talked about:

- Former Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey
- state Rep. Dan Winslow
- former state Rep. Karyn Polito
- FOX News contributor/talk show host Dr. Keith Ablow
- Gabriel Gomez, ex-Navy SEAL