Tuesday at a breakfast with progressive media types, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi scoffed at a report that the White House was uncomfortable with how quickly the stimulus bill made its way through Congress:

"Let me get this straight," she said. "You're the president of the United States; you have a recovery package that you want done by the president's break; we get that done -- and we 'fast tracked it over the president's objections'? It couldn't be farther from the truth."

Put simply, President Obama is in a hurry. A big hurry. Not only with the way he demanded Congress pass the stimulus bill, but also with his desire to enact the sweeping changes across major sectors of American life he outlined in his first address to Congress.

Contrast Obama's opening salvo with another young president who took office amid turbulent times both at home and abroad. On January 30, 1961, this is how John F. Kennedy began his first speech to Congress:

I speak today in an hour of national peril and national opportunity. Before my term has ended, we shall have to test anew whether a nation organized and governed such as ours can endure. The outcome is by no means certain. The answers are by no means clear. All of us together--this Administration, this Congress, this nation-must forge those answers.

But today, were I to offer--after little more than a week in office--detailed legislation to remedy every national ill, the Congress would rightly wonder whether the desire for speed had replaced the duty of responsibility.

Kennedy offered this strikingly prudent tone despite the fact that his Democratic party held even larger majorities in the House (263 seats) and the Senate (64 seats) than Obama's party holds today (233 seats in the House and 58 in the Senate). Obama, on the other hand, went before Congress after one month on the job and unveiled a list of promises to transform American healthcare, energy, education, etc.

In his address, Kennedy went on to tell Congress that "the prudent heir takes careful inventory of his legacies and gives a faithful accounting to those whom he owes an obligation of trust."  Kennedy said America's greatest asset was the ability of its people, through the leadership of its representatives, to "face all problems frankly and meet all dangers free from panic or fear."

Again, contrast this with President Obama who, after running for two years as a "hopemonger," has received criticism from across the political spectrum for feeding the public a fairly steady diet of fear in his first few weeks in office that has been offset by far too little hope and optimism.

Much has been made of the similarities between Obama and Kennedy: both young, ambitious, charismatic, good looking; both excellent politicians and exceptionally gifted speakers.

But not nearly as much has been made of their differences.  Though he took office at the age of 43, four years younger than Obama is now, by the time Kennedy arrived at the White House he'd already served four years in the military, six years in the House of Representatives, and eight years in the United States Senate.

The wealth of those experiences may have far more to do with Kennedy's sober and deliberative approach upon taking office than the politics of the moment, just as Obama's background and experience may help explain why he appears to be in such a rush to push through an expansive, transformational agenda.

Barack Obama's campaign was launched in January, 2007 with an appeal to change the tone of our political discussion. In fact, Obama identified that as the principal problem with our politics, saying:

But challenging as they are, it's not the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most - it's the smallness of our politics. America's faced big problems before, but today our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, commonsense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first. We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans.

I thought there was some real merit to this claim, which is a big reason I found his candidacy so intriguing at the time.

(more...)

Evan Bayh made the case for rejecting the pork-laden omnibus spending bill in today's Wall St. Journal. Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute (which, despite its name, is a centrist DLC affiliated organization), followed suit today:

This bloated bill increases federal spending by 8 percent -- even as the government forecasts a record-shattering, $1.75 trillion deficit for 2009. It also contains no fewer than 9,000 earmarks. We're not opposed to all earmarks on principle, but too many of these would fail the laugh test even if the U.S. economy was humming.

Perhaps the most compelling of Obama's campaign pledges was his vow to change the way Washington works. The omnibus bill is a perfect illustration of the nexus between special interests, campaign contributions, and compliant members of Congress. By vetoing it, the president can serve notice that he's serious not only about ending business-as-usual in Washington, but also about fiscal discipline. [snip]

Sooner or later, Obama will have to face down the forces in Washington that propel chronic overspending, irresponsible tax cuts for the people who need them least, and massive borrowing from foreign lenders. He might as well start now.

Pressed by Jake Tapper of ABC News at the press briefing today, Robert Gibbs regurgitated the lame White House talking point that this bill is somehow "last year's business." It most certainly is not.

If Obama wants to go back on his promise to go "line by line" and eliminate any earmarks, that's his decision. But to try to pretend that this is somehow beyond the scope of his responsibility - above his pay grade, if you will - is insulting to the public's intelligence.

A new Field Poll in California shows that despite the fact the market has tanked, their state is teetering on bankruptcy and the state's unemployment jumped to over 10% last month, 42% of California residents say the country is "moving in the right direction." That's a twenty-seven point jump from last July's reading - taken a good two to three months before the financial crisis exploded.

Also, sixty-five percent approve of the job Obama is doing as President, sixty-two percent approve of his handling of the economy, and 52% approve of the President's $787 billion stimulus package.

A new Fairleigh Dickinson poll finds New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D), running for re-election this year with a 40% approval rating, in some trouble (Feb. 25-March 2, 751 RV, MoE +/- 4%).

The survey shows Corzine trailing the leading Republican challenger, former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie. Just more than half (55%) of Democrats chose Corzine over Christie (28% were undecided, 17% chose Christie). Other Republicans tested against Corzine include Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan, Assemblyman Rick Merkt and Franklin Township Mayor Brian Levine.

General Election Matchups
Christie 41 - Corzine 32 - Und 27

Corzine 36 - Lonegan 32 - Und 31

Corzine 37 - Merkt 28 - Und 35

Corzine 38 - Levine 27 - Und 36

Republican Primary
Christie 43
Lonegan 15
Levine 2
Merkt 1

Michael Steele gets a pair of unwelcome headlines today, one from Politico (Steele trap? GOP fears grow) and one from the DC Examiner (The Growing Republican Unhappiness With Michael Steele).

In the Examiner piece, Byron York points out something I haven't heard:

But some Republicans who were not particularly upset by Steele's references to Limbaugh were appalled when Steele, during the same program, sat quietly while CNN host D.L. Hughley said that last year's Republican National Convention "literally looked like Nazi Germany.  It literally did."  GOP insiders who saw the performance unanimously agreed that Steele was seriously, perhaps unforgivably, remiss in not challenging a television host who compared Republicans to Nazis.

And in the Politico, Mike Allen and Andy Barr have another interesting tidbit:

In another incident that drew unwanted scrutiny to the chairman, Steele was asked by Fox News host Neil Cavuto if he would consider supporting primary challengers against the three Republican senators who voted in favor of President Obama's stimulus package, Steele seemed to threaten moderate Republican Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Susan Collins of Maine by responding: “Oh, yes, I'm always open to everything, baby, absolutely.”

Snowe, who is not facing reelection in 2010, told Roll Call that she approached Steele to ask: “You didn't really mean that, did you?”

Overall, I'm not sure criticisms of Steele amount to much - at least not yet. Part of Steele's job is to put a new face on the party, and he's trying to do that to the best of his ability. But the other part of his job, which is equally (if not more) important, is to raise money and recruit good candidates around the country to run for office. It's too early to tell how successful he's been on those fronts, but in a month or two more Republicans will be able to assess with some validity whether he's getting the job done or not.

The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal survey finds 60% of Americans approving of the job President Obama is doing, with 26% disapproving (Feb. 26-March 1, 1007 A, MoE +/- 3.1%). Far more people now feel the country is moving in the right direction -- 26% said it was in January (prior to Obama's inauguration), and 41% now say it is.

Respondents said they tend to support the economic stimulus package by a 57%-34% margin, with more than one-third saying their biggest concern with it is the amount of pork-barrel spending. Over the next 12 months, 51% feel the package will help only a little, and 31% feel it will help quite a bit or a great deal.

"Americans have more confidence in the president himself than in some of his initiatives, such as the economic stimulus package, and have some hesitation about his plans to raise taxes to expand health coverage," writes WSJ's Laura Meckler.

A new Quinnipiac survey finds 59% of Americans approving of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president, with 25% disapproving (Feb. 25-March 2, 2573 RV, MoE +/- 1.9%). Democrats in Congress got a 45%/45% approval rating, while Americans disapproved of Republicans in Congress, with 30% approving and 58% disapproving.

Obama has a 59.8% RCP Average Approval Rating.

Half of respondents were asked whether the government would solve the economic crisis in the next two years; and by a 68%-26% margin, they said no. The other half were asked whether Obama would fix the economic crisis in the next two years; by a similar 64%-24% margin, they said no.

Ted Kennedy will be knighted.

New York Gov. David Paterson broke the wrong kind of record today, with The Marist Poll announcing that Paterson's approval rating came in lower than any other governor in the pollster's 30 years of tracking in the state.

With just 26% saying Paterson is doing an excellent or good job -- including 30% of Democrats, 26% of Republicans, 20% of independents -- he drops below Gov. Eliot Spitzer's 30% approval in March 2008, just before resigning from office. Paterson's rating has dropped 20 points in just over a month.

Paterson is also falling way behind in potential 2008 primary and general election matchups. Tested against Paterson were Democrat Andrew Cuomo, and Republicans Rudy Giuliani and Rick Lazio.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) is likely facing a difficult election in 2010 as well, and Marist tested Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and two Republicans, Rep. Peter King and former Gov. George Pataki.

Governor
Democratic Primary
Cuomo 62 - Paterson 26

Republican Primary
Giuliani 78 - Lazio 17

General Election Matchups
Giuliani 53 (+6 vs. last poll, Jan. 27) - Paterson 38 (-8)
Paterson 47 - Lazio 35

Cuomo 71 - Lazio 20
Cuomo 56 - Giuliani 39

Senate
Democratic Primary
Gillibrand 36 - McCarthy 33

Republican Primary
Pataki 56 - King 32

General Election Matchups
Gillibrand 49 - King 28
Gillibrand 45 - Pataki 41