by Mark Silva
There really are only three things at work here:
In Washington, there is rhetoric, and there is action. Outside of Washington, there is perception.
At the moment, the public's perception is that President Barack Obama is making a more sincere effort to work with the Republicans in Congress than the effort that Republicans in Congress are making to work with the Democratic president.
Sixty percent see Obama trying.
Just one-third see Republicans as trying.
But that's not the whole picture.
The trend lines over time on this one look like the paths of two once faraway but soon colliding trains: In December, before Obama's inauguration, 80 percent of those surveyed by the Gallup Poll said they saw the newly elected president as making a sincere effort to work with Republicans in Congress "to find solutions that are acceptable to both parties.'' Just 19 percent said he wasn't trying.
In April 66 percent said he was, 30 percent said he wasn't. In the latest survey, 60 percent said he is, 38 percent said he isn't.
"Barack Obama may have failed to achieve much bipartisan agreement on his major policies since he took office,'' Gallup reports today, "but Americans give him credit for trying.... Americans are much less likely to believe members of Congress in either party are trying to work with the other side than to believe Obama is."
Yet, as the numbers show, "Americans were much more optimistic about Obama's reaching across the aisle immediately after his election last fall, when 80 percnent thought he would make a sincere effort to work with Republicans.''
That perception early on probably had a lot to do with Obama's own rhetoric about reaching across the aisle, as well as the sense of optimism surrounding a new administration. The president's own public approval rating reached 69 percent in the days after inauguration, not bad for a president who had been elected with little more than half the popular vote.
But there has been a lot of action since then, and inaction as well.
In February, after a month in office, Obama was able to win a $787-billion economic stimulus bill, but he won it without a single Republican vote in the House and just three in the Senate - including one who later became a Democrat, Arlen Specter.
Obama has been trying for months to get some action on a health-care overhaul, but now, as Democratic leaders in the Senate find next to no support among Republicans for various plans they are promoting, and the House's Democratic leaders insist they cannot pass a bill without a "public option'' for health insurance, something which Republicans will not buy, the likelihood of any bill passing at all may rest with Democrats ramming one through.
"Even so, most Americans give Obama credit for trying to be bipartisan even if the results of those efforts are not necessarily apparent,'' Gallup's Jeffrey Jones suggests.
"That may stem from the public's recognizing some of the specific actions Obama has taken, such as meeting with Republican leaders about the stimulus bill and expressing a willingness to forego elements of healthcare reform most distasteful to Republicans. It may also be due to a "halo effect" from positive feelings toward Obama in general -- something that does not apply to members of Congress at this time.''
The "halo,'' however, is thinning.
Obaa's approval rating is hovering in the low 50s in the Gallup Poll - it's 51 percent in the latest results of the Gallup daily tracking survey, exactly where it stood the day that Obama delivered an address to a joint session of Congress reaching out to Republicans with some ideas of their own - some token movement on "tort reform'' as well as support for one of 2008 Republican rival Sen. John McCain's campaign ideas, coverage for catastrophic illnesses.
Thumbs-up, McCain signaled the president from the floor of the joint session, before going on to join his party in characterizing the president's address as partisan.
Republicans, with the latest incarnation of a Senate healthcare bill advanced by Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, maintain that they still are being closed out of true compromise on the most important aspects of the president's health-care plans. Some of the Senate's Democrats aren't so happy about it either, suggesting that the party is likely to close ranks around a GOP-out measure.
If there is action on a health-care bill such as that, without a Republican vote in support, following all of the rhetoric that Americans have heard since Election Day, the question will become what the public perception is then: Success or chaos?
The Gallup survey on bipartisanship was conducted Sept. 11-13, with 1,030 adults interviewed, and a 4 point possible error margin.
Comments
The President could halt healthcare, lower taxes on the rich and heavily tax the middle class, ban abortion put up a 100 ft high fence on the border from the Gulf to the Pacific and the GOP would still not accept him as a partner in governence. The President's only error may be that, in an attempt to reach out to a rabid herd of GOP ankle biters, he may be disappointing his base that see his want to seek some sort of concensus as futile and non-poductive. This is evidenced by his numbers spiking after his address last week that was highlighted by his calling out the GOP for not coming to the table.
His numbers among Republicans didn't change a bit. Dems and Independants saw the President stepping it up and supported him. Now he needs to keep calling out the GOP smear machine and advancing the agenda of change.
He can and he will.
That being said, what does Rasmussen say Bruce?
Posted by: kg123 | September 18, 2009 8:35 AM
TODAY’S REPUBLICANS ARE AMERICA'S ENEMY WITHIN
Republicans ARE practicing seditious DEMAGOGUERY and subversive OBSTRUCTIONISM intended to destabilize our economy for purposes of political exploitation.
Republicans AREN'T making a sincere effort to STOP the bleeding THEIR incompetent leadership and failed policies created. Instead, they're using inflammatory lies and accusations as a smokescreen to conceal their subversive agenda, which is to cause President Obama and America to fail so they can blame Democrats for the consequences of THEIR calamitous mismanagement.
Republicans ARE preposterously professing that THEIR disgraceful political WHORING had nothing to do with the banking, real estate, stock market and employment catastrophes that resulted.
Republicans ARE trying to hamstring Democrats to prevent them from repairing the damage caused during a Republican presidency.
Republicans ARE offering ridiculous arguments meant solely to disrupt and prevent progressive change. They'd rather divide America and create political gridlock than endure the political consequences of effective Democratic governance.
Republicans AREN'T the LOYAL OPPOSITION; they ARE the ENEMY WITHIN whose mercenary personal priorities have eroded their moral and ethical standards to the point that duplicity and betrayal are their preferred modus operandi.
It's one thing to advocate their conservative beliefs; it's another thing entirely to willfully sabotage America's government because a successful Democratic presidency would not be vulnerable to the greed, fears and hatreds that have produced and sustained the radical Republican corporatism and anti-Christian racist social divisions that are poisoning and crippling America.
Posted by: osage | September 18, 2009 8:42 AM
From the past-practice point of view, Congress, for the two years prior to President Obama's victory, were constantly obstructing the Democrat's policies and legislative initiatives. The Democrats were lucky to receive 3-5 of the Republican-Libertarian votes, in support of their initiatives. As you noted, above, one of the votes was an eventual Republican turned Democrat, like Senator Shelby, only he was a Democrat turned Republican. So those switches all come out in the wash. What doesn't, and that is the problem here, the way I see it, President Obama's victory enables him to present an agenda, that he think is good for America. Now unless, what our President presents is destructive of our nation and her security, he has the right and the duty, to steer our ship of state into waters that he deems safe. The unfortunate fact is, if one can be honest with themselves, in assessing the rancor since his inauguration, there has been a steady drumbeat of lies, distortions and paid saboteurs who have not only attacked President Obama's presidential initiatives, but they have attacked him, personally. Dissent, laughably, it may be called, by those who are hiding behind a word that has value, when used honestly. That is the element your three point presentation has failed to include, in your evaluation of President Obama's attempts at bipartisanship, in my humble opinion. The rancor, the vehemence and yes, the hate, that has been on display, almost since his inauguration. How can the opposition, the Republican-Libertarian Party, cooperate, amid such blind partisanship from what is purported to be their own constituents !! We can all take our guesses as to why these developments coalesced so quickly, not even six(6), months into his Presidency !! Already, there were well-organized, well-paid, visible and vocal, bands of disruptors, masquerading as outraged Americans !! What was their purpose !!? It seemed to me, there sole purpose was to prevent democratic dialogue to occur, between elected officials and their, constituents. What were they afraid of, that they couldn't allow the people to hear from their elected officials !!? That question takes us outside of the subject, President Obama's attempts at bipartisanship. So does another element and no small one, at that !!!! What role does President Obama's ethnicity play in this apparent predisposition, for the Republican-Libertarian Party, to deny cooperation to our first African-American President !!?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | September 18, 2009 9:54 AM
With 90% media support, you'd think Obama's numbers would be better.
Posted by: Emily Post | September 18, 2009 12:39 PM
" kg123": Rasmussen says -8 on the strong approve/strong disapprove and an all time high of 55% against the health reform bills. But, Rasmussen polls likely voters. Those are the ones who are actually paying attention.
I am not surprised that a lot of people who are not paying attention think Obama is reaching across the aisle. But, that is only because Obama says he is. He is not. In fact, in one town hall, he promised to sit down with any legislator and go over health care line by line. But, so far the White House had not answered letters or phone calls requesting the promised session. I guess we can call that "dissembling" instead of lying.
Rick
Posted by: Rick Caird | September 18, 2009 2:20 PM
With 99.9% of the news outlets being one type of corporation, or another, if President Obama's favorable coverage reaches the 35-40% levels, he would be very lucky. I can't speak for Murdoch's Corporate mouthpieces, but I'll take a wild guess and say, President Obama's favorable numbers are not quite that high, on those propaganda machines !! Corporate sponsors do not support President Obama's initiatives, even, or especially, when they say they support him !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | September 18, 2009 3:27 PM
Sure Obama is bipartisan. He'll cooperate with any Republican who knuckles under to his deceptive Marxist agenda.
Posted by: The Guy Who Hides Behind False Names (so sayeth Don) | September 18, 2009 3:28 PM
Rick,
Likely voters like the well informed woman at the McCain Rally who knew Obama was an Arab? Being a "likely voter" doesn't even remotely make you well informed. Looks like you're the one that's ill-informed.
Posted by: kg123 | September 18, 2009 3:52 PM
Don saith:
I see that the children of the Right are bouncing off of walls, trying to distract us adults, from have a sensible conversation. How unfortunate for them. They could have sat still and learned something !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | September 18, 2009 5:07 PM
Obama's commitment to bipartisanship was exposed shortly after Jan. 20, when he said, dismissing any Republican input, "I won." that tells us all we need to know about how he'd play nice with others.
Answer -- he won't. He's way too arrogant.
Posted by: beth | September 18, 2009 9:32 PM
He really doesn't need bipartisanship.
Just the impression of attempting it.
Everyone knows the other side are jackasses like Boehner....
But Obama will still get credit for extending the olive branch
Posted by: ornery | September 20, 2009 12:20 AM