The White House finds itself in a public relations mess… Even as it argues that the press is seeing the trees (like the IG report) but missing the forest (Obama had no role in IRS controversy)… Issa’s committee knew about the IG report, too?... Senate Judiciary Committee clears immigration bill, which now moves to the Senate floor… NYT: The number of drone strikes declines… WaPo on Petraeus’ role in the Benghazi talking points… Florida shooting connected to Boston bombing… Will Weiner get his second chance?... And Garcetti wins LA mayoral run-off.

Jacquelyn Martin / AP

President Barack Obama meets with Myanmar's President Thein Sein in the Oval Office of the White House, Monday, May 20, 2013.

*** The White House’s public relations mess: While there is still no evidence connecting the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups directly to the White House or to the president personally, or to his re-election campaign, it doesn’t mean the White House doesn’t have a PR problem on its hands. And this PR mess is largely self-inflicted. For starters, its explanation about when it learned of the inspector general’s IRS investigation keeps changing. “Just a day after telling reporters that chief of staff Denis McDonough and other senior White House staff learned of the situation nearly a month ago, press secretary Jay Carney revealed Tuesday that White House officials had consulted with the Treasury Department on how to make the findings public,” Politico writes. Then we discover that the IRS official Lois Lerner plans to plead the 5^th Amendment at today’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Both developments make it SEEM like the White House or the administration has something to hide -- even if the evidence (so far) is that Team Obama wasn’t directly connected to this IRS story. And speaking of a PR mess, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney didn’t help things when he compared a question about HHS’s fundraising to questions about the president’s birth certificate. That’s the way a White House acting as if it’s in a bunker mentality responds to legitimate questions.

*** White House: Press is seeing the trees but missing the forest: All that said, the White House believes reporters are seeing the trees but missing the forest. According to an administration official, its P.R. priorities were 1) demonstrating that the president had NO role in this controversy and 2) demanding accountability and new hires immediately. And this official believes both of those priorities have been met. For the White House, all other questions -- including who knew about the IG report and when they knew it -- are secondary, and it has taken them time to get their facts straight. But that explanation also assumes that the White House’s story won’t continue to change. And that gets at the issue of a credibility problem. And right now, the White House press shop has a credibility problem with many reporters in that press room. And assuming they have nothing to hide, it’s a self-inflicted credibility problem.

*** Issa’s committee knew about the IG report, too? Speaking of the IG report, the inspector general who investigated the IRS’s targeting of conservative-sounding groups testified at the Senate Finance Committee yesterday that Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee also knew about the report back in 2012 and communicated with the IG’s office. So Democrats argue something along the lines of, “Issa’s committee knew about it, too, and didn’t say anything public!!!” But an Issa spokesman tells First Read, “The administration is trying to draw a false a parallel between its own responsibilities and an Oversight Committee that requested the IG audit. This includes a false characterization that the Committee voluntarily waited for [the IG’s office] to complete its investigation. In reality, the committee made extensive efforts to ask [the inspector general] if wrongdoing had been found but was rebuffed on multiple occasions. Administration officials drawing a false parallel have offered no evidence that they made a similar effort to learn all that they could about wrongdoing.” 

*** Senate Judiciary Committee clears immigration bill: Despite everything else happening (IRS, the Oklahoma disaster, etc.), the immigration train keeps moving forward. By a 13-5 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday approved the sweeping bipartisan immigration-reform legislation, which now heads to the Senate floor. Per NBC’s Carrie Dann, “Three Republicans -- Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Orrin Hatch of Utah -- joined the panel's 10 Democrats to vote in favor of the bill. Flake and Graham are both members of the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" that originally drafted the 844-page immigration legislation. Hatch's support was won after the Utah lawmaker secured changes to the bill's provisions for the hiring of high-skilled foreign workers.” But there also was some drama, Dann notes. “In an emotional moment shortly before final passage, committee chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont announced that he would not call for a vote on an amendment that would have recognized the marriages of same-sex spouses in immigration law. Republicans in the bipartisan Gang of Eight said the LGBT measure would have broken apart the fragile coalition crafted by the bill's drafters.” The decision to pull the same-sex amendment only highlights the fact that Leahy wasn’t in charge of his own committee hearing; Chuck Schumer was.  

*** NYT: The number of drone strikes decline: A day before Obama’s speech on national security at the National Defense University, the New York Times reports that the number of drone strikes overseas has declined. “Strikes in Pakistan peaked in 2010 and have fallen sharply since then; their pace in Yemen has slowed to half of last year’s rate; and no strike has been reported in Somalia for more than a year.” We expect that the president will discuss the drone wars, as well the Guatanamo Bay prison. But it would also be a smart place for Obama to discuss and either defend, denounce, or explain the Justice Department tough actions against national-security leaks, which seem to have infringed on press freedoms. If he fails to use tomorrow’s speech to deal with the press’ growing anger about the targeting of individual journalists, it could be a missed opportunity.

*** On Petraeus’ role in the Benghazi talking points: We’ve told you that the fight over the Benghazi talking points seemed to be more bureaucratic politics than electoral politics. And this Washington Post article seems to further confirm that. “A close reading of recently released government e-mails that were sent during the editing process, and interviews with senior officials from several government agencies, reveal [former CIA head David] Petraeus’s early role and ambitions in going well beyond the committee’s request, apparently to produce a set of talking points favorable to his image and his agency. The information Petraeus ordered up when he returned to his Langley office that morning included far more than the minimalist version that [Rep.] Ruppersberger had requested. It included early classified intelligence assessments of who might be responsible for the attack and an account of prior CIA warnings — information that put Petraeus at odds with the State Department, the FBI and senior officials within his own agency.” 

*** Florida shooting connected to Boston bombing: Don’t be surprised if this story grabs a lot more attention later today. “An FBI agent was involved in a fatal shooting in Orlando early Wednesday that a local TV station says may have ties to the Boston Marathon bombings,” USA Today writes. “FBI officials have confirmed that a man died while one of its agents was "conducting official duties," the Orlando Sentinelreports, but would not elaborate. WESH-TV [an NBC affiliate] identifies the victim as 27-year-old Ibragim Todashev.” NBC’s Richard Esposito reports that the shooting IS connected to Boston bombing case. “It is connected in that the person shot is linked to Tsarnaev and has associates who are extremists overseas. They were interviewing him regarding his connections to Tsarnaev. He had been interviewed before. He started out cooperative. Flipped out. Went to attack agent. Then was shot.”

*** Will Weiner get his second chance? Anthony Weiner has released a slick two-minute video announcing his bid for New York mayor. "Look, I made some big mistakes, and I know I let a lot of people down,” he says in the video, which also features his wife Huma Abedin and young son. “But I've also learned some tough lessons. I'm running for mayor because I’ve been fighting for the middle class and those struggling my entire life. And I hope I get a second chance to work for you." Later in the video, wife Huma adds, “We love this city, and no one will work harder to make it better than Anthony.” While we still have our doubts that Weiner becomes NYC’s next mayor, his presence in the race likely means that front-runner Christine Quinn would face a run-off -- one in which she could struggle.

*** Garcetti to become LA’s next mayor: And in Los Angeles’ mayoral run-off, City Councilman Eric Garcetti defeated City Comptroller Wendy Greuel by eight percentage points, 54%-46%, succeeding outgoing Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The Los Angeles Times: “Garcetti will be the first elected Jewish mayor of the city. At 42, he will also be the youngest in more than a century. He is scheduled to take office July 1.” More: “At $33 million, the mayoral campaign was the most expensive in city history. The flood of money and advertising from those groups largely went toward tearing down the two contenders, alienating many Angelenos who hadn't already been left cold.”

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

Oklahoma disaster puts current Washington politics into perspective… Obama delivers statement on tragedy at 10:00 am ET… That said, there will be an inevitable fight over disaster relief… Three polls, three matters of consensus on the three controversies hitting the Obama administration… 1) The public believes there was wrongdoing; 2) that hasn’t affected Obama’s political standing; and 3) there’s a huge partisan divide… Senate Finance Committee holds IRS hearing at 10:00 am ET… Conservatives come out against immigration reform… And two stories to watch in tonight’s LA mayoral run-off.

Gene Blevins / Reuters

People walk near destroyed buildings and vehicles after a tornado struck Moore, Okla., near Oklahoma City, May 20, 2013.

*** Putting things into perspective: The massive and powerful tornado that ripped through Moore, OK on Monday afternoon puts so much of Washington’s focus over the past two weeks -- on the IRS, Benghazi, and the leak investigations -- into perspective. Oklahoma officials, for now, have put the death toll at 51 individuals (at least 20 of whom are children). “To me, this is bigger than anything I’ve ever seen,” Gov. Mary Fallin (R) said on “TODAY” this morning, and she added that includes past tornados and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. (This is an area of the country that has seen its share of destruction over the last 20 years.) President Obama, who already signed a disaster declaration for Oklahoma, delivers a statement around 10:00 am ET on the devastation, per NBC’s Kristen Welker. And the politics of disaster relief and federal assistance has already made an appearance. Yes, there are still legitimate questions to ask regarding the three controversies facing the Obama administration. And, yes, those stories aren’t going away (in fact, the Senate Finance Committee holds a hearing at 10:00 am ET on the IRS’s targeting of conservative-sounding organizations filing for tax-exempt status). But right now, they take a pause.

*** The inevitable battle over disaster relief: Given the previous fight over federal-relief funding after Hurricane Sandy, it was inevitable that the politicization of this Oklahoma disaster would take place. And it has already begun. CQ Roll Call: “The tornado damage near Oklahoma City is still being assessed and the death toll is expected to rise, but already Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., says he will insist that any federal disaster aid be paid for with cuts elsewhere. CQ Roll Call reporter Jennifer Scholtes wrote for CQ.com Monday evening that Coburn said he would ‘absolutely’ demand offsets for any federal aid that Congress provides.” Coburn’s position is consistent with his vote on Sandy relief -- he voted no on federal funding late last year, as did Oklahoma’s other senator, James Inhofe. And three of the state’s five congressmen voted no, too (Bridenstine, Mullin, Lankford), while the other two voted for the relief (Cole, Lucas). Keep an eye on Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) in this. He has been a bridge between the establishment and conservatives on issues like Sandy relief and the fiscal cliff. He’s got a lot of credibility with a bipartisan swath of members, and he may end up having to do a lot of political legwork to de-politicize this issue.

*** Three polls, three matters of consensus: Turning to the controversies facing the Obama administration, we now have the results from three different polls (CNN, Pew, WaPo/ABC) released in the last 36 hours. And they provide a consensus on three different stories. One, the public believes there was wrongdoing by the IRS and in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack. Two, this belief of wrongdoing hasn’t affected President Obama’s standing (WaPo/ABC has his approval rating at 51%; CNN has it as 53%). A big reason why is the economy: “For the first time since the 100-day mark of Obama’s first term, most say they are optimistic about the direction of the economy. More than half, 56 percent, say the economy is on the mend, the most to say so in polls since 2009,” the Washington Post writes. And three, there is a HUGE partisan divide when it comes to these controversies. According to the Pew poll, 37% of Republicans are following the IRS story very closely (compared with 21% of Democrats and 25% of indies), while 34% of Republicans are following the Benghazi investigation closely (versus 18% of Democrats and 26% of indies). As Pew adds, this level of interest and partisan divide is consistent with past controversies impacting the George W. Bush and Clinton administration; the folks out of power who didn’t like the president in office were always more interested in these controversies. The one exception: The Lewinsky sex scandal, which had more people paying closer attention and almost no partisan divide.

*** Senate Finance Committee holds IRS hearing: As mentioned above, the Senate Finance Committee holds a hearing on the IRS story at 10:00 am, and the witnesses are outgoing IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller, former Commissioner Douglas Shulman, and the inspector general. Given the tragedy in Oklahoma -- and given the president’s remarks around the same time -- this hearing won’t receive the attention it might have. But the Obama White House had it rough yesterday when it dribbled out new information about who knew of the inspector general’s report and when they knew about it. Make no mistake: It’s over something that’s relatively small, when (and who inside) the White House was given a heads up about the IG audit -- after all, there was little the White House could do with the report -- but it made the White House seem not very forthcoming with the press. The White House is acting as if it has a bunker mentality; it’s only dribbling out information if extracted with a specific question. And it’s giving off an impression staffers have more to hide.

*** Bunker mentality and not telling the president: Then there’s the issue that many members of the senior team in the White House knew about the report without telling the president. While it’s understandable they want the president to have plausible deniability about what he knows in the case of an IG report, it feeds the perception that the president is not very hands-on right now. Yes, it’s damned if they do, damned if they don’t -- which is probably why it’s imperative they begin to own these controversies on their terms.

*** Conservatives come out against immigration reform: Per NBC’s Carrie Dann, “Several prominent conservative media figures are backing a new effort by groups who oppose bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform, signaling growing willingness from conservative outlets to marshal their audiences against the bill. Signatories on a new open letter to Congress titled ‘The Wrong Way to Reform Immigration” include RedState editor Erick Erickson, radio hosts Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin, and columnist Michelle Malkin. ‘No matter how well intentioned, the Schumer-Rubio bill suffers from fundamental design flaws that make it unsalvageable,’ the letter states. ‘Many of us support various parts of the legislation, but the overall package is so unsatisfactory that the Senate would do better to start over from scratch.’”

*** Two stories to watch in today’s LA mayoral run-off: And there are two stories to watch in today’s run-off contest for LA mayor between City Controller Wendy Greuel (D) and City Councilman Eric Garcetti (D). The first is that Greuel COULD become the city’s first female mayor, although polls (here and here) have shown that Garcetti has a slight lead. The second story is the expected low turnout. As Jessica Taylor writes, "[T]he runoff race between two Democratic candidates isn’t drawing much interest as turnout could reach a record low despite the more than $33 million that’s been spent on the nearly two year-long contest to succeed outgoing Mayor Anthony Villagarosa." In fact, just 21% turned out in the first round of voting. Now this could just be LA being LA, but the low turnout might be something to keep an eye on. Polls close at 11:00 pm ET.

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

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

IRS scandal takes center stage on Capitol Hill. What new comes out? … The White House is in damage-control mode – how they’re managing the three controversies … GOP tries to tie IRS to health care … Obama needs to fix IRS because credibility of government and his second-term agenda is at stake … From New York to L.A., two mayor’s races will be a focus next week – one because another scandal-ridden ex-congressman tries to make a comeback. … Bloomberg group goes after AZ Sen. Flake (R).

Charles Dharapak / AP

Ousted IRS chief Steve Miller arrives on Capitol Hill, Friday, May 17, 2013, to testify before the House Ways and Means Committee on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) practice of targeting applicants for tax-exempt status based on political leanings.

*** And the venting begins: One thing is fairly certain: there will be fireworks today on Capitol Hill when ex-IRS Commissioner Steve Miller and Treasury Inspector General Russell George testify before the House Ways and Means Committee beginning at 9:00 am ET. But the question is what new information comes from the hearing? There will be plenty of bloviating, but it could also clarify what we don’t know, like: (1) The missing why? Was there political motivation on any level, and (2) What took so long for this to come out? Was this really simply a sloppy shortcut? It was clear in timeline that this was all discovered to be a problem early in 2012 and perhaps as far back as 2011, so what took so long for the IRS to admit it? Expect these to be among the most intriguing questions that get asked but dodged. And, of course, this is only the beginning of what’s going to be a busy season of IRS hearings.

*** The White House reboot: Damage-control mode continues for the White House. Today, it’s trying to stay the course and make that pivot back to jobs with another leg of the president’s Middle Class Jobs and Opportunity Tour. Today, the president heads to Baltimore, where he stops by an elementary school at 11:35 am ET, then makes remarks at 1:20 pm ET at Ellicott Dredges. At 2:15 pm ET, he’ll head to a community center that works with families on job training. They’ve been trying to make this pivot for a while. The first event last week in Austin was overshadowed by the Benghazi hearing. Today, it’ll be overshadowed by the IRS hearing. After sitting on its hands for a few days, the White House is now in overdrive when it comes to damage control. Not just announcing new actions on IRS and on diplomatic security, but it was hard to watch TV after 3 p.m. yesterday and not see a key White House political aide on the tube: Carney, Palmieri and Pfeiffer all blitzing the airwaves.

*** How the White House is trying to fix the three fronts: On Benghazi, the White House is pushing that it’s all political and the president will talk about security at embassies. That was the point he attempted to drive home yesterday. Of course, his pronouncement regarding diplomatic security begs the question, where was this response last week, last month, last year. Clearly, the White House wants to put the issue of funding diplomatic security (something that’s been cut) back in Congress lap. It was a fairly transparent rhetorical move by the White House yesterday. On the IRS, they’re trying to show they’re on top of it…now. Naming Daniel Werfel is putting someone there who seems to have a non-partisan resume. He worked for George W. Bush, for example. But he’s no household name. Werfel’s appointment won’t have the impact on the public psyche that a more high-profile nominee would have had. But he checks the boxes of competency, bipartisanship, and he can vet. On the AP, it’s striking how much Obama went out of his way to stand by Attorney General Eric Holder. There’s no wiggle room there, and it’s because the Holder issue has been personal to him. The president has always felt that Holder’s unpopularity on the hill was a proxy for the president himself. The president believes Republicans on the hill have used Holder as a punching bag, believing they can attack Holder in ways they can’t with Obama. That’s why Obama’s been more sympathetic to Holder -- even though many White House aides, past and present, believe Holder’s been very politically naïve in how he’s run the Justice Department and has made himself an easy target.

*** GOP tries to tie IRS scandal to health care: It’s been a tough week for the White House, perhaps the worst of Obama’s second term. And we know exactly where GOP’s headed to try and advance the story more broadly. They’re headed to health care. Two IRS officials are already exiting the IRS, and now a third person has become a target. NBC’s Lisa Myers confirms this story that Sarah Hall Ingram, who was in charge of the tax exempt office from 2009 to 2012, is now in charge of the IRS’s Affordable Care Act office. The blaring headline Republicans want out of this is the person involved in targeting the Tea Party at the IRS is now in charge of running health care (!!!). That’s not exactly the case, however, as the IRS has a relatively small role in implementing health care as compared to Health and Human Services, which is the agency setting up the exchanges to be rolled out this fall. But why let an inconvenient reality get in the way of a good political talking point.

*** Bigger picture – the IRS scandal is important because it’s all about the credibility of government: At the heart of this IRS scandal and why it matters is how important the credibility of government is to Obama second-term agenda. Democrats want to show government run correctly can make your life better; Republicans want to say government stands in the way. The IRS scandal cuts right to that argument and extends out to health care (as noted above) and immigration. The IRS, on a good day, isn’t well liked by the public. It’s feared. But if it’s proven to be inept or corrupt, it will only harm the public trust even more than Washington’s done for so long as it is. And it’ll be easy to sell a swing voter on the idea that while, say, immigration reform is a good idea, do you have confidence Washington can make it work? Ditto with health care? That’s why it is so important for Obama to be on top of the IRS from here on out and restore credibility to the agency. Whatever comes out on IRS, with reporters turning up every stone and Republicans picking at every piece of carcass, the White House and Treasury better be first or it will undermine even further credibility.

*** New York to L.A.: Two mayors races in the two biggest cities in the country will be big next week – one because there will be a result (in L.A.) and second because of Anthony Weiner. In Los Angeles, voters head to the polls Tuesday to pick between two Democrats to be the next mayor – Eric Garcetti and Wendy Greuel. Garcetti continues to be the slight favorite and Greuel appears to be running out of money. She had to loan herself $100,000. Meanwhile, Weiner might jump into the mayor’s race next week. WNBC reported spotting Weiner shooting a campaign-style video at his childhood home in Brooklyn. And Weiner’s entry will transform the race into a circus, at least next week, and who knows, maybe for the rest of the campaign. By the way, with Weiner’s wife as close to Hillary Clinton as anyone, how do the Clintons keep their distance from Weiner, or do they? Either way, nobody benefits more from Weiner’s entry than the headline writers at the Daily News and the Post.

*** Bloomberg gun group targets AZ senator: Mayors Against Illegal Guns is going up with an ad campaign hitting Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake (R), NBC’s Kasie Hunt reports. It features an Arizona couple, whose son was killed in the Aurora, CO, theatre shooting, who say Flake didn’t keep his word to them that he would vote in favor of tougher background checks. Republicans, though, believe that by voting for the Lindsey Graham (R-SC) alternative bill, they did vote for some background-check strengthening. The group has gone up against New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, and has also pledged – though notably they have not yet -- to go up against Democrats in Alaska, Arkansas, and North Dakota, despite Democrats urging them not to.

*** 2016 roundup – Going after Hillary: Republicans tried to pin Benghazi on Hillary Clinton (here, for example). Democrats see 2016 politics at play. Opponents are readying a scandal-filled movie about her life. She still leads by a lot in a New Hampshire poll. … Vice President Joe Biden appears to be continuing preparations for a run in 2016, but he not only trails Clinton by a lot in early polling, he also remains a punch line for late-night comics. … Rand Paul heads to New Hampshire Monday … Bobby Jindal was in New Hampshire over the weekend …  Marco Rubio accused the White House of creating a “culture of intimidation” on MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown, yet some conservatives are still hammering him for his pursuit of comprehensive immigration. … Chris Christie was showing Prince Harry around the Jersey Shore. He also went negative despite huge leads in his bid for reelection this year. … Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) signed one of the toughest gun laws in the country.

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 

Controversies sidetrack the White House, Congress, and the press… The danger for the White House: This could imperil Obama’s second-term legislative agenda… But there’s also a danger in over-analyzing the past seven days… Krauthammer’s warning to Republicans… Obama, Treasury respond to IG report on IRS… On that Ben Rhodes email… Mark Sanford’s first day back on Hill… And Planned Parenthood hits Cuccinelli.

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney pauses while speaking to reporters in the briefing room of the White House May 14, 2013.

*** Sidetracked: The Benghazi/IRS/AP stories over the past week have had this additional impact for the Obama White House: They’ve sidetracked the other issues that President Obama has wanted to discuss. (Frankly, they’ve also sidetracked us in media, too.)  Last Thursday, Obama was in Austin, TX to talk about the economy; on Friday, he was selling implementation of his health-care law; on Monday night, the president traveled to fundraisers in New York, where expressed his desire to still work with Republicans (even as he raised money for Democrats for the ’14 midterms); and today at 11:00 am ET, he delivers remarks at a national peace officers memorial. Oh, there was another piece of news from yesterday the White House would have enjoyed to tout -- the budget deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is estimated to fall to its lowest level since 2008. But what are the stories still being discussed in Washington today? The IRS targeting conservative-sounding groups. The Justice Department getting the AP’s phone records in a national-security leak investigation. And the Obama administration revising those Benghazi talking points.

*** The danger for the White House: NBC’s Kasie Hunt also notes that the controversies have sidetracked Congress, too. For instance, a weeks-long markup of a major Senate immigration bill received little attention yesterday; Attorney General Eric Holder testifies at a 1:00 pm ET oversight hearing, which will likely focus on the department's seizure of AP phone records and other thorny issues. Moreover, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee (Orrin Hatch) wants the IRS investigation to take priority over dealing with tax reform. And get this: Fully a third of House committees are now focused on investigating the Obama administration. As NBC’s Mike O’Brien writes, all of this COULD imperil the Obama White House’s second-term legislative agenda. “The fact of the matter is House and Senate Republicans have done very little legislating so far this year. This certainly isn't going to help things,” Jim Manley, a former senior Democratic Senate aide, told O’Brien. “Now they're going to feast on investigation after investigation for the rest of the year, while throwing red meat to their base and forgetting about the divisions in their own caucus.”

*** A temporary distraction or a long-term one? So is this a temporary distraction or the beginning of the end of Obama’s second term? Remember the warning we issued months ago about second terms. Legislatively, in the best of times, they last about 18 months. The last four presidents to win second terms saw their ability to drive a legislative agenda get stopped in its tracks in 18 months or less. For Nixon, it was about six months before Washington gave up; Reagan got tax reform done and then Iran-Contra came; Clinton got a year until Monica broke in Jan. 98; and George W. Bush’s second term legislative push ended before Labor Day of that first year

*** Yet the danger in over-analyzing: Despite all the controversies facing the administration -- and how they have sidetracked its agenda -- there is a danger in over-analyzing what has occurred in the past week. After all, the White House has faced even more trying times over the past four and a half years (the U.S. economy in free-fall, the BP spill, the debt-ceiling debacle of 2011), and all of those stories now seem like distant memories. And while some are saying that Washington has turned on Obama, we have this question: When has Establishment Washington ever been a fan of how Team Obama has responded to crises and controversies? (The current issues, and the White House’s stubbornly passive way of handling them, are serving as an excuse for the president’s frenemies to pile on and re-air old grievances, like he’s terrible at personal outreach or he’s or why the person who promised to “turn the page” can’t change Washington.) Politico’s Jonathan Martin puts it well: Will all of these investigations and controversies result in a 2010 (when the public worried about the federal government’s excesses, albeit in a time of 9.0%-plus unemployment) or in a 1998 (when the GOP faced backlash for the Lewinsky investigation)? Right now, we don’t have an answer, but you can begin making a case that everything out there (talk of scandal and investigations, the Dow reaching new highs, the budget deficit declining) looks a whole lot like the 1990s.

*** Krauthammer’s warning to Republicans: Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer warns Republicans not to overplay their hand. “The one advice I give to Republicans is stop calling it a huge scandal. Stop saying it's a Watergate. Stop saying it's Iran Contra. Let the facts speak for themselves. Have a special committee, a select committee. The facts will speak for themselves. Pile them on but don't exaggerate, don't run ads about Hillary. It feed the narrative for the other side that it's only a political event. It's not. Just be quiet and present the facts.”

*** Obama, Treasury respond to IG report on IRS: On “TODAY” this morning, NBC’s Lisa Myers reported on inspector general’s report into the IRS, and the IG concluded that the agency was targeting conservative-sounding groups in their application for tax-exempt status, that the IRS unit responsible was a mess, and that some employees were actually ignorant about tax laws. But the IG also concluded that the targeting didn’t originate OUTSIDE the IRS. “We asked the Acting Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division; the Director, EO; and Determinations Unit personnel if the criteria were influenced by any individual or organization outside the IRS. All of these officials stated that the criteria were not influenced by any individual or organization outside the IRS,” the report said. President Obama released a statement after the report’s release: “[T]he report's findings are intolerable and inexcusable… I've directed Secretary Lew to hold those responsible for these failures accountable, and to make sure that each of the Inspector General's recommendations are implemented quickly, so that such conduct never happens again.” And Treasury Secretary Jack Lew responded with his own statement: “I strongly agree with the President about the need for accountability at the IRS, and I expect the IRS to implement the Inspector General's recommendations without delay.” That said, the IG report will do NOTHING to satisfy members of Congress who still have lots of questions.

*** On that Ben Rhodes email: Regarding those Benghazi talking points, First Read has now seen the email from Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, and it appears to differ from the earlier portrayal that the Obama White House wanted the State Department’s concerns to be addressed. In fact, what Rhodes seemed to want is for all the information to be as accurate as possible. "There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don't compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression,” he said. But it’s important to note that this Rhodes email, via a government source, is a SELECTIVE leak -- just as the earlier portrayal of the email chain was a SELECTIVE leak. This only puts pressure on the White House to release ALL of these emails. You can’t start showing some of them without showing all of them.

*** Sanford’s first day back on Capitol Hill: In other news, “Rep.-elect Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) will be sworn in Wednesday as the new representative of South Carolina’s 1st district, his spokesman announced Tuesday,” the Washington Post writes. “In the House chamber, Sanford will be sworn in approximately 5:15 p.m. Wednesday, spokesman Joel Sawyer said. The Republican will rejoin Congress a week after he defeated Democratic nominee Elizabeth Colbert Busch by nine points, even as he was barraged by Democratic outside spending.”

*** Planned Parenthood hits Cuccinelli: In Virginia’s gubernatorial contest, Planned Parenthood Action Fund is launching a web advertisement hitting Ken Cuccinelli on social issues in advance of this weekend’s Virginia GOP convention in Richmond. “That Ken Cuccinelli -- he’s running for governor, and he keeps showing up where he doesn’t belong. He’s trying to put himself in the middle of our most personal decision,” the ad goes. He sponsored legislation to end funding for Planned Parenthood, and Ken Cuccinelli wants to make abortion illegal, even in cases of rape, incest, or when the health of the woman is in danger.” The web ad, which targets women voters, will run through this weekend.

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

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

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

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

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

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