Asked whether Republicans in Congress should do everything to stand firm for their party's principles and oppose the legislation,

I just skimmed through the actual survey and saw no question asking about Republican "principles." Looks like the WSJ is engaging in propaganda. Shocking.

Of course, maybe it just means that opposing legislation is just assumed to be a Republican "principle."

Obviously, Congress must step in once again to save the public from itself.

This is exactly why Obama putting out the 80 number for the Senate is a shrewd play. Not getting 80 because 30 republicans want less spending will show the republicans as the problem not Obama.

"On a series of measures -- from being seen as easygoing and likable to being perceived as a good commander-in-chief -- Mr. Obama rated higher than President George W. Bush or former President Bill Clinton did shortly before they took office."

This is unsurprising, given that he had a larger popular vote majority than either of these two previous presidents. Having over 50% of the country vote for you would tend to lead to over 50% of the country being willing to have a positive opinion of you. Both Clinton and Bush the Lesser had to deal with the fact that they were initially elected by margins that meant that less than half of the (voting) population wanted either of them in office in the first place. That would tend to make a hit on your initial popularity.

the public seems to value the importance of stimulus through spending.

A majority of American voters are spendthrifts. Having spent all of their own money on themselves, they now want to spend other people's money on themselves.

Didn't George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan cut taxes and increase spending as Obama is proposing to do? Did it work? What is different in Obama's/Congress's spending plans this time compared to those predecessors?

NonyNony makes a good point: Obama has a higher approval rating AND he got a higher percentage of the vote. Both are aspects of the same thing: he has stronger support among the citizens than either of his two predecessors. Since the election, centrists have come to like him more, and far leftists have come to like him less, with what appears to be a net gain in support. On election day, he'd have probably gotten a higher percent of the vote had we known he'd keep Gates, bring back Summers and Rubin, and bring in Geithner.

I think his economic policies will fail, as such "stimus packages" have always failed, but they are the conventional wisdom. Telling the voters that you support the conventional wisdom is a sure way to harvest short-term support. When the investors/entrepreneurs restore economic growth, as they always have after a panic, he will take the credit, and his supporters will excuse the increase in debt, as supporters always have done. In this manner, his short-term support will translate into long-term support (i.e. re-election) even if his policies fail or are irrelevant.

"Not a bad way to get started". isn't his inauguration just a few days after Martin Luther King Day? That's a good way to get started.

Of course. Spreading around free money is ever popular. This is why democracies always fail--electing charlatans who promise free money.

Ah, that explains it. I've been wondering why it has seemed that every reporter I've heard talking about the stimulus recently has taken pains to spend a lot of time talking about the deficit. Got to get busy reshaping public opinion so it lines up with the GOP again.

What is different in Obama's/Congress's spending plans this time compared to those predecessors? -marketeer

The differences are who is getting the tax cuts and where the money is spent. Those are fairly significant differences that anyone giving more than lip service to the issue would immediately discover.

You're doing nothing more than regurgitating a media soundbite.

What the public percives as a solution does not impress me. Now we will borrow from our kids. Consume resources as if they belong to this generation only. Act like we are the masters of our fate. I wish I could sell this position short.

"Now we will borrow from our kids. Consume resources as if they belong to this generation only. Act like we are the masters of our fate"

The GOP has been borrowing from our kids for the past 20 years. All the spending has been on weapons and supply-side economics (and we now know how well that went).

I agree that we should borrow as little as possible, which is why I think the wealthiest people in this country (who control a hugely disproportionate amount of this nation's wealth) should pay a larger portion of the cost to fix this mess.

Given that they've accrued unconscionable sums of money through using the GOP as their tool, they shouldn't get any breaks unless they use their capital in ways that will repair our broken economy.

Wish I hadn't seen that...what the people want poll.
Congress has this habit of doing just the opposite of what the people poll and then trying to convince them this is what they really should want. Hell, the dems gave Bush every thing he demanded, in spite of how the people polled on the issue. After 8yrs of this behavior I have reason to be paranoid...they have a track record.