First Thoughts: Obama's last chance to go big

By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower

*** Obama’s last chance to go big: Here’s a reality about a second-term presidency: 

You have a narrow window -- at the beginning of the term -- to persuade Congress to do something big. For Ronald Reagan, it was tax reform (which he achieved); for Bill Clinton, it was education reform (which failed); and for George W. Bush, it was Social Security reform (which crashed and burned). And this is perhaps the best way to view President Obama’s State of the Union address at 9:00 pm ET tonight. It is essentially his last chance to lay the groundwork for domestic achievements. In his speech tonight, Obama is expected to push for second term agenda: comprehensive immigration reform, ways to curb gun violence, and his preferences to grow the economy and reduce the deficit. And it’s the issue of the economy where the president will spend a lion’s share of his time.

*** A bit bolder, a bit more aggressive Obama: 

As the president addresses the nation tonight, the New York Times makes an observation we’ve noted in the past few weeks: Obama, fresh off his re-election, has become a bit bolder, a bit more aggressive president. “[I]t is clear from these personal accounts as well as his public acts, like his bold Inaugural Address, that he has shown an assertiveness, self-possession, even cockiness that contrasts with the caution, compromise and reserve that he showed for much of his first term,” the Times says. “What is not so clear is whether Mr. Obama can parlay this commanding self-assurance — borne of re-election, hard lessons learned and Republicans’ disarray — into victories as he tries to turn Washington away from its obsession with deficit-cutting to a broader progressive agenda. Or will he overreach, alienate some Americans and cement the partisan divide he once promised to bridge?” If Obama’s inaugural address last month was any indication, we can probably expect more new things in tonight’s speech than many might think.

*** The president’s three economic questions: 

As far as the economic particulars in the president’s speech tonight, we can report that all of his initiatives will fall into three categories to answer three different questions. One, how can the United States create more jobs at home? Two, how does the country get its citizens the skills they need for these jobs? And three, how does the nation help those who are working hard to make a decent living? In essence, this is how the speech will be framed, especially with the looming budget battle over the sequester. For its part, the Republican National Committee is out with a video -- entitled “When in doubt, raise taxes” -- to pre-but Obama’s State of the Union.

*** GOP’s fresh face -- but also lingering warts: 

Obama, however, isn’t the only one in today’s political spotlight. So is the Republican Party -- with its new hopes and lingering warts. Freshman Sen. Marco Rubio will be delivering the GOP’s response to Obama’s address, and he tells the AP that Republicans want to pursue economic policies to create jobs and cut spending. "We don't just want to be the opposition. We want to be the alternative," he said. The Weekly Standard also reports that Rubio “says he intends to draw on his personal experiences growing up in Florida to explain to the country why Obama’s policies won’t work.” But as the GOP tries to present a new fresh face, tonight’s State of the Union also will highlight many of its current problems. For instance, Rand Paul is delivering the Tea Party’s response to Obama, demonstrating the party’s establishment-vs.-anti-establishment divide. (Wasn’t Rubio supposed to be a Tea Party guy?) In addition, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX), who has already called for Obama’s impeachment, is bringing Ted Nugent to the State of the Union, providing an unnecessary distraction for a party trying to become more popular with swing voters. And National Journal reported yesterday that some House Republicans are objecting to the party’s “GOP en Espanol” to distribute Republican reactions to the State of the Union. The program is now limited to a Twitter handle. Dem-leaning American Bridge has a new video emphasizing the divisions within the GOP. The irony is that you don’t need this video; Republicans are emphasizing their own divisions.

*** Shall … we … play … a … game?

Here’s one topic that Obama might NOT have addressed tonight but now most definitely WILL -- North Korea. Per USA Today, North Korea last night “detonated a miniaturized nuclear device at a northeastern test site, state media said, defying U.N. Security Council orders to shut down atomic activity or face more sanctions and international isolation.” In a late-night statement, Obama said, “This is a highly provocative act that … undermines regional stability, violates North Korea’s obligations under numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions, contravenes its commitments under the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks, and increases the risk of proliferation.” More from the president’s statement: “Far from achieving its stated goal of becoming a strong and prosperous nation, North Korea has instead increasingly isolated and impoverished its people through its ill-advised pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.” It’s also reported that the U.N. Security Council has scheduled an emergency meeting for today.

*** Tonight’s coverage: 

The State of the Union begins at 9:00 pm ET. But NBC’s coverage kicks off at 8:45 pm ET with a web-exclusive pre-show streaming live on NBCNews.com. The online pre-show and full broadcast will be anchored live from Washington, DC by “NBC Nightly News” and “Rock Center” anchor and managing editor Brian Williams, joined by “Meet the Press” moderator David Gregory, “TODAY” co-host Savannah Guthrie, NBC News political director and chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd, and chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell, as well as Capitol Hill correspondent Kelly O’Donnell inside the House chamber. Also, “TODAY” tomorrow will have an exclusive interview with House Speaker John Boehner.

*** Hagel gets his first vote today: 

This afternoon, the Senate Armed Services Committee will vote on Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be Obama’s next defense secretary, NBC’s Mike Viqueira reports. And yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said a floor vote would take place Wednesday or Thursday. Yet Roll Call notes that GOP senators are vowing to delay a floor vote. Senate Armed Services Ranking Member Jim Inhofe “told the National Review on Monday that he would insist on a 60-vote threshold for Hagel. ‘Hagel may be passed out of the committee, but it’s going to be a long, long time before he hits the floor,’ Inhofe said. ‘We’re going to need as much time as possible, and there are going to be several of us who will have holds.’”

*** A hold can delay -- but not prevent -- a vote: 

To be clear, however, here’s how what a “hold” is, as defined by the U.S. Senate: “An informal practice by which a senator informs his or her floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The majority leader need not follow the senator's wishes, but is on notice that the opposing senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure.” In other words, a “hold” is a way for a senator to object. The Senate does a lot of work by unanimous consent -- post office namings, votes on political appointees requiring Senate approval. A hold then can slow down Senate business, because a senator is indicating he or she intends to try and require 60 votes for a bill or, in Hagel’s case, a nomination, to advance. In many cases that threat of slowing things down is enough for a majority leader to pull the legislation because it’s not worth the fight, Senate aides told First Read. But if the majority party wants the fight, and the votes are there in the Senate to overcome a potential filibuster, a hold may slow things down, but it can’t prevent approval.

*** Drip, drip on Menendez: 

Finally, the Bob Menendez story is officially in the “drip, drip” phase, which is never a good place for a politician. Here’s the New York Times from yesterday: “Senator Robert Menendez sought to discourage any plan by the United States government to donate port security equipment to the Dominican Republic, citing concern that the advanced screening gear might undermine efforts by a private company — run by a major campaign contributor and friend of his — to do the work. The intervention with the Department of Homeland Security last month came even though Mr. Menendez has publicly chastised the Obama administration for not doing more to combat the surging drug traffic moving through Dominican ports. And it came shortly after the senator’s friend, Dr. Salomon E. Melgen, arranged to meet with a senior State Department official, accompanied by a former aide to Mr. Menendez, in a related push to protect the port security contract, which is worth as much as $500 million over 20 years.”

Obama Immigration Plan: More Direct Path to Citizenship Than Senate's

Obama Immigration Plan: More Direct Path to Citizenship Than Senate's

President Barack Obama is expected to lay out his principles for immigration reform in a speech in Las Vegas today that will include a potentially quicker path to citizenship than the bipartisan plan a group of senators unveiled earlier this week. 

The president will offer some new details about the White House's immigration reform plan, which expands on a blueprint it released in 2011, a senior administration official told ABC News. But for now Obama will stop short of offering his own piece of legislation because of the progress made by the Senate "Gang of Eight."

 

The White House has sounded positive notes about the Senate group's plan thus far, but the specifics that Obama announces are expected to have some key differences that might cause concern for some Republican senators who have signed onto the senate deal. 

Like the senators' plan, Obama's proposal calls for a pathway to citizenship for many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. The senators' plan would grant "probationary legal status" immediately to eligible undocumented immigrants, but would not allow them to apply for permanent legal status, or a green card, until the border is deemed to be secure. Think of that as a trigger system. 

On the other hand, administration officials told media outlets that they believe a path to citizenship needs to be more straightforward. They believe a trigger system, like the one in the senate plan, could lead to a state of legal limbo for the undocumented immigrants who receive legal status, The Washington Post reported. 

The border-security-first plan, however, is essential to Republican senators who signed onto the Senate "Gang of Eight" deal. 

"I will not be supporting any law that does not ensure that the enforcement things happen," Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a member of the group, told conservative blogger Ed Morrissey on his web radio show. 

Obama's plan is likely to include language that would allow same-sex bi-national couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples, BuzzFeed and The Washington Post reported. Under current law, gays and lesbians who are married to U.S. citizens under state laws cannot obtain a green card. Obama's plan would allow them a path to citizenship, but the issue is not mentioned in the Senate "Gang of Eight" proposal. 

As noted by the Post, that language may anger Christian groups who have signaled they would support comprehensive immigration reform. 

But the White House remains optimistic about the progress that has been made so far. An official described the senators' announcement as a "breakthrough" to ABC News because it wasn't clear whether Republicans would sign on to any path to citizenship. 

Some observers couched the Senate group's decision to come out with his plan a day before Obama as an attempt to outfox the White House politically. But administration officials told media outlets they remain generally pleased with the plan and believe that the president's speech could build momentum for a final bill.

The White House reiterated that the president was very encouraged by the Senate's proposal since it includes a pathway to citizenship that is endorsed by Republicans, who have previously opposed immigration reform that includes such a path. 

"Our focus is that this is a positive development," White House spokesman Luis Miranda told ABC/Univision. "We feel very positive that there is a proposal in the first place and that it is consistent with what the president has supported in the past." 

The White House clarified that it is withholding judgment on language in the Senate framework that requires a border security "trigger" to obtain a green card until actual legislative language is released by the senators.

"What we have said is that there needs to be a clear path to citizenship," said Miranda. "We'll wait to see what they flesh out."

Senators reach deal on immigration changes

A bipartisan group of leading senators has reached agreement on the principles of sweeping legislation to rewrite the nation's immigration laws.

The deal, which was to be announced at a news conference Monday afternoon, covers border security, guest workers and employer verification, as well as a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants already in this country.

Although thorny details remain to be negotiated and success is far from certain, the development heralds the start of what could be the most significant effort in years toward overhauling the nation's inefficient patchwork of immigration laws.

President Barack Obama also is committed to enacting comprehensive immigration legislation and will travel to Nevada on Tuesday to lay out his vision, which is expected to overlap in important ways with the Senate effort.

The eight senators expected to endorse the new principles Monday are Democrats Charles Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Michael Bennet of Colorado; and Republicans John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

Several of these lawmakers have worked for years on the issue. McCain collaborated with the late Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy on comprehensive immigration legislation pushed by then-President George W. Bush in 2007, only to see it collapse in the Senate when it couldn't get enough GOP support.

Now, with some Republicans chastened by the November elections which demonstrated the importance of Latino voters and their increasing commitment to Democrats, some in the GOP say this time will be different.

"What's changed, honestly, is that there is a new, I think, appreciation on both sides of the aisle — including maybe more importantly on the Republican side of the aisle — that we have to enact a comprehensive immigration reform bill," McCain said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

"I think the time is right," McCain said.

The group claims a notable newcomer in Rubio, a potential 2016 presidential candidate whose conservative bona fides may help smooth the way for support among conservatives wary of anything that smacks of amnesty. In an opinion piece published Sunday in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Rubio wrote that the existing system amounts to "de facto amnesty," and he called for "commonsense reform."

According to documents obtained by The Associated Press, the senators will call for accomplishing four goals:

    Creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here, contingent upon securing the border and better tracking of people here on visas.
    Reforming the legal immigration system, including awarding green cards to immigrants who obtain advanced degrees in science, math, technology or engineering from an American university.
    Creating an effective employment verification system to ensure that employers do not hire illegal immigrants.
    Allowing more low-skill workers into the country and allowing employers to hire immigrants if they can demonstrate they couldn't recruit a U.S. citizen; and establishing an agricultural worker program.

The principles being released Monday are outlined on just over four pages, leaving plenty of details left to fill in. What the senators do call for is similar to Obama's goals and some past efforts by Democrats and Republicans, since there's wide agreement in identifying problems with the current immigration system. The most difficult disagreement is likely to arise over how to accomplish the path to citizenship.

In order to satisfy the concerns of Rubio and other Republicans, the senators are calling for the completion of steps on border security and oversight of those here on visas before taking major steps forward on the path to citizenship.

Even then, those here illegally would have to qualify for a "probationary legal status" that would allow them to live and work here — but not qualify for federal benefits — before being able to apply for permanent residency. Once they are allowed to apply they would do so behind everyone else already in line for a green card within the current immigration system.

That could be a highly cumbersome process, but how to make it more workable is being left to future negotiations. The senators envision a more streamlined process toward citizenship for immigrants brought here as children by their parents, and for agricultural workers.

The debate will play out at the start of Obama's second term, as he aims to spend the political capital afforded him by his re-election victory on an issue that has eluded past presidents and stymied him during his first term despite his promises to the Latino community to act.

"As the president has made clear for some time, immigration reform is an important priority and he is pleased that progress is being made with bipartisan support," a White House spokesman, Clark Stevens, said in a statement. "At the same time, he will not be satisfied until there is meaningful reform and he will continue to urge Congress to act until that is achieved."

For Republicans, the November elections were a stark schooling on the importance of Latino voters, who voted for Obama over Republican Mitt Romney 71 percent to 27 percent, helping ensure Obama's victory. That led some Republican leaders to conclude that supporting immigration reform with a path to citizenship has become a political imperative.

NRA chief: Obama makes 'mockery' of American freedoms

The National Rifle Association chief issued a blistering retort to President Barack Obama's inaugural address, accusing him of name calling and limiting American freedoms.

Wayne LaPierre has been silent since his controversial response to a shooting massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.

In a speech late Tuesday night , he took shots at Obama's inaugural address.

"President Barack Obama quoted the Declaration of Independence and he talked about 'unalienable rights.' I would argue that his words make a mockery of both," LaPierre said at a hunting and conservation event in Reno, Nevada.LaPierre took issue when Obama addressed absolutism and criticized gridlock in Washington.

"For now decisions are upon us and we cannot afford delay," Obama said Monday.

"We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate."

LaPierre accused the president of name calling and questioned that statement.

"So what is this 'absolutism' the president attacks?" he asked. " And what are the so-called 'principles' that he wants us to settle for instead? Obama wants to turn the idea of 'absolutism, into a dirty word, just another word for extremism."

The re-emergence of NRA's potent mouthpiece comes on the same day of another school shooting that captured national headlines -- the wounding of three people on a Texas college campus.

His speech also comes as Obama and some lawmakers focus on passing gun control measures. Polls show more people are warming up to the possibility.

Last week, Obama proposed background checks on all gun sales, and bans on military style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

With relatives of some of the 20 children killed in the Connecticut rampage looking on, Obama also signed 23 executive actions -- which don't require congressional approval -- to strengthen existing gun laws. They also take related steps on mental health and school safety.

In his speech Tuesday, LaPierre set his sites on Obama's proposal to expand background checks to anyone buying a gun whether at a store or in a private sale at an auction or convention.

"There are only two reasons for that federal list of gun owners — to tax them or take them. And to anyone who says that's excessive, Barack Obama says you're an 'absolutist.' He doesn't understand you. He doesn't agree with the freedoms you cherish," he told the cheering crowd of hunting enthusiasts.

The tit-for-tat continues a running battle between the president and the powerful gun lobby.

Last week, the NRA released an advertisement that called the president an "elitist hypocrite," and asked why he opposes the idea of placing armed guards in every school -- a proposal pushed by the NRA -- despite the fact that his own children attend a school with similar security.

The ad was only slated to air on the Sportsman Channel, but has gained strong media attention, both on the airwaves and online. It has also garnered criticism.

Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey criticized it for making a reference to the president's children in a political attack commercial.

Speaking at a news conference last week, the outspoken governor decried the move as "reprehensible" and argued that the group lost some credibility by making the ad.

"And I think for any of us who are public figures, you see that kind of ad and you cringe. You cringe because it's just not appropriate in my view to do that," he said. "They've got real issues to debate on this topic. Get to the real issues. Don't be dragging peoples' children into this. It's wrong."