Like many in the GOP, Senator Lamar Alexander is baffled as to how a President who is generally regarded by members as nice, amiable, and a likable person can be so clueless and tone deaf when it comes to the actual process of bipartisanship:

“On the big issues, on healthcare, on so-called financial regulation, the stimulus, the White House has been absolutely tone-deaf to bipartisanship,” Alexander said. [snip]

“I have a good, personal relationship with the president. I served with him. I like him,” Alexander said. “But as far as my ability to be involved in his objectives, they're limited.”

The former Tennessee governor did give credit to Obama's education and energy secretaries for working with him on various issues, but said the White House is the problem.

“Either the White House doesn't want to work in a bipartisan way on the big issues or doesn't know how,” he said.

The President has always talked the talk of bipartisanship, but he clearly hasn't walked the walk during his first year in office. Part of the reason, as Alexander notes, is due to process: the President hasn't done a good job of engaging with Republicans in a serious way to hash out compromises at the start of the sausage making process. That's no small deal, especially when the pieces of legislation (like the stimulus, health care, cap and trade, etc) are massive, transformational, and cut straight to core ideological differences between the two parties.

But the other reason is clearly stylistic: Republicans appear tired of Obama's rhetorical and political tricks. He's repeatedly made bipartisanship more difficult by employing straw man arguments and attacking the motives of his opposition. He's stoked the ire of the GOP by saying - untruthfully - that they were offering no solutions, then belatedly acknowledging the GOP did have solutions worth looking at, and then declaring most of those ideas illegitimate and ignoring them. And on a few occasions he's done what he did this past Tuesday when he made a plea for bipartisanship to Republicans during the day, and then turned right around and attacked the GOP before a highly partisan audience that night at a fundraiser for Barbara Boxer in San Francisco.

In fact, Obama made a revealing comment about his view of bipartisanship on Tuesday night. According to the New York Times, Obama related the following to the Democratic crowd about part of his lunch conversation with Republicans regarding the issue of immigration:

“You've got to meet me on solving the problem long-term. It's not enough just to talk about the National Guard down at the border,” Mr. Obama said he told the lawmakers. “You don't even have to meet me halfway. I'll bring most Democrats on these issues. I'm just looking for 8 or 10 of you.”

Notice how Obama frames himself as the bipartisan bridge builder who's willing to travel great political distances - well beyond "halfway" - to reach a compromise with Republicans. Yet in the very next breath Obama reveals he's really only interested in traveling a bare minimum in a quest for bipartisanship.

Obama would argue that Republicans have been the ones feigning bipartisanship while remaining utterly devoted to killing his agenda, and there's obviously some truth to that. But let's face it, when the President cannot win the votes of moderates like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe on his signature pieces of legislation, whatever he claims to be doing to generate bipartisanship is clearly failing. Furthermore, the President is the one who ran on rising above petty political arguments and bridging the old political divides in the country, which makes his thin-skinned reactions over the past 15 months more surprising and noticeable.

At this point, it's hard to see a political detente in the near future. Even a serious thumping for the President's party in the midterms may not lead to any bipartisan course correction on the part of the White House. It certainly didn't after Massachusetts, and the President still managed a political victory on health care, despite forcing it through on the most narrow, partisan lines imaginable. And the White House continues to cling to the notion that the political anger swirling in the country isn't directed at the President but exists because change isn't coming fast enough:

Americans are increasingly optimistic about the economy, but that brightening outlook hasn't softened their outrage over the country's direction and its political leadership, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds. [snip]

White House adviser David Axelrod says that's not surprising. "There's been a lot of frustrations and grievance building up for years," he says. "For many Americans, it (the recovery) still hasn't touched their lives."

It appears that, regardless of the outcome in November, if Republicans are expecting President Obama to change his political behavior or to chart a more sincerely bipartisan course after November, they're going to be sadly mistaken.

Over at the Atlantic, Joshua Green writes:

It would be silly to write him off, and I still think he's the favorite in the race, but the week since he won the GOP primary has been a terrible one for Rand Paul, and now we have poll numbers to back that up. A new Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll has Paul running neck and neck with Democratic attorney general Jack Conway, leading him 44-40. That's a far cry from the 59-34 lead that a recent Rasmussen survey showed. Of course, Paul may never really have had a 25-point lead. Jon Chait explains the problem with Rasmussen polls. In any event, seems safe to conclude that a fair number of Kentuckians support the Civil Rights Act...

One small problem with Green's analysis: it's an apples-to-oranges comparison of polls. In fact, on May 10, well before there were any comments about the Civil Rights Act, the Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll had Rand Paul ahead of Conway 42%-39%.  The current DKos/R2000 poll shows Paul's support is up to 44% and Conways' is up to 41%, which means there's no change in the three point differential between the two candidates.  They teach this on the first day of Poll Analysis 101.

As President Obama promised at yesterday's press conference, the White House has released its internal review of discussions between administration officials and Rep. Joe Sestak (D), and whether any legal or ethical lines were breached in an effort to push the Pennsylvania Democrat out of the Senate race.

The finding of White House counsel Bob Bauer is that "allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law." But he does find that "options for Executive Branch service were raised," not by White House staff, but by former Pres. Bill Clinton. More:

Secretary of the Navy. It has been suggested that the Administration may have offered Congressman Sestak the position of Secretary of the Navy in the hop that he would accept the offer and abandon a Senate candidacy. This is false. The President announced his intent to nominate Ray Mabus to be Secretary of the Navy on March 26, 2009, over a month before Senator Specter announced that he was becoming a member of the Democratic Party in late April. Mabus was confirmed in May. At no time was Congressman Sestak offered, nor did he seek, the position of Secretary of the Navy.

Uncompensated Advisory Board Options. We found that, as the Congressman has publicly and accurately stated, options for Executive Branch service were raised with him. Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified. The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak, while important to the work of the Administration, would have been uncompenstated.

White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak. The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board. Congressman Sestak declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to his Senate candidacy.

The memo goes on to say that there "have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior Administrations -- both Democratic and Republican, and motivated by the same goals -- discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office. Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements."

Of course, the problem with that statement is that President Obama has pledged repeatedly to change business-as-usual in Washington. Justifying its actions by saying past administrations have done the same is inconsistent with that pledge.

California Republican Carly Fiorina is launching a new statewide TV ad today that tells voters considering choosing Tom Campbell to vote for her "instead." The ad also highlights Sarah Palin's endorsement of Fiorina, in which she called Campbell a "liberal" Republican.

The two most recent polls in the June 8 Senate primary show Fiorina with leads of 20 points or more, though earlier polls showed the race in flux. Fiorina has the added advantage of personal wealth, already loaning her campaign $5.5 million.

The races for Senate and governor in Ohio both will likely go down to the wire. But a University of Cincinnati poll released today (668 LVs, 5/11-20, MoE +/- 3.8%) shows Democratic candidates in both races narrowly ahead.

Gubernatorial General Election Matchup
Strickland (D) 49
Kasich (R) 44
Und 6

Senate General Election Matchup
Fisher (D) 47
Portman (R) 46
Und 6

Gov. Ted Strickland leads former Rep. John Kasich among independent voters 44-30, but in the Senate race it's Republican Rob Portman leading Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher in that group, 44-35.

The survey also finds President Obama's job rating underwater in the Buckeye State; 46 percent approve of his performance while 49 percent disapprove. That's down from a 52/45 split in October. Gov. Ted Strickland's rating has improved, however. Fifty-five percent approve while 35 percent disapprove, up from 48/37 in October.

John Spratt was first elected in 1982 to represent the rural Fifth Congressional District of South Carolina with 68% of the vote.  Since then, he has generally been re-elected by double digits (close calls in 1994 and 1996 being the exceptions), despite having a voting record that just barely places him among the 100 most conservative Democrats.

Part of this is because South Carolina Five is a little bit like Pennsylvania Twelve -- a rural district filled with voters who traditionally vote Democrat -- and who still do at the local level -- and who are not crazy about voting for Republicans except when they face off against national Democratic Presidential candidates. Six of the ten state Senate seats contained within the Fifth are represented by Democrats, as are ten of the eighteen state house seats.  The Republican representation is concentrated in Cherokee and York (Charlotte suburbs/exurbs) Counties, which, not coincidentally, were two of Spratt's three weakest counties in 2008.  He typically carries the remaining counties with over 60% of the vote.

This year, Spratt seems to be in for his biggest test in over a decade.  He's supported all three "big-ticket" items on the President's agenda:  cap-and-trade, the stimulus, and health care reform.  He has a solid challenger in state Senator Mick Mulvaney.

And he's the recipient of some bad polling.  Back in January, Public Policy Polling sampled the Fifth, and found Spratt leading Mulvaney 46%-39%.  This week, Mulvaney's camp released a poll from Public Opinion Strategies, showing Spratt ahead by two points, 43%-41%.

Now, this is a campaign poll, so it should be taken with an appropriate grain of salt (or, if you like, add a couple of points to the Democrat's total).  Nevertheless, even adjusting for the "campaign" aspect of it, Spratt is below 50%, and possibly around the 45% "line of death" for politicians.  I think this will be a tough race, and RCP lists it as a tossup, but Spratt appears to be in real trouble.

Here is Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty - who is clearly running for president in 2012 - in an interview with David Gregory:

Pawlenty also questioned the 2008 federal bailout of the mammoth American International Group under former President George W. Bush.

"How much worse would the world be without AIG? I mean, really? I make an argument it might be better," he said.

"So you would have let AIG default?" Gregory said.

"I think so," Pawlenty responded.

This is one of those consequence-free comments that politicians just can't resist. People may rightfully hate AIG and its role in the financial meltdown, but we can safely assume - with a degree of certainty approaching 100% - that faced with the same kind of dire situation where the choices were bad (bailing out a bad actor) and worse (global financial cataclysm), President Tim Pawlenty would have done exactly the what Bush did. The potential risks involved with letting AIG fail were too great, and doing so would have been irresponsible under the circumstances.

On RCP, RCW's Gregory Scoblete reviews Ian Bremmer's new book, The End of the Free Market. On Politics Nation, Kyle Trygstad and Mike Memoli preview Tuesday's primary in Alabama.

On RCM, Larry Kudlow blasts Congress's planned $200 billion spending bill.

Todd Crowell argues on RCW that, in the wake of the turmoil, Thailand should move its capital out of Bangkok.

Finally, on RCS, Art Spander writes that Game 5 of the Lakers-Suns series on Thursday night represented the best the NBA has to offer.

A new CNN poll shows that while only 4% of Americans think "terrorism" is the biggest issue facing the country, the number of people who think a terrorist attack is "somewhat" or "very" likely to occur in the United States "over the next several weeks" is at its highest level (55%) in five years. This is a big jump from the last time CNN asked this question in August, 2009, when just 34% said the same.

This suggests 1) a public lack of confidence in the ability of the Obama administration to keep America safe from terrorists, or 2) a general resignation on the part of the public, given the three terrorist attacks in the past year (with disaster narrowly averted on Christmas Day and in Times Square but not at Fort Hood), that we we are bound to be hit again no matter what we do, or 3) some combination of one and two.

Washington Sen. Patty Murray (D) holds just a 1-point lead over Republican Dino Rossi in a new Rasmussen survey (May 25, 500 LV, MoE +/- 4.5%). It's the second poll this week to show Murray below 50% -- the crucial mark that determines an incumbent's vulnerability.

Murray 48 (nc vs. last poll, May 4)
Rossi 47 (+1)
Und 4

Rossi announced his candidacy Wednesday morning and instantly became the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Murray leads three other Republicans vying for the nomination by double-digits: Clint Didier, Don Benton and Paul Akers.