Associated Press

Ordinarily, committee votes on cabinet nominees wouldn't be especially interesting, but this one was a little more important than most.

President Obama's pick for labor secretary cleared a minor hurdle in the confirmation process Thursday as a Senate committee voted to clear the nomination of Thomas Perez for consideration by the full Senate.

Members of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee voted 12-10 along party lines, with all Republicans opposing the nomination while the Democrats supported it.

If you're looking at your watch, thinking it's a little early for a committee vote on a cabinet nominee, you're correct -- the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee scheduled this vote early on purpose, so as to circumvent Republican obstructionist tactics.

Last week, when the committee wanted to approve the Perez nomination, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) used a procedural motion on the Senate floor to block the vote. Committee Democrats scheduled this morning's vote extra early so GOP senators couldn't get in the way.

It may seem silly and childish, but then again, so is Congress.

What's more, let's also not forget that the objections Republicans have raised about Perez are, as Adam Serwer has reported several times, partisan nonsense.

The next question, of course, is what happens next. Perez has cleared committee, but what happens when his nomination is brought to the floor?

Senate Republicans have not formally announced their plans, but a filibuster appears extremely likely. And if that happens, there will be a couple of angles to keep an eye on, other than the obvious fate of Perez himself.

White House photo

A Jon Chait piece the other day reminded me of the GSA controversy from a while back. Remember that one? We learned last year that the General Services Administration had misused public funds, spent excessively on several training conferences, and a legitimate mess ensued. There were congressional hearings, several officials resigned, and the GSA was forced to clean up its act in a hurry.

If this doesn't ring a bell, or if you never heard about it in the first place, that's because most of the political world didn't much care. There was some coverage, but it was seen as an intra-agency fiasco that was dealt with fairly quickly. One could argue that the GSA is part of the executive branch, and the executive branch is led by President Obama, so the buck may ultimately stop with him, but no one seriously suggested the president was to blame for this, and it certainly wasn't characterized as a "White House scandal."

I mention this because the political world's standards appear to have changed in a hurry.

The IRS story, for example, is a legitimate controversy, just as the GSA story was, but it too is an intra-agency fiasco -- confused bureaucrats struggled with ambiguous tax standards, in the midst of breakdowns in communication between staff and management. They screwed up in a big way, and the agency will have to clean up its act. But does this have anything to do with the president or the White House? Based on everything we now know, not even a little. And yet, everyone from Jon Stewart to Rush Limbaugh is blaming Obama anyway.

There are different explanations for this, but the political world's preoccupation with "narratives" seems to have quite a bit to do with it. And right now, the preferred narrative has to do with White House scandals and a presidency in crisis, even if that doesn't really make sense.

E.J. Dionne summarized the issue nicely this morning:

I know, I know: This "confluence" of "scandals" spells "trouble" for the Obama administration. Well, sure, this has been hell week for the president. But what spells trouble for our country is our apparent eagerness to avoid debate about discrete problems by sacrificing the particulars and the facts to the idol of political narrative. It's a false god.

There are three distinct stories that have captured so much attention, which I suspect is part of what's driving the narrative -- once is chance, twice is coincidence, the third time makes a pattern, and much of the political world has decided there must be a pattern pointing to something since, you know, there are three stories.

But the eagerness to embrace the narrative, and publish a few too many stories about a "second-term curse," may have blurred the political world's sense of perspective.

Associated Press

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was asked yesterday about House Republicans, once again, voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act, even though House Republicans realize this is pointless. Noting the insanity of doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, Reid said they have "truly lost their minds."

That's not an unfair assessment.

As we get ready for the latest vote, I've been troubled by the confusion over exactly how many repeal votes we've seen, since it should be easy enough to count them and get a reliable number. And yet, I've seen wildly divergent figures. David Fahrenthold and Ed O'Keefe, to their credit, published a detailed list yesterday, pointing to 36 such votes, making today's repeal effort the 37th. (If that sounds a little low to you, note that this only includes votes in the House, not the Senate. If we include both chambers, the total is in the mid-50s.)

For convenience sake, let's accept this number as a consensus figure. Let's also accept as true that House Republicans are being wildly irresponsible with this nonsense, even by congressional standards.

Three dozen is a lot for a bill that currently has no prayer of becoming law. But the figure 37 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.

They know their bill can't pass. They know if it did, millions of Americans would suffer. They know they haven't bothered to come up with an alternative policy. And yet, they waste their time and ours with nonsense, largely because it makes them feel better about themselves.

There's real work to be done at the federal level, and this is how House Republicans chose to spend their time. It's an embarrassment.

When it comes to the mess surrounding the Justice Department's subpoenas of Associated Press phone records, the White House has a relatively straightforward response: neither President Obama nor anyone in the West Wing had anything to do with this. The Justice Department oversees investigations, and the White House doesn't interfere.

The defense isn't altogether satisfying -- the president could denounce such subpoenas, even if they're legal -- but Obama and his team can at least argue, accurately, that DOJ decisions are made at the DOJ, as they should be.

With this in mind, it was interesting to see Wendell Goler, Fox News' White House correspondent question the "firewall" between the West Wing and the way in which the Justice Department conducts a federal investigation.

For those who can't watch clips online, Goler noted that President Obama sat next to Attorney General Eric Holder at an event yesterday at the Police Officers Memorial, and asked whether the AP investigation came up in conversation. Press Secretary Jay Carney said, "You can be sure that the firewall that we maintain is always maintained."

It led to this exchange:

Q: Walk me through why it's necessary to maintain that firewall.

CARNEY: Seriously? So it is entirely appropriate that criminal investigations conducted by the Department of Justice be independent of the White House, of any White House. And in a case like this when, according again to the Attorney General, that this is an investigation that has to do with an egregious leak of classified information, it would be doubly inappropriate for other components of the administration to cross that line and to communicate with the Justice Department about that ongoing investigation. So we do not.

Let's hope the right doesn't start suggesting the "firewall" between the White House and Justice Department investigations should be lowered, just so it becomes easier to criticize the president for controversial DOJ decisions.

The news on initial unemployment claims over the last several weeks was so encouraging, we were starting to get a little spoiled. There are, however, some bumps in this road.

The number of people who applied for new unemployment benefits surged by 32,000 to 360,000 in the week ended May 11, putting jobless claims at the highest level in a month and a half, according to the U.S. Labor Department. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had expected claims to rise to a seasonally adjusted 330,000 from a revised 328,000 in the prior week.... The average of new claims over the past month, which smoothes out weekly volatility, rose a much smaller 1,250 to 339,250 and remained near a five-year low.

It's only natural to wonder whether sequestration cuts contributed to the unexpected spike, but a Labor Department official told Marketwatch that there's no evidence to connect the two, at least not yet. We'll know more in the coming weeks.

To reiterate the point I make every Thursday morning, it's worth remembering that week-to-week results can vary widely, and it's best not to read too much significance into any one report.

In terms of metrics, when jobless claims fall below the 400,000 threshold, it's considered evidence of an improving jobs landscape, and when the number drops below 370,000, it suggests jobs are being created rather quickly. We've been below the 370,000 threshold 19 of the last 22 weeks, and below 350,000 in four of the last six weeks.

Above you'll find the chart showing weekly, initial unemployment claims going back to the beginning of 2007. (Remember, unlike the monthly jobs chart, a lower number is good news.) For context, I've added an arrow to show the point at which President Obama's Recovery Act began spending money.

Associated Press

Rachel noted on the show last night that the controversy surrounding Benghazi effectively "went away" yesterday, and given the latest information, it's hard to imagine how any serious person could disagree.

The White House yesterday afternoon released the inter-agency communications that went into crafting the "talking points" requested by Congress last September. Lawmakers already saw these materials months ago -- they found nothing controversial at the time -- but Republicans and the media decided it was time to see them again.

So, the administration, eager to put the matter to rest, released the documents. In turn, we learned what we already knew: there was no cover-up; State and the CIA engaged in a predictable bureaucratic "tug of war"; and this:

The internal debate did not include political interference from the White House, according to the e-mails, which were provided to congressional intelligence committees several months ago.

And with that, everything Republican conspiracy theorists desperately wanted Americans to believe -- there's a scandal; there's a cover-up; there's evidence the White House manipulated and lied about a crisis for political ends -- suddenly evaporated before our very eyes.

House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) office issued a statement last night saying the revelations raised more questions. In fact, I have one myself: how is any fair-minded person still expected to take the Republican arguments about this non-scandal seriously?

What's more, note that most sensible people realized the right's conspiracy theories were wrong, which is why the so-called "controversy" was relegated to Republican media, until last Friday's report from ABC News pushed the story into the mainstream. That ABC News report, we now know, was wrong.

There's just nothing left. Trying to characterize this as a genuine political story worthy of attention has been a misguided partisan exercise for months, but now, it's reached the point of ridiculousness. Every reporter saying the White House is engulfed in "three scandals" is misleading the public -- there was a deadly attack against a U.S. diplomatic outpost last year, which left four Americans dead. It was a tragedy; it was not a political controversy.

Put a fork in the Benghazi story; it's done.

NBCDFW.com

6 dead, at least 14 missing after tornadoes rip through Texas.

6 Americans reported killed in a suicide attack in Kabul, Afghanistan.

CBS News: Boston bombing suspect Dzokhar Tsarnaev left a note in the boat he hid in.

Read the Acting IRS Commissioner's resignation letter.

Filibuster reform apparently depends on whether Republicans block Richard Cordray next week.

Legal challenges begin against North Dakota abortion laws.

How to smuggle KFC in Gaza.

Ok, now that Chris Hayes has blown up the spot by featuring Geoguessr in tonight's Click 3, we should all get on the same page about how great this game is.

Imagine you've been abducted by aliens, knocked unconscious, and returned to Earth randomly. You wake up on a random street and have to figure out where you are. That's basically how Geoguessr works. It places you randomly anywhere on Earth with Google Street View and you have to figure out where you are and drop a pin in the map provided. The closer you are to correct, the higher your score. I think the highest you can get is somewhere around 6500. Each game consists of five sessions, so I've been treating a score of 30,000 or better as respectable.

I played this all weekend with my 7-year-old and we had a great time spotting languages and identifying climate zones. We cheat like crazy with another map open in a separate tab. Then he goes to bed and I keep playing, it's that fun.

The botched reporting by ABC News of the White House e-mails discussing which details of the Benghazi attacks would be presented to the public might be described as a journalistic...

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.

As Rachel reported this evening, while the U.S., Russia and Iran are not on the same page diplomatically, their respective superstar wrestlers share the common cause of preserving wrestling as an Olympic sport. Among the means to that end was an exhibition today held at Grand Central terminal. TRMS producer Andy Dallos managed to pick up a press credential and brought his camera along to the afternoon matches between the U.S. and Iran.

Wednesday night's citations are listed after the jump.

Tonight's guests include:

Sam Stein, Huffington Post White House Correspondent

Michael Isikoff, NBC News investigative correspondent

Sen. Barbara Boxer, (D) California, 

Here's tonight's soundtrack!

And here's executive producer Bill Wolff with a preview of tonight's show:

President Obama delivered a statement at the White House this afternoon on the IRS controversy. The video is above, but the full transcript is below:

"I just finished speaking with Secretary Lew and senior officials at the Treasury Department to discuss the investigation into IRS personnel who improperly screened conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. And I look forward to taking some questions at tomorrow's press conference, but today, I wanted to make sure to get out to all of you some information about what we're doing about this, and where we go from here.

"I've reviewed the Treasury Department watchdog's report, and the misconduct that it uncovered is inexcusable. It's inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it. I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives. And as I said earlier, it should not matter what political stripe you're from -- the fact of the matter is, is that the IRS has to operate with absolute integrity. The government generally has to conduct itself in a way that is true to the public trust. That's especially true for the IRS.

"So here's what we're going to do. First, we're going to hold the responsible parties accountable. Yesterday, I directed Secretary Lew to follow up on the IG audit to see how this happened and who is responsible, and to make sure that we understand all the facts. Today, Secretary Lew took the first step by requesting and accepting the resignation of the acting commissioner of the IRS, because given the controversy surrounding this audit, it's important to institute new leadership that can help restore confidence going forward.

"Second, we're going to put in place new safeguards to make sure this kind of behavior cannot happen again. And I've directed Secretary Lew to ensure the IRS begins implementing the IG's recommendations right away.

"Third, we will work with Congress as it performs its oversight role. And our administration has to make sure that we are working hand in hand with Congress to get this thing fixed. Congress, Democrats and Republicans, owe it to the American people to treat that authority with the responsibility it deserves and in a way that doesn't smack of politics or partisan agendas. Because I think one thing that you've seen is, across the board, everybody believes what happened in -- as reported in the IG report is an outrage. The good news is it's fixable, and it's in everyone's best interest to work together to fix it.

"I'll do everything in my power to make sure nothing like this happens again by holding the responsible parties accountable, by putting in place new checks and new safeguards, and going forward, by making sure that the law is applied as it should be -- in a fair and impartial way. And we're going to have to make sure that the laws are clear so that we can have confidence that they are enforced in a fair and impartial way, and that there's not too much ambiguity surrounding these laws.

"So that's what I expect. That's what the American people deserve. And that's what we're going to do. Thank you very much."

Today's edition of quick hits:

* IRS: "A senior official at the Internal Revenue Service has told congressional investigators that two IRS employees have been disciplined in relation to the special scrutiny applied to conservative groups, Congressional sources told NBC News on Wednesday." [Update: President Obama will deliver a statement on the IRS situation at 6 pm. eastern.] 

* Iraq: "Bomb attacks in Shi'ite areas of Baghdad and in northern Iraq killed more than 35 people on Wednesday, following weeks of violence by Sunni Islamist insurgents determined to unleash sectarian confrontation."

* Obama spoke this morning in honor of fallen law-enforcement officers who died over the last year.

* Austerity is a terrible failure: "Economic output contracted in the euro zone for a sixth-straight quarter, as a slight recovery in Germany failed to offset recessions in France and Italy."

* Syria "The U.N. General Assembly 'strongly' condemned the Syrian government Wednesday for its 'indiscriminate' shelling and bombing of civilians and 'widespread and systematic' human rights violations in a conflict that has dragged on for more than two years and left more than 70,000 people dead."

* More on Syria: "A senior Israeli official signaled on Wednesday that Israel was considering further military strikes on Syria to stop the transfer of advanced weapons to Islamic militants, and he warned the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, that his government would face crippling consequences if it retaliated against Israel."

* Water bill: "The Senate voted 83-14 for a water infrastructure bill on Wednesday, the first such bill the upper chamber has moved since 2007."

* A crisis gets worse: "Ahead of possible major actions from the Pentagon and Congress on sexual assault in the military, the U.S. Army is forced to confront yet another instance of a member of the armed forces involved in a shocking sexual assault scandal."

* Adelson: "A Nevada jury Tuesday returned a $70 million verdict against GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson's global casino and resort company, Las Vegas Sands, in a high-profile lawsuit over the company's expansion into Macau."

* I lacked the energy to respond to the Politico piece everyone's talking about, but it's genuinely awful and a case study in what's wrong with so much of Beltway reporting. It does suggest, however, that the D.C. media establishment is effectively prepared to go to war with President Obama, in part because it considers him "aloof," and the White House can expect "ruthless" coverage for the indefinite future.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.