The only example that comes to mind, is Palin and that stupid bridge, and as I recall they took the money anyway.

Why would anyone be surprised when Obama throws open the doors to federal vault and asks “Who wants some?” Every single governor says “Me, me, me.”

This poll could be an outlier, but at 5 to 1 they’re not calling that particular question the wrong way, and the broader results conform to Gallup’s polling as well. Support is at best ambivalent for the overall package, and the porkfest portion has lit up the public’s cynicism alarms. Party animals may reflexively love it (or hate it, by party) but the independents aren’t buying the sales pitch.

For really bad partisan-slanted polling, try the LA Times. They’ve been so consistently wrong over the years you can make book on them being wrong.

However, it’s one poll and they have been wrong before.

Here’s one from CBS yesterday…

Fifty-one percent of those surveyed support the stimulus package, while 39 percent do not. An additional 10 percent don’t know. Last month, 63 percent supported the package and just 24 percent opposed it.

Americans believe the president is following through on his promise to establish greater bipartisanship in Washington: The public overwhelmingly thinks Obama is reaching out to Congressional Republicans, with 81 percent saying he is doing so.

Americans do not believe that Congressional Democrats and Republicans are following suit, however: Only 49 percent believe that Congressional Democrats are striving for bipartisanship, and just 41 percent say Congressional Republicans are seeking bipartisanship.

What to make of this?

There’s support out there, but it’s start to diminish. That’s all these polls ultimately tell us.

My favorite line from the report:

“Most Americans believe that a dollar of tax cuts is better for the economy than a dollar of government spending. “

Talk some sense to the American people JG! Oh, and go back to your old comments format in the sidebar. It was better when you knew what thread was updated. The current way is too confusing.

Most governors have to be for their state first and their party second, unless and until they reach the stage where they are bailing on their state to run for President. Like when Mitt Romney rediscovered his socially conservative principles at the advent of his prez run.

If Crist’s state goes down the tubes while he’s in charge, his prez prospects will be precisely nil. That means that it’s just as easy for Crist to support this particular bill now as it is for Mitt Romney to say that we need something that’s more carefully crafted.

So far from Crist being a profile in courage, I think it’s more accurate to see him as a profile in

“Heelllp! Heelllp! Heelllp! Holy sh!t, someone bail out my state and me.”

Not that there’s anything intrinsically wrong with that PoV. Again, what I object to is your characterization of Crist’s PoV as being especially worthy of our attention and respect, while, simultaneously dismissing Romney’s.

I object to it, but it doesn’t surprise me. You have consistently supported the PoV that says its far more important to do something really big really quickly than it is to ascertain whether what we do is likely to provide substantial sustained help beyond the near term.

I’m happy to acknowledge that yes, delay MAY be fatal. The future is, after all unwritten. But you are always eager to avoid conceding that precipitous action could lead to our squandering one of our few chances to effectively turn things around. Your philosophy seems to consistently chant “ready, fire, aim.”

What astonishes me these days is how very many of the same folks who complained that we invaded Iraq precipitously are now eager to risk the solvency of our government by quickly throwing giant piles of borrowed money at every half-baked politically riven proposal that a congresscritter can get down on paper.

Sin in haste, repent at leisure, I guess.