Grounded!

"He said 'there will be time to beat him up and a time for politics.' He said 'I understand that and I will watch you on Fox News and feel bad about myself.' "

With John Boehner and John McCain saying they plan to vote against the stimulus package, Slate's John Dickerson asks: "How will Obama respond? In the face of increased opposition, how much will Obama work for bipartisanship as an end in itself? Will he agree to GOP modifications to buy votes, or will he accept puny GOP support because he knows that, in the end, voters are more interested in action than whether he lived up to some standard of bipartisanship that he set for himself? (From the loophole he created in his ethics policy, we know that he is comfortable with exceptions to his own rules.)

"For their part, Republicans have to figure out how willing they are to buck an extremely popular president who has the gifts to convince the public that his opponents are acting in their political self-interest. Republicans who seek to use Obama's own promises of bipartisanship against him also have to overcome the perception that Obama has been making a genuine effort to reach out (with the exception of the Rush Limbaugh distraction), which is exactly what voters want from him . . .

"A lot of this rumbling could disappear when it comes to a final vote on a bill aimed at helping people who are really hurting. Obama aides assume at a minimum that Republicans would be committing suicide if they pushed their opposition too far."

Bill Kristol, late of the NYT, tackles that question in the Weekly Standard:

"Obama has just become president and the ball is in his court. There are severe limits to what the GOP can do over the next couple of months. In fact, Republicans might be better off doing nothing at all. Since Election Day, the GOP has been nowhere to be seen and Obama's popularity has soared, but the Democrats' edge over the Republicans in the generic congressional ballot of the Rasmussen poll hasn't increased at all.

"George W. Bush, the leader of the party -- and, let's face it, of conservatives -- for the last eight years, has only just left town. Fairly or unfairly (mostly unfairly), he ended up a very unpopular guy. It's going to take a while for Republicans to shake free of the Bush effect. And, more important, to shake free of the fact that for the last 14 years, and 26 of the last 28, there's been a Republican president in the White House and/or Republican control of Congress . . .

"Republicans, newly liberated, need to resist calls to shackle themselves to prematurely announced agendas and already anointed leaders. This is the time for a thousand Republicans to bloom."

Do some Obama-Bush comparisons go too far? National Review's Jay Nordlinger gets indigestion from reading this AP piece:

"Visiting one of his favorite Chicago restaurants in November, Barack Obama was asked by an excited waitress if he wanted the restaurant's special margarita made with the finest ingredients, straight up and shaken at the table. 'You know that's the way I roll,' Obama replied jokingly. Rick Bayless, the chef of that restaurant, Topolobampo, says Obama's comfortable demeanor at the table -- slumped contentedly in his chair, clearly there to enjoy himself -- bodes well for the nation's food policy. While former President George W. Bush rarely visited restaurants and didn't often talk about what he ate, Obama dines out frequently and enjoys exploring different foods.

"They've got to knock President Bush even for what he ate -- or rather, for not talking about what he ate! And for 'rarely visiting restaurants.' Of course, if he had gone to restaurants -- particularly pricey ones -- the press would have scored him for extravagance, plutocracy: for indifference to the unfortunate. 'W. Dines on Beef Wellington While Barrio Kids Go Hungry.' "

Obama draws kudos from Andrew Sullivan for his maiden TV interview, with al-Arabiya: