House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) appeared on CNBC yesterday, and made a comment about the IRS controversy that struck me as problematic. Cantor, like most Republicans, seems have abandoned the argument the White House intervened and directed the tax agency on tax-exempt applications, and is now arguing that the White House should have intervened and directed the tax agency on tax-exempt applications, even during the Inspector General probe.

"If you've got an ongoing IG investigation or audit and there comes to you information about this type of behavior where you are discriminating against political opponents, I do not accept the fact that the White House says well we couldn't interfere with that audit or that investigation. That's not true. They know that kind of activity was going on. That is clearly a point at which they should have gone in and said, 'Don't do that anymore.' And that would not have interfered with the continuance of that investigation by the Inspector General."

There's quite a bit wrong with this. In fact, Cantor, who routinely struggles with the details of various developments, seems confused about some of the basics.

First, there's the "there comes to you information" phrase -- as Cantor sees it, the White House was notified about potential trouble at the IRS in 2012 and had a responsibility to act. He's mistaken -- the White House was notified of the Inspector General's investigation in April 2013, once it was complete and ready to be published. Cantor's theory seems to be based on his trouble with the calendar.

Second, at just as important, Cantor believes White House officials who didn't know about IRS troubles could have given agency officials instructions without interfering with the ongoing investigation. You know who disagrees? House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who said the exact opposite just last week. And I think it's fair to say Issa has no interest in helping bolster the White House's arguments.

And while we're at it, let's go ahead and note that Cantor believes the IRS office in Cincinnati was "discriminating against political opponents," but let's not forget that several liberal groups were subjected to the same scrutiny.

So what in the world is Eric Cantor talking about? And why is he repeating bogus arguments on national television?

The Boy Scouts of America voted yesterday to end some of its discriminatory policies yesterday, lifting a ban on gay kids and teens from joining the organization. Group officials announced the intended shift last month, and the policy was codified yesterday with the support of a majority of the Scouting's National Council.

Some discrimination, however, will persist -- gay young people will be welcome, but gay adults hoping to serve as Scout leaders will still be prohibited. It led to an odd message from the group, effectively saying gay youths are fine, but gay adults are inherently suspect. Yesterday's move, then, was a step in a more just direction, but it is not yet a full breakthrough for equality.

Nevertheless, the outrage from right bordered on hysterical. I enjoyed scrolling through the Twitter feed for Right Wing Watch last night, and was amazed at just how over the top social conservatives' criticism was.

For example, Matt Barber, a lawyer with a group called Liberty Counsel, said the Scouts have become the "latest formerly honorable institution to crumble" under the "homofascist agenda." The American Family Associations Bryan Fischer added, "BSA now stands for Boy Sodomizers of America, because that's what will happen. Mark my words."

If recent history is any guide, we'll see some kind of far-right boycott and perhaps the formation of some rival Scouting organization. The efforts will fail and in a few years, folks will look back at this moment and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Associated Press

For many Americans, President Obama's speech on national security yesterday was long overdue. The president effectively presented a vision to end the nation's post-9/11 war footing -- rejecting the notion of perpetual war, repealing the AUMF, emptying the Guantanamo detention facility, ending subpoenas for reporting, and improving oversight of drone strikes.

It was a big, bold move, and with the proper follow-through, yesterday may well prove to be a turning point for the nation. And within a couple of hours of the speech, one thing was clear: some notable Republicans really didn't care for it.

The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence panel, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, dismissed the speech as rewarding detainees at Guantanamo who are carrying out hunger strikes.

"The President's speech today will be viewed by terrorists as a victory," Chambliss said in a written statement. "Today's speech sends the message to Guantanamo detainees that if they harass the dedicated military personnel there enough, we will give in and send them home, even to Yemen."

As Josh Marshall joked, "Who could have imagined that a Senator who came into office on a commercial morphing his opponent into Osama bin Laden would declare Obama speech a victory for terrorists."

That's a good line, and it reinforces a larger truth. Those who were following politics in the Bush/Cheney era will no doubt recall a cliche that was used a little too often: if we do _____— then the terrorists win. Republicans used it with great sincerity for many years, using it to condemn just about every Democratic idea on national security and the use of military force. It became easier to rely on the cliche -- using it to stifle dissent and debate -- than to engage in a serious exploration of foreign policy wisdom.

In time, the line of thought became more of a punch-line than a position, but Chambliss' knee-jerk reaction to the president's speech suggests some of his opponents remain stuck in the past. For many Republicans, it is, and will always be, 2002.

And it's not just Chambliss.

3 people pulled from the water after a bridge on an Interstate collapses in Washington State.

Was the bridge design to blame?

The NY Times on the CIA as it begins evolving from a paramilitary organization back to traditional espionage.

The Boy Scouts of America vote to let openly gay scouts in, but not openly gay scout leaders.

Sen. Tom Harkin: no action on ENDA until July.

IRS official Lois Lerner is placed on administrative leave.

Maine Gov. Paul LePage moves out of his office because of a dispute over a t.v. screen. 

What is that on the bottom of the Sea of Galilee?

Though the challenges President Obama faces in trying to shut the prison at Guantanamo Bay are more political than legal, we still might call the case he's making...

Need help? Need to shout out the answer without spoiling anyone else's game?

There's a thread for that.

*Remember to mention the number of the puzzle you're talking about.

Citations for Thursday night's show are listed after the page break.

Tonight's guests include:

Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU

Robert Gibbs, former White House press secretary and MSNBC contributor

Jeremy Scahill, national security correspondent for The Nation and author of “Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield”

And here is executive producer Bill Wolff with how tonight's show will blow your mind:

Today's edition of quick hits:

* A bipartisan group of senators today unveiled new legislation intended to prevent sexual assault in the military.

* Oklahoma: "Three days after one of the most destructive tornadoes to strike Oklahoma in decades, people here [in Oklahoma City] filed into a mortuary chapel Thursday morning amid heavy rain and flashes of lightning for the first of two dozen funerals."

* A shift in posture? "A North Korean envoy, Marshal Choe Ryong-hae, said the North would 'accept the proposal' by China to "open up dialogue," the China News Service reported Thursday. The comments were reported after Marshal Choe met Liu Yunshan, a member of the Communist Party Standing Committee and the politician who heads ideological affairs for the Communist Party."

* House Republicans embraced the one resolution they know won't become law, because they're not especially serious about governing: "The House on Thursday passed legislation to head off a doubling of student loan interest rates on July 1, instead tying rates to prevailing market trends and ending federal subsidies."

* London: "A day after two alleged Islamic extremists brutally killed a British soldier, Prime Minister David Cameron vowed that his nation would not succumb to fear and promised a vigorous investigation into what appears to be this city's first successfully executed terror attack since the coordinated transit system bombings in 2005."

* Ricin: "The FBI has arrested a suspect in a case involving the discovery of a pair of letters containing the deadly poison ricin and says investigators are working "around the clock" to address any remaining risks."

* Middle East: "As he embarked on another round of meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Thursday in an effort to revitalize the peace process, Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged the doubts being expressed on both sides over his chances of success."

* Responsible policymakers need to know when to ignore constituents who are mistaken: "Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said Thursday his constituents have suggested they were audited by the Internal Revenue Service because they donated to Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign."

* And when conservative pundits get to the point at which they think sexual assaults in the military may be a secret ploy to divert attention away from White House "scandals," maybe it's time they write about something else for a while.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

We're accustomed to President Obama delivering big political speeches, and thinking about them in political terms -- was the rhetoric persuasive, will various constituencies approve or disapprove, how will the arguments be received, etc. But some speeches are important for reasons that have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with policy.

President Obama's speech on national security this afternoon, delivered at the National Defense University, clearly falls into this latter category. This wasn't about inspirational oratory; this was a war-time president charting a new, more constructive course when it comes combating terrorism.

Indeed, it was arguably a key moment in marking a possible end of the 9/11 era. [Update: Transcript here.]

It's a little tough to summarize, largely because the president covered so much ground, and for detailed analysis, I'd strongly encourage you to tune in to tonight's The Rachel Maddow Show. But for now, let's talk a bit about Obama's approach to national security going forward.

"[M]ake no mistake: our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. We must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11."

This isn't what the right wants to hear, of course, but it's very much in line with the assessments of nearly all credible experts on counter-terrorism. The nature of the threat has changed, and a responsible U.S. policy must change with it. That the president realizes this is a low bar to clear, but it's nevertheless encouraging.

"America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison's warning that 'No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.' Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. What we can do -- what we must do -- is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. To define that strategy, we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom."

Right. The "total defeat" of a possible terrorist threat, now and forever, is not going to happen, and basing a national foreign policy on such a goal is counter-productive.

"[W]e must define our effort not as a boundless 'global war on terror' -- but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America."

It's a genuine relief to hear a president say this out loud.

Associated Press

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

Of all the recent judicial confirmation votes, today's was the most important.

After five years of trying, President Barack Obama has placed his first nominee on a key appeals court in Washington.

The Senate voted unanimously on Thursday to confirm Sri Srinivasan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court is considered the most important in the country after the Supreme Court. The Senate voted 97-0 in favor of his nomination.

Srinivasan is currently the principal deputy in the Office of the Solicitor General. He has worked in both Democratic and Republican administrations and served as a law clerk to former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Srinivasan's name also came to public prominence in March: he's the attorney who argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that the Defense of Marriage Act should be struck down.

So why is his confirmation so important? For one thing, the D.C. Circuit is generally considered the second highest federal bench in the nation, behind only the U.S. Supreme Court, in part because it hears so many regulatory cases related to the federal government. President Obama named exactly zero jurists to the D.C. Circuit in his first term, which has proven to be a problem.

Indeed, Senate Republicans, as recently as last month, said they hoped to keep that going indefinitely, preventing each of the president's nominees from reaching the D.C. Circuit for both of Obama's terms. Obviously, as of today, that strategy is no more.

Associated Press

It's an election year in Virginia, and it doesn't help the state Republican Party that its slate of statewide candidates are dominated by right-wing extremists. It also doesn't help that the outgoing Republican governor of the commonwealth is in the middle of a scandal that now has an outside prosecutor.

Virginia's attorney general has appointed an outside prosecutor to investigate Gov. Bob McDonnell's financial disclosures, in a widening scandal over a political donor who wrote a $15,000 check for the wedding of the governor's daughter, and who was also a benefactor of the attorney general.

Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, the attorney general, who is also the Republican candidate for governor this year, said on Wednesday that he named the outside prosecutor last November to look into Mr. McDonnell's disclosures.

Mr. Cuccinelli said "information came to my attention" triggering the appointment of the prosecutor. His referral of the case to the Richmond commonwealth's attorney, Mike Herring, whose role is similar to that of a district attorney, "was not a conclusion that any violation occurred,'' Mr. Cuccinelli said in a statement.

Cuccinelli did not, by the way, make this announcement proactively, but rather, acknowledged the investigation after the Richmond Times-Dispatch uncovered the investigation through a Freedom of Information Act request.

What's more, it's not immediately clear whether Cuccinelli appointed an outside prosecutor because he's caught up in the same controversy, because the governor is currently working to help elect the state A.G., or perhaps a combination of the two.

Regardless, the scandal is an increasingly serious problem for the Virginia governor. For background on what the story is all about, take a look at our previous coverage.

Getty Images

Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.)

The ongoing congressional debate over the Farm Bill has made clear just how eager Republicans are to cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, the program formerly known as food stamps). Despite high unemployment, a Senate committee approved striking $4.1 billion from the program over 10 years -- and the House GOP is looking for cuts five times as large.

Helping lead the way is none other than Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.), who balked when Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee urged Republicans to remember "the least of these." The Tennessee Republican, defending the cuts, countered with 2 Thessalonians 3:10: "For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat."

As a theological matter, this isn't constructive -- as Jack Jenkins explained, the Bible verse "was actually referring to ancient Christians who had stopped working in anticipation of Jesus' Second Coming. The verse is concerned with correcting a theological misunderstanding (i.e., don't just wait around for Jesus, live an active faith), not passing judgment on the poor."

But wait, it gets much worse.

A Tennessee congressman who supports billions of dollars in cuts to the food stamp program is one of the largest recipients of federal farm subsidies, according to new annual data released by a Washington environmental group.

Using Agriculture Department data, researchers at the Environmental Working Group found that Representative Stephen Fincher, a Republican and a farmer from Frog Jump, Tenn., collected nearly $3.5 million in subsidies from 1999 to 2012. The data is part of the research group's online farm subsidy database from which the group issues a report each year.

In 2012 alone, the data shows, Mr. Fincher received about $70,000 in direct payments, money that is given to farmers and farmland owners, even if they do not grow crops.

So, the guy who's trying to slash assistance for struggling families, arguing that it's necessary to cut spending and let the poor fend for themselves, is also the beneficiary of generous agricultural subsidies? This Tea Party Republicans wants the Department of Agriculture to give him money, but not the poor?

Yep, pretty much.

Ohio's House Republicans last month passed a bill that would punish universities if they help students vote. Included in the regular budget, the proposal would force universities to charge out-of-state students the lower in-state tuition rate if the universities give the students a letter or utility bill proving they live at school. Ohio universities say that would cost them as much as $370 million each year.

To which Ohio's House Speaker responded, verbatim, "That's a rather gigantic amount of money, and I just couldn't respond to it. I don’t know what to say." 

Meanwhile Republicans in the Ohio Senate have desperately been trying to slam the brakes on their colleagues' plan. For one thing, $370 million is truly a gigantic amount of money. For another, the House Republicans would create an incentive for more students to register to vote, and students tend to vote Democratic. It seems that Ohio's House Republicans had not thought about that part, either. From a Cincinnati Enquirer editorial:

Backers of the bill say they are rethinking the proposal because they hadn't considered the unintended consequences.

So it never occurred to them that making it easier for out-of-state students to get the lower in-state tuition rate -- indeed, requiring it if they want to vote here -- would not turn them away from voting but might in fact encourage them to vote, precisely to obtain the lower rate?

In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students have the right to vote in person at college. The court said it is students' constitutional right, under the 26th Amendment. Three decades later, Ohio Republicans are not satisfied with that. Republican State Senator Randy Gardner says the question of student voting belongs "in a separate election-reform bill," reports the Columbus Dispatch.

Some senators share concerns that students who have no intention of living in Ohio after college are voting not only in presidential elections in a vital swing state, but also on local tax levies.

"To dismiss this as a nonissue would not be fair," Gardner said.

Ohio's Senate is expected to decide on changes to the budget, including the student measure, by June 5.

Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R), already struggling in advance of his re-election campaign, was asked at an event last week whether he has any Latino staffers. "No, we do not have any staff members in there," the governor responded. "If you can find us one, please let me know."

* In Massachusetts' U.S. Senate special election, billionaire Tom Steyer is gearing up to boost Rep. Ed Markey's (D) prospects. "NextGen, working with our local partners, will be seeking to be a politically disruptive force between now and Election Day," reads the memo sent by Chris Lehane, a spokesman for Steyer's NextGen super-PAC, to the PAC's campaign team, and obtained by The Hill.

* Remember former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R), the failed former presidential and gubernatorial candidate? The anti-immigrant conservative announced this morning that he'll be running for governor in Colorado once again in 2014.

* In Iowa, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Gov. Terry Branstad (R), now in his fifth term, with a fairly strong 49% approval rating. The same poll, however, found a 43% plurality does not believe he deserves a sixth term.

* Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) now has the support of a super PAC. The name isn't subtle: Rand PAC 2016.

* Despite being in the minority, the House Democrats' campaign committee narrowly outraised their Republican counterparts in April, $5.4 million to $5.1 million.

* Despite being in the minority, the Senate Republicans' campaign committee narrowly outraised their Democratic counterparts in April, $3.56 million to $3.54 million.

* And in Utah, Saratoga Springs Mayor Mia Love (R) is looking for a rematch against Rep. Jim Matheson (D) in 2014.