I know it will come as an enormous shock to you, but the Washington Post found that Americans don’t have much faith in any figure in Washington to resolve the debt-ceiling issue.

Democrats can find a bit of solace in that Obama rates the highest among the six figures, but even he’s “underwater,” with 49 percent having little or no confidence in him, and the two figures with the least amount of public confidence are Senate majority leader Harry Reid (57 percent say “not too confident” or “no confidence”) and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (61 percent).

Looking at the party breakdown, we’re left wondering, who are the 10 percent of self-identified Republicans who have faith in Pelosi here? And would anyone have expected Republicans to have more faith in Harry Reid than Barack Obama?

There’s grim economic news and of course, more on Weiner in the Morning Jolt, but also . . .

He Really Is Getting Predictable

Whenever Obama gives a speech, you feel you like you know half of it before the teleprompter even gets warmed up, right?

“Let me be clear.” “As I have said many times before . . .” “Some say we must [unserious idea on the right that almost no one is really proposing]. Others say we must [equally unserious idea that only the most unhinged lefties want]. But I reject this false choice, and say we must . . .” “I have seen examples of [phenomenon he’s talking about] in my own life, where only in this country could the son of a Kenyan immigrant rise . . .”

I’m noticing that “the stakes are too high” quite often.

So if you’re invited to the White House, decorum and tradition would compel you to attend, even though you could probably print out an Obama speech bingo card and get BINGO within the first four minutes. But it appears the patience of one freshman House Republican is wearing thin: “’I have respectfully declined the president’s invitation to the White House today,’ Rep. Jeff Landry (La.) said in a statement. ‘I don’t intend to spend my morning being lectured to by a president whose failed policies have put our children and grandchildren in a huge burden of debt.’ Landry is skipping a White House meeting with the entire GOP House caucus. Obama will meet with House Democrats on Thursday. Landry said he would not sit down with Obama to negotiate on a deficit reduction compromise until Obama produces his own budget plan. ‘Until the president produces a responsible deficit reduction plan, I’m not going to the White House to negotiate with myself. Our conference has put out for months where we would start the process,’ Landry continued.”

Pat Austin at And So It Goes in Shreveport gives Landry two thumbs up, declaring, “ If Landry continues to stick by his guns like this, he’ll do well in my book.”

Landry appears to have created a fan in Doug Ross: “As Darren ‘Wall Street’ Bettencourt said of ‘The Transporter,’ “Hmmm, I like him.” This is one GOP freshman with stones and, for that, we salute you, Congressman. That is what you call speaking truth to power.”

Landry won’t hear any criticism from Moe Lane: “Worse, Landry would have been tediously lectured to . . . although I must admit that President Obama is a bit of an expert on debt. After all, he’s had plenty of recent hands-on experience in creating it.”

Lest you fear Landry missed any surprises, Jake Tapper of ABC News assures us . . . nope. “As the dozens of members of the House Republican Conference left the White House where they’d spoken with President Obama about the deficit and job creation, Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., had a one-word review of the mood in the meeting.

“Frosty is the word,” Gingrey said. [Eric] Cantor also criticized Democrats’ “Medi-scare” attacks, saying that the charges that the GOP is taking medicine from grandma to pad the pockets of the rich isn’t helpful. He urged the president to continue the cooperation from December — when the Bush tax cuts were extended — to not “raise taxes on families, small businesses and investors.” The president added that he is all for a reduction of demagoguery, an issue he understands since he is the ‘job killing, death panel, probably-wasn’t-born-here president.’”

But of course. Obama really does associate everyone who disagrees with him with Birthers, doesn’t he? You notice the wind went out of the Birther’s sails the moment Obama, you know, actually put out the long-form certificate. Yet there he is, griping with Eric Cantor as if he’s the guy who published Jerome Corsi’s book.

Just in case you were wondering, I’m told House majority leader Eric Cantor is not interested in running for the now-open Senate seat in Virginia in 2012.

Obviously, Cantor just achieved one of the highest posts in the House, and former senator George Allen appears to have the inside track for the GOP nomination, although several other Virginia Republicans are expected to run.

The Thursday edition of the Morning Jolt looks at the Panda Pander, Steve Cohen’s words that heal, and the repeal vote:

Oh, sure, it’s only step one. But it’s a step that Obama and his allies did everything possible to prevent in 2010, and they fell short. The Hill reports, “The House voted on Wednesday to repeal the sweeping healthcare law enacted last year, as Republicans made good on a central campaign pledge and laid down the first major policy marker of their new majority. The party-line vote was 245-189, as three Democrats joined all 242 Republicans in supporting repeal.” Hey, Hill, if three Democrats joined the Republicans, it’s not really a party-line vote, is it?

B. Daniel Blatt is mildly disappointed that only a trio of Democrats backed repeal: “Well, fewer Democrats voted for repeal than I had anticipated.    Gotta give theunpopular Minority Leader credit for holding her caucus together.  Still, the Republican leadership did a lot better holding their caucus together for the repeal vote than their Democratic counterparts did with their caucus in the previous Congress:  all 242 Republicans backed repeal.”

At the American Spectator, Phil Klein observes, “The House of Representatives voted 245 to 189 to repeal the national health care law. The legislation attracted more votes in the House than the initial passage of the law itself, which received 219. Just three Democrats, however, joined Republicans in voting for repeal — Dan Boren, Mike Ross and Mike McIntyre.”

Robert Stacy McCain looks closer at the final vote: “We’re waiting for Steve Cohen to denounce these Democrats as Nazi stooges. Maybe DailyKos can target them in next year’s primaries. Strangely enough, 10 Democrats who voted “no” on passage in 2009 also voted against repeal, which gives the GOP ammunition against them in the next election cycle: If you wouldn’t vote to pass it, why won’t you vote to repeal it?”

The dare tactic mentioned in yesterday’s Jolt is repeated: “’The American people deserve to see a vote in the Senate, and it ought not to be a place where legislation goes into a dead end,’ House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said. Cantor noted that Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) had said the debate over repeal of healthcare would be a ‘political win’ for Democrats. ‘If so, let’s see the votes,’ Cantor said.” It will be amusing to see Senate Democrats insisting that public opinion is overwhelmingly on their side and insist that the legislation must not ever come to the Senate floor.

NRO’s Andrew Stiles offers late word of a pledge from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:  “I hope the Senate will soon follow suit with a vote of its own. The Democratic leadership in the Senate doesn’t want to vote on this bill. But I assure you, we will. We should repeal this law and focus on common sense steps that actually lower costs and encourage private sector job creation. That’s what Americans want. It’s the right thing to do.”

Today’s Morning Jolt features a look at how WFB launched Joe Lieberman’s Senate career, Salon’s declaration of “The Vindication of Dick Cheney” — no, really! — and this bit about a showdown on Capitol Hill:

Eric Cantor Double-Dog Dares Harry Reid

I would like to think that at some point, Eric Cantor will get a chance to run into Harry Reid in some hallway in Congress, and he’ll get a chance to squint and rasp through gritted teeth, “I know what you’re thinking. ‘If the Senate votes to repeal Obamacare, will I lose six Democrats or only five?’ Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is the repeal bill, one of the most powerful mandates in the political world, and the political pressure on your Red State senators would blow your caucus apart, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?” 

Alas, the formal challenge was a bit more mundane: ““If Harry Reid is so confident that the repeal vote should die in the Senate then he should bring it up for a vote if he’s so confident he’s got the votes,” Cantor said.

Apparently among the new advisors to the House Republican Caucus: Rex Ryan.

Next tactic: Chicken clucking noises.

After a few days off for Thanksgiving and some Comcast-related abbreviations on Monday, the Morning Jolt is back and off to the editors, on your way to your e-mailbox. A sneak preview:

Obama Backs a Pay Freeze for Federal Workers? I Guess Hell Is Frozen, Too

It feels like anytime this president reduces spending, and is willing to cross federal unions in the process, we ought to be thankful: “President Obama on Monday announced a two-year pay freeze for civilian federal workers as he sought to address concerns over high annual deficits and appealed to Republicans to find a common approach to restoring the nation’s economic and fiscal health . . . The pay freeze Mr. Obama announced wiped out plans for a 1.4 percent across-the-board raise in 2011 for 2.1 million federal civilian employees, including those working at the Defense Department, and it would mean no raise in 2012. The freeze would not affect the nation’s uniformed military personnel, and civilian workers who are promoted would still receive the higher pay that comes with the higher grade or position. The move would save $2 billion in the 2011 fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 and $5 billion by the end of two fiscal years. Over 10 years, it would save $60 billion, according to Jeffrey Zients, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget and the government’s chief performance officer.”

With unemployment remaining at 9.4 percent since May 2009, it was past due that federal workers share some of the pain of this recession. But this is pretty small potatoes in terms of deficit reduction, and all Obama is doing is signing on to one of the smallest of Republican proposals. (More on that below.) Finally, is eliminating a cost-of-living adjustment to federal salaries really what small-government conservatives want? Wouldn’t we prefer something a bit more focused, that hacked away on a larger scale on bureaucracies? Of all government spending, is the adjustment to federal salaries to keep up with inflation really what stirs the ire of fiscal conservatives? Isn’t it bigger-scale expenditures, like runaway entitlements, Obamacare, subsidies to industries that don’t need it, agencies that have outlasted their usefulness, bailouts upon bailouts, stimulus packages that don’t stimulate, etc.?

At the American Spectator, Phil Klein is thoroughly underwhelmed by the scale of the move: “Taking that number at face value, that would represent a sixth-tenths of one percent reduction in the projected $4.52 trillion deficit over that same period (2011 through 2015). It would be the equivalent of a person who expects to rack up $10,000 of of credit card debt over the next five years touting the fact that he’s found a way to reduce his expenses by $60 over that time period. In football terms, it would be like a kickoff return that gains about a half of a yard.” . . .

But Eric Cantor, among others, noted that Republicans had been calling for this move for months. It feels a bit cheap, for a GOP proposal to be outlandish and extreme one moment and the administration’s sensible compromise the next. And on that note, you have to wonder how Obama fans in the federal workforce feel at this moment. Sam Stein of the Huffington Post informs us, “The critics are the expected — mainly progressive economists and union officials. And in addition to condemning the president’s position on both policy and morality grounds, the question they’re asking in private is, what exactly did the White House get in return for the chip it gave away?”

Just returned from an NRCC event showcasing their “Young Guns,” chatting with top-tier GOP House challengers like Jackie Walorski and Larry Bucshon of Indiana, Rick Berg of North Dakota, Jim Renacci of Ohio, Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania, Sean Duffy of Wisconsin, and Cory Gardner of Colorado.

Perhaps what is most striking about them comes from a comment by Walorski, that all of their stories have certain common themes: Until recent years, most never expected to run for Congress; most are watching what’s occurring in Washington in disbelief; most are from fairly conservative districts where a Democrat won in recent cycles by running against past Republican failures and pledging to govern as a moderate; and most describe the voters in their district as mad as hell.

Walorski said she knew there had been a titanic shift in the district’s politics while campaigning in recent weeks, when she experienced “senior citizens reach out and grab you, and hold on to you as they’re talking, in Democratic communities.” She said that the health-care bill was particularly worrying seniors in her district, and the economy worried everyone in her district.

I asked minority whip Eric Cantor what indicators he’s watching to get a sense of how 2010 will play out. He noted the intensity of the tea-party protests and constituents showing up at town-hall meetings across the country; the notable swing in independents since 2008; and the palpable frustration on both sides of the aisle with the sensibility that “Washington knows best.”

I also asked whether the special election in Pennsylvania’s 12th congressional district, where Democrat Mark Critz won rather handily, suggested that the GOP had overestimated  its momentum this year.

“We have some work to do, and we have five months to do it,” he said, noting that the Young Guns had attracted NRCC support by meeting particular thresholds in fundraising, new media, grassroots organizing, and having various operations in place. “The benchmarks vary widely from district to district,” Cantor said, “You’re not going to need the same level of fundraising if you’re running in North Dakota’s at-large district than if you’re running in, say, southeastern Pennsylvania outside Philadelphia.”

Cantor noted that the PA-12 race was ranked about 60th on their list of competitive House races, so there is much lower-hanging fruit before the GOP in November.