Jason Reed / Reuters

Senator Chuck Schumer, part of the U.S. Senate's "Gang on Eight", speaks during a news briefing on Capitol Hill, April 18, 2013.

The Boston Marathon bombing and subsequent manhunt for suspects has already become part of the debate over immigration reform in Washington, with one high ranking Republican questioning the screening process that allows immigrants into the United States.

The Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to hear testimony from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on the bipartisan immigration overhaul introduced by a group of eight senators, but she had to postpone due to ongoing developments in the search.

A ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said at the outset of the committee’s hearing, “Given the events of this week, it’s important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system. While we don’t yet know the immigration status of the people who have terrorized the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system.” 

Grassley asked, “How can individuals evade authorities and plan such attacks on our soil? How can we beef up security checks on people who wish to enter the United States? How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?”

But a few minutes later, Sen. Charles Schumer, D- N.Y. the chief sponsor of the bipartisan immigration overhaul, in an apparent response to Grassley, said one shouldn’t jump to conclusions about the events in Boston “or try to conflate those events with this legislation. In general, we’re a safer country when law enforcement knows who is here – has their fingerprints, photos, et cetera – has conducted background checks and no longer needs to look at needles in haystacks. In addition, both the refugee program and the asylum program have been significantly strengthened in the past five years such that we are much more careful about screening people and determining who should and should not be coming into the country. If there are any changes our homeland security experts tell us need to be made (in his bill), I’m committed to making them….”

In a statement Friday, Frank Sharry, head of America’s Voice Education Fund and a veteran campaigner for an immigration overhaul which would allow a path to legal residence for some of those in the country illegally, said, "It’s premature to jump to final conclusions about the attackers. And it’s shameful that some on the far right are politicizing and demagoguing this issue.” Sharry said some -- whom he did not identify -- are "exploiting this tragedy in hopes of derailing immigration reform."

The Senate will likely debate the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” immigration overhaul next month, but Grassley stressed that the bill ought to be fully debated in committee and open to amendments on the Senate floor.

Referring to the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli immigration overhaul which was supposed to end illegal immigration and prevent any future amnesty, Grassley said, “We screwed up – and we can’t afford to screw up again.”

The committee was hearing Friday from two witnesses, conservative attorney Peter Kirsanow – who indicated his opposition to the bipartisan bill because he said it would lower wages for U.S. low-skill workers -- and former director of Congressional Budget Office Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who supported the bill.

Related links:

Suspects to carjack victim: We are the bombers 

Who are the brothers accused of the Boston Marathon bombing? 

An empty metropolis: Photos show deserted streets of Boston  

What we know: Timeline of terror hunt

‘Dedicated officer’ gunned down by Boston Marathon suspects at MIT

Slideshow: Bombings at Boston Marathon

Boston bombing spurs Senate debate on tighter immigration screening 

Photos from Bostonians locked down amid terror hunt 

Tweeting police chatter creates confusion over Boston suspect

This story was originally published on Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:47 AM EDT

With a bipartisan group of senators expected to unveil immigration-reform legislation in the next few days, a brand-new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that nearly two-thirds of Americans – including eight-in-10 Latinos – support giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship.

A slight majority of Republican respondents oppose this path, possibly foreshadowing the resistance which any comprehensive immigration reform bill might receive, especially in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.

But when Republicans hear that a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants includes paying fines and back taxes, almost three-quarters of them support the idea.

What’s more, a majority of the public – for the first time in the poll – agrees with the statement that immigration strengthens the nation, reflecting a shift in attitude on this issue. 

Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted this survey with the Democratic firm Hart Research Associates, says that this change in sentiment on immigration “speaks to something potent,” particularly given the economic struggles of the past five years.

"These more positive attitudes provide more leeway for lawmakers to build support for change on this issue," McInturff adds.

View the poll results here

On other matters, the poll shows a majority of the public favors stricter gun laws, President Barack Obama’s approval rating falling below 50 percent for the first time since Oct. 2012, and fewer than two-in-10 Americans saying the automatic budget cuts known as “the sequester” have significantly affected them.

Immigration – a strength or weakness?
A majority (54 percent) agrees with the statement that immigration adds to the nation’s character and strengthens it by bringing diversity and talent to the country.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

Tens of thousands of immigration reform supporters march in the "Rally for Citizenship" on the West Lawn of the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on April 10, 2013.

In a 2010 NBC/WSJ survey, fewer than half of respondents agreed with that statement, and in 2005, a plurality said that immigration weakened the nation.

Additionally, the Democratic Party holds a 7-point advantage over the Republican Party on the question of which party does a better job in dealing with immigration.

Among an oversample of Latino respondents, the Democratic edge increases to 26 points.

Regarding the current legislative debate over immigration, 64 percent of respondents say they favor allowing undocumented immigrants to have the opportunity to become legal American citizens.

That includes 82 percent of Latinos, 80 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of political independents supporting a path to citizenship.

But 51 percent of Republicans oppose it, versus 47 percent who back it.

Yet when told that the pathway to citizenship would require paying fines and back taxes, as well as passing a security-background check, support grows – with 76 percent of total respondents, and 73 percent of Republicans backing the path.

That pathway to citizenship is the heart of a comprehensive immigration reform proposal that the so-called “Gang of Eight” senators – including Democrats Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin and Republicans John McCain and Marco Rubio – are drafting and plan to introduce in the next few days.

The proposal also calls for strengthening the U.S.-Mexico border, tying that security to establishing the path to citizenship and expanding legal immigration.

A majority of all respondents (51 percent) believe undocumented immigrants should be eligible for citizenship five years after application. Just 12 percent say the eligibility should occur after 10 years, and only 18 percent believe citizenship should be immediate.

On border security, nearly two-thirds of Americans (63 percent) think the U.S.-Mexico border is “mostly” or “totally” not secure, compared with a smaller percentage of Latino respondents (49 percent) who believe that.

55 percent favor stricter gun laws
In addition to immigration, Congress is grappling with the issue of gun control, with the Senate expected to vote on Thursday whether to begin debate on a Democratic-backed measure requiring background checks for most gun sales.

According to the poll, 55 percent favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms.

That’s down 6 points from the Feb. 2013 NBC/WSJ poll – conducted after Obama’s State of the Union address that contained a call to action on gun control – but it’s essentially unchanged from the Jan. 2013 poll.

Yet there’s a wide political divide to these numbers: 82 percent of Democrats favor stricter gun laws, while just 27 percent of Republicans do.

Obama’s approval rating drops to 47 percent
Despite majorities backing the broad outlines of his legislative priorities on immigration and guns, President Obama confronts a pessimistic public and declining poll numbers.

Only 31 percent of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction – a decline of 10 points since Dec. 2012.

His overall job-approval rating stands at 47 percent, which is down 3 points since February and which represents the first time he’s been below 50 percent since just before the 2012 election.

In addition, 47 percent approve of the president’s economic handling (up three points from February), and 46 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy (down six from Dec. 2012).

Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research says that the public’s sour attitude, particularly on the economy, has “dragged down” Obama’s numbers.

Sequester’s limited impact (so far)
Lastly, the NBC/WSJ poll finds that only a combined 16 percent of Americans say the automatic across-the-board budget cuts that went into effect earlier in the year have impacted them either “a great deal” or “quite a bit.”

By comparison, a whopping 75 percent say the cuts to military and non-military programs have affected them “just some” or “not much.”

But a plurality of respondents – 47 percent – believe the cuts will mostly harm the economy, versus 30 percent who say they won’t have an impact.

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted of 1,000 adults (including 300 cell phone-only respondents) from April 5-8, and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

CIA director nominee John Brennan during a meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 31, 2013.

Amid new developments and revelations, President Barack Obama’s national security policies, past and future, are set to come under Senate scrutiny Thursday.

Most notably, Obama’s nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, will address what role the targeted killings of terrorists, either by using drone strikes or other means, have played and should play in national security policy.

Questions about targeted killings intensified Monday after a report by NBC News revealed a Justice Department memo which argued it was lawful for the president to target U.S. citizens who are leaders of al-Qaida or “an associated force.” Brennan will be appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee for his confirmation hearing.

On Wednesday, an Obama administration official said the president had directed the Justice Department to give the congressional intelligence committees access to classified memos justifying the targeted killings policy. Until now the administration had refused to do this.  

Addressing the past on Thursday will be Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as they testify before the Armed Services Committee about the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

Senators on the panel -- especially Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. -- want to know how the U.S. military reacted to the attack, and what the Defense Department’s internal review revealed after the event.

The two hearings will feature contrasting political color: Republicans -- led by Graham, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire -- have been the ones who have made an issue of the Benghazi attack almost since it took place. They’ve implied that a full accounting of what happened was delayed until after the presidential election. Graham held up Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel to be defense secretary until he could get a chance to question Panetta about Benghazi.

But Obama’s drone policy -- directed largely by Brennan in his role as Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser -- has drawn criticism both from progressives on the left and those on the right who are fearful of an excessive concentration of power in the presidency.

On Benghazi, much is already known. In its report on the attack, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said last December that Panetta’s Defense Department and Hillary Clinton’s State Department hadn't jointly studied the availability of U.S. military forces to defend or rescue the U.S. diplomats in Benghazi in the event of a crisis.

The Pentagon’s Africa Command didn’t have planes, helicopters, or other forces close to Benghazi on the day of the attack. “The Djibouti base was several thousand miles away. There was no Marine expeditionary unit, carrier group or a smaller group of U.S. ships closely located in the Mediterranean Sea that could have provided aerial or ground support or helped evacuate personnel from Benghazi,” the report said.

As for Brennan and drones, Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of a new report called “Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies,” said Obama’s choice of him as CIA director “now places him as the lead executive authority over all CIA drone strikes. The real question is whether John Brennan’s move from the White House to Langley to be director of the CIA is in fact an effort for the CIA to get out of the drone strikes business.”

Zenko noted that Panetta recently said that the Pentagon, not the CIA, should be conducting the drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects.

But Zenko cautioned against those who would head into the Brennan hearing with high hopes for new information. Having read transcripts of the past 10 CIA director confirmation hearings, he said, “It would be unprecedented if there were an in-depth discussion about ongoing covert activities.” The Senate Intelligence Committee “simply doesn't work that way, especially under chairman Sen. (Dianne) Feinstein” of California, he said.

Zenko added that the most useful line of questioning of Brenna would be regarding his conceptions of airpower. Brennan has repeatedly used the cancer analogy for air strikes killing terrorists without damaging the surrounding “tissue.”

“That's a dangerous, antiseptic, and unrealistic conception of military force,” Zenko said.

Interrogation vs. deadly strikes
But Obama spokesman Jay Carney told reporters at a White House briefing Wednesday, “Far fewer civilians lose their lives in an effort to go after senior leadership in al-Qaida” by using drone attacks “as opposed to an effort to invade a country with hundreds and thousands of troops and take cities and towns.” Implication: if you want to avoid another Iraq or Afghanistan, then support Obama’s drone policy.

Carney said Obama believes “that we need to move forward with more transparency as well as create, in his words, a legal framework around how these decisions are made.” But Obama believes he has the full constitutional authority to order targeted killings -- “transparency” or no transparency.

For those skeptical of Obama’s policy, there will be two other possible lines of questioning directed at Brennan:

1. Do the foreign policy costs of Obama’s use of drones -- alienating and angering people in Muslim countries -- outweigh its benefits?
2. Does the drone policy suggest that Obama would rather kill jihadists than capture them? Adding more detainees to those already held at Guantanamo -- a facility he pledged to close but hasn’t -- could amount to a political public relations headache.

The drone strikes have been unpopular in Pakistan and other countries. Making the case that drone strikes have high costs as well as benefits, the former U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, told Reuters recently, “What scares me about drone strikes is how they are perceived around the world. The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes … is much greater than the average American appreciates.”

Brennan has an opportunity on Thursday to rebut this view. He argued last August that “contrary to conventional wisdom, we see little evidence that these actions (drone strikes) are generating widespread anti-American sentiment or recruits” for al-Qaida. The targeted strikes against terrorists, he said, “are not the problem, they are part of the solution.”

Finally, Thursday’s Brennan hearing is a chance for senators on the panel to ask him whether Obama is using drone strikes as a less politically troublesome option than capturing detainees and putting them in Guantanamo.

This is an argument that former Bush administration officials such as ex-CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden and former CIA legal counsel John Rizzo have made.

Last week in a panel discussion at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank, Hayden said interrogating al-Qaida operatives is a vital source of insight into the terrorists’ plans and capabilities:

But he warned, “We have made it so legally difficult and so politically dangerous to capture that it seems, from the outside looking in, that the default option is to take the terrorists off the battlefield in another sort of way” – in other words, by killing them. This could result in a loss of valuable intelligence.

Rizzo said, “It’s always been in the agency’s institutional DNA to want to collect intelligence by all sorts of means, especially human intelligence. You can’t collect human intelligence from a dead guy.”

Related:

White House: Congress to get classified drone info

4 key questions about controversial Justice Department drone memo

Legal experts fear implications of White House drone memo

Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-OH, addresses the media following a Republican Conference meeting on Tuesday at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. From left are: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-VA, Conference Vice Chairman Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-KS, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-CA, Rep. Susan Brooks, R-IN, Conference Chairman Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-WA, and Rep. Tom Price, R-GA.

Published at 4:35 a.m. ET: After their electoral drubbing last November — their second straight in a presidential contest — Republicans have faced a choice. Do they change their policies or their tone?

For now, many top Republicans in Washington seem to have opted for the latter, deciding that a more articulate re-statement of the party's long-held principles will suffice in their effort to attract new voters to the GOP.

"I wouldn't say shift in policy," pollster Jim McLaughlin said of his advice for fellow Republicans. "Republicans have to make adjustments there, but they have to stick to their principles."

McLaughlin's words echo what many Republicans have argued since the election: It's not the party's long-held principles that are the problem, but rather, the way the party's leaders articulate those principles to voters.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., offered a perfect example of current Republican thinking when he delivered a major policy speech that rehashed a number of familiar policies on education, immigration and entitlements under his new "make life work" veneer.

The No. 2 Republican in the House re-framed some of his party's most familiar proposals as an agenda intended to ease the plight of most American families. (The lone new pronouncement was Cantor's endorsement of the thrust of the DREAM Act, a proposal to allow undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children a pathway to citizenship.)

He disputed the notion that his speech was part of a broader effort to soften the GOP's image: "The average American is not thinking about and wondering about where the Republican Party is," Cantor told one questioner.

But the Virginia congressman's speech is representative of an emerging consensus that a more modern restatement of their long-held principles will suffice in seeking to broaden the party's appeal.

And indeed, President Barack Obama's agenda seems poised to stress-test some of the Republican Party's most bedrock policies.

If Republicans can rebuff the president, it could prove the resiliency of their stances. A victory for the president, on the other hand, could tear through the GOP like a buzzsaw. The GOP is arguably facing the most direct challenge in decades to the tenets that have formed the foundation of Republican Party politics for the better part of three decades.

Public opinion shifting
Republicans' decision to hew closely to those long-held principles is not without dissent, however.

"People focus on the 2012 elections, but it's deeper than that," said former Ohio Rep. Steve LaTourette, a Republican who leads the moderate "Main Street Partnership."

"It can't just be tone," LaTourette argued. "Because just changing the tone is going to be like putting a lipstick on a pig — it pretties things up, but doesn't really change the fact that it's a pig."

The next four years — the midterm elections in 2014 and the next presidential contest in 2016 — will offer a major test of which school of thought is right.

Obama's second term agenda seems almost directly intended to challenge the GOP on taxes, entitlements, immigration, social issues and foreign policy.

Terminally low taxes, hawkish foreign policy, largely unfettered gun rights and opposition to abortion and gay rights have defined the GOP since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. And as recently as 2004, President George W. Bush's re-election seemed to signify a sweeping affirmation of these central principles.

But Obama already won new revenue during the first installment of the "fiscal cliff" fight, and his forthcoming budget is almost sure to seek more tax increases. The president is demanding an immigration bill and the first major gun law since the 1990s. Obama has also consistently advocated for new gay rights, and public opinion has followed (however slowly). And last month's NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that a majority of Americans support abortion rights — an issue which Democrats used against Republicans to great effect during the election — for the first time in history.

On an even more foundational issue, last November's exit polls revealed a change in tide against Republicans' opposition to new taxes under any circumstances. Almost half of voters — and 70 percent of independents — agreed that income taxes should increase, at a bare minimum, for households earning more than $250,000 per year.

For Republicans, the road map back to victory involves speaking less stridently about some of these issues, and emphasizing certain elements of the GOP platform over others. Virtually all Republicans recoil at the comments last fall about "legitimate rape" by Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin, but no mainstream GOP leader has suggested that the party jettison its longstanding opposition to abortion rights. The new strategy might involve sidestepping conversations altogether about abortions in the instances of rape, instead emphasizing Republican policies that might support women's economic mobility.

And already, a new effort led by former Bush political guru Karl Rove has vowed to combat candidates like Akin in primaries and help to nominate more electable Republican candidates. (A separate effort spearheaded by another onetime Bush adviser, Ed Gilliespie, and two Hispanic GOP governors, Suzana Martinez of New Mexico and Brian Sandoval of Nevada, will look to recruit more minority Republican candidates.)

LaTourette, the former congressman, suggested the answer might be simpler. The GOP, he said, is should just get things — something, anything — done.

"There needs to be some sort of reasonable approach to demonstrate that we're all in this together," he said, "a willingness to do the doable and get things done."

Related:

NBC/WSJ poll: Majority, for first time, want abortion to be legal

Rape remarks sink two Republican Senate hopefuls

Social conservatives say they deserve seat at table in retooled GOP

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid speaks to members of the press after the weekly Senate Democratic Policy Luncheon at the U.S. Capitol January 29, 2013.

The Nevada Democrat’s comments come as Congress begins the challenging process toward approving its first major piece of gun legislation since the 1990s.

The Senate Judiciary Committee holds its first hearings that topic on Wednesday, featuring high-profile witnesses on either side of that issue. Speaking in favor of gun control will be retired astronaut Mark Kelly, the husband of Gabrielle Giffords, the former Arizona congresswoman injured critically in a 2011 shooting.

Giffords herself will deliver an opening statement to the committee.

On the other side will be National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre, whose influential gun rights lobby is working to thwart the administration’s proposals on Capitol Hill. According to LaPierre’s prepared testimony, released Tuesday by the NRA, he will stake out a clear stance against the heart of the president's plan.

“When it comes to the issue of background checks, let’s be honest – background checks will never be ‘universal’ – because criminals will never submit to them,” said LaPierre in those prepared remarks.

LaPierre's testimony on Wednesday will surely reflect the sharp opposition to the Obama plan among gun rights groups; aversion that threatens to transform the battle into a legislative slog and sap the administration’s momentum.

Skepticism over assault weapons ban
While the outrage prompted by the December rampage at Sandy Hook elementary school has lingered longer than previous mass shootings, the impetus for gun control measures threatens to fade as time passes.

Already, one of the central proposals from Obama’s plan – renewing the ban on assault weapons – faces an uphill battle to be included in any final legislation. 

Reid, who has said he would not seek Senate passage of legislation that had no chance of approval in the House, was non-committal on the issue of the assault weapons ban during his comments on Tuesday. 

“I'll take a look at that,” he said of a proposed ban on assault weapons favored by California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

“As I've indicated to you folks, we're going to have votes on all kinds of issues dealing with guns. And I think everyone will be well advised to read the legislation before they determine how they're going to vote for it.”

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said that the House would consider whatever legislation on guns the Senate manages to pass, but has committed to little more than that. 

And, in fact, whatever legislation the Republican-controlled House is able to consider might depend ultimately on a handful of moderate Senate Democrats.

Several of those lawmakers have expressed skepticism toward the assault weapons ban, but have conveyed more interest in universal background checks – the element of Obama’s plan that gun control proponents that might have a better chance at passage. 

That provision appears poised even to win some Republican support: Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn told a Tulsa television station on Friday that he’s working with Democrats on legislation to ensure universal background checks. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was more reluctant to endorse such a measure, saying during an availability at the Capitol on Tuesday: “I'm among those who'd be happy to take a look at whatever the majority decides to advance on that subject.” 

But Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin congressman who frequently mentioned his pride as a hunter during his time as Mitt Romney’s running mate appeared to lend support to that idea during a Sunday interview on “Meet the Press.” 

“I think the question of whether or not a criminal is getting a gun is a question we need to look at. That's what the background check issue's all about,” he said. “And I think we need to look into making sure that there aren't big loopholes where a person can illegally purchase a firearm.”

As the 40^th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision takes place on Tuesday, a majority of Americans – for the first time – believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

What’s more, seven in 10 respondents oppose Roe v. Wade being overturned, which is the highest percentage on this question since 1989.

“These are profound changes,” says Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted this survey with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart and his colleagues.

Related: Poll shows public lowers expectations heading into Obama's 2nd term

McInturff adds that the abortion-related events and rhetoric over the past year – which included controversial remarks on abortion and rape by two Republican Senate candidates, as well as a highly charged debate over contraception – helped shaped these changing poll numbers.

“The dialogue we have had in the last year has contributed … to inform and shift attitudes.”

View the poll results here

The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy.

According to the poll, 54 percent of adults say that abortion should be legal either always or most of the time, while a combined 44 percent said it should be illegal – either with or without exceptions. 

Recommended: Obama takes ceremonial oath, tells nation 'our journey is not complete'

That’s the first time since this poll question was first asked in 2003 that a majority maintained that abortion should be legal. Previously (with just one exception in 2008), majorities said abortion should be illegal.

In addition, a whopping 70 percent of Americans oppose the Roe v. Wade decision being overturned, including 57 percent who feel strongly about this.

That’s up from the 58 percent who said the decision shouldn’t be overturned in 1989; the 60 percent who said this in 2002; and the 66 percent who said this in 2005.

By comparison, just 24 percent now want the Roe v. Wade decision overturned, including 21 percent who feel strongly about this position.

Much of this change, the NBC/WSJ pollsters say, is coming from African Americans, Latinos and women without college degrees -- all of whom increasingly oppose the Supreme Court decision being overturned.

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted Jan. 12-15 of 1,000 adults (including 300 cellphone-only respondents), and it has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points. 

Related: 40 years after landmark decision, restrictions on abortion grow

Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker said Friday that “the American people should be disgusted” the nation’s leaders haven’t been able to avert the fiscal cliff.

Well, mission accomplished.

John Makely / NBC News

Abigail Holt, 17, (right), of Hartford, Conn., says Washington's inability to avert the fiscal cliff is "annoying."

Across the country, people are shaking their heads about negotiations that go nowhere and fingers that point everywhere while the nation hurtles toward the precipice of a new economic crisis.

“They should make a plan, make up their minds and do something!” Abigail Holt of Hartford, Conn., told NBC News.

She’s 17 years old and admits she’s just learning about the federal government and the fiscal cliff. But she knows this much: “It’s annoying.”

And that's being polite.

Writing in the Daily Beast, Howard Kurtz called the nation's capital "the country’s biggest day-care center." The famous sex therapist Dr. Ruth Westheimer hit below the belt, noting on Twitter that "Members of Congress who can't compromise probably aren't good lovers."

Californian Pat Marshall said the politicians "appear to be very self-centered on making sure that they’re taken care of and the American public comes second."

After an hourlong meeting Friday with congressional leaders that he described as "constructive," President Obama acknowledged that people outside Washington were bewildered by D.C. "dysfunction" and that time -- and patience -- were running out.

Lawmakers have 'lost touch'
Indeed, with higher taxes and deep spending cuts looming without a deal, Americans’ faith in Washington is dissipating by the day.

A Dec. 9 Gallup poll found that 59 percent thought it was likely the White House and Congress could hammer out a deal to avoid a slide down the cliff; by this week, that had sunk to 50 percent.

Skeptics were gaining ground, meanwhile: 48 percent think an agreement before the year-end deadline is unlikely, up 10 points from two weeks earlier.

John Makely / NBC News

Rich Dodds, 49, of Houston, Texas, says the elected officials in Washington have "lost touch" with Americans who will be affected by the fiscal cliff.

“It doesn’t feel like they’re doing much,” said Rich Dodds, 49, an energy product manager from Houston, Texas. “I think they’ve lost touch with who the American people are. It’s a pretty elite group in Washington.”

The fact that both houses of Congress went into recess -- the Senate took a nearly week-long break, and the House is still on vacation until Sunday -- bothered some.

“This is one of the most important issues and they are not even working,” said Bill Prosser, 49, a telecommunications salesman from Clifton, Va. “I’m very disappointed in them.”

Nicole Hayward, 28, of Brooklyn, N.Y., was so angered by the congressional recess that she posted a petition on Change.org demanding lawmakers get back to business.

“I turn on the news every day while I’m getting ready for work and I saw coverage about how Congress was going to break for the holidays and we might not have a resolution,” the marketing director said. “I thought, who cares about their holiday vacation? It really got me going.”

Hayward got only 101 signatures on her petition. She attributed the lack of interest to cynicism.

“The reason why the average American doesn’t pay attention to this issue and the details is they think Congress will come together and pass something that just kicks the can down the road and things won’t change in [their] life,” she said.

John Makely / NBC News

Bill Prosser, 49, of Clifton, Va., says members of Congress should be locked in a room until they can make a deal.

Bipartisan blame
Inside the Beltway, Democrats are condemning Republicans and vice versa for the stalemate. But the nation’s voters are more bipartisan in their blame, with neither Republicans nor Democrats obtaining majority support.

“Essentially, right now, 25 percent of the public approves of the job the GOP congressional leaders are doing and 40 percent approves of the job the Democratic leaders are doing,” said Jocelyn Kiley, a senior researcher for the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

Prosser thinks there’s a time-tested way to bring the two sides together before Jan. 1 -- something akin to the old papal conclaves in which cardinals were locked in a room until they chose a new pontiff.

“Just say you’re not going to leave until you have a deal,” Prosser said.  “Get in a room -- and get it done!”

An overwhelming majority of Americans want Congress and the Obama White House to reach a deal featuring both tax increases and spending cuts to avert the so-called fiscal cliff, according to the latest national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Click here for full results from the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (pdf)

In fact, majorities of Democrats, Republicans and political independents each support such a deal.

Yet respondents are split over whether any kind of agreement can be reached, and nearly seven in 10 believe that the coming year will feature Democrats and Republicans in Congress showing little willingness to come to an agreement on important matters.

Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, says the public is sending this one-word message to Washington: compromise.

“Doing something trumps doing nothing,” Hart said.

Related: Boehner: 'Serious differences' separate GOP from Obama

The survey – conducted a month after November’s election – also shows a positive uptick in opinion toward President Barack Obama, and more negative views about defeated GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and the Republican Party. The poll also finds that a majority of Americans now support gay marriage.

‘Hints of a thaw’

According to the poll, a combined 68 percent of Americans say that the fiscal cliff – the looming combination of tax increases and spending cuts set to take place at the beginning of next year if nothing is done – is either a “very serious” or “fairly serious” problem.

A similar two-thirds of respondents are willing to accept an increase in taxes or cuts in federal government programs they care about to reach an agreement to avoid the problem.

Asked another way, 65 percent say leaders in Congress should find a compromise to reduce the budget deficit, even if that means Democrats would need to accept targeted spending cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and that Republicans would need to accept targeted increases in tax rates.

By comparison, just 28 percent believe that leaders should stick to their traditional positions on the deficit – even if that means Congress goes over the fiscal cliff, triggering those automatic spending cuts and tax increases.

“There are hints of a thaw here, compared to previous data we’ve seen,” McInturff says.

Indeed, for the first time in the poll, a majority of Republicans (59 percent) want GOP leaders in the House and Senate to make compromises in order to gain consensus in the current budget debate.

Previously, in 2011, majorities of Republicans said they preferred GOP leaders to stick to their positions rather than make compromises.

And the percentage of Democrats who favor compromise on this question (70 percent) is now at an all-time high in the survey.

Who’s to blame if there isn’t a deal? Everyone

Yet the public is split – 48 percent of respondents are optimistic, and 48 percent are pessimistic – over whether Congress will be able to reach consensus to avoid the fiscal cliff. And another 69 percent believe that the next year on Capitol Hill will be marked by division and little willingness to compromise.

If there is no compromise on the fiscal cliff and the automatic tax increases and spending cuts go into effect at the beginning of next year, 24 percent say they will blame congressional Republicans more, while 19 percent will point the finger at Obama and congressional Democrats.

But a majority of respondents (56 percent) say they’ll blame both sides equally.

Still, twice as many Americans say they trust the president more in handling this fiscal situation (38 percent) than House Speaker John Boehner and the congressional Republicans (19 percent).

And significant majorities believe Obama holds a clear mandate from the election on issues related to this subject:

• 68 percent say he has a mandate on cutting taxes for families earning less than $250,000 per year
• 65 percent say he has a mandate on reducing the deficit by both increasing taxes on the wealthy and reducing federal spending
• And 59 percent say he has a mandate on eliminating the Bush-era tax cuts for household income over $250,000 a year.

Obama’s lift vs. the GOP’s decline

Speaking of Obama, the poll shows an uptick in his numbers after his victory in last month’s presidential election.

Fifty-three percent of adults approve of his overall job performance, and 49 percent approve of his handling of the economy – higher marks on these questions than at any time during the 2012 campaign.

Another 53 percent say they feel either “optimistic and confident” or “satisfied and hopeful” Obama will do a good job as president, which is up three points from Oct. 2012.

“Any president has a little bit of a lift heading into the first few months of any new term in office,” McInturff, the GOP pollster, says.

But if Obama is getting a lift after the election, the Republican Party is seeing a further decline.

The GOP’s favorable/unfavorable rating in the poll now stands at 30 percent/45 percent (minus-15 points), which is down from 36 percent/43 percent (minus-7) right before the election.

That’s compared with the Democratic Party’s 44 percent/35 percent rating (plus-9 points).

What’s more, asked to give a word or short phrase to describe the Republican Party, 65 percent offered a negative comment, including more than half of Republicans.

Some of the responses: “Bad,” “weak,” “negative,” “uncompromising,” “need to work together,” “broken,” “disorganized” and “lost.”

By contrast, 37 percent gave negative descriptions of the Democratic Party, while 35 percent were positive.

“Republicans have gone off the image cliff,” says Hart, the Democratic pollster.

“Elections have consequences,” McInturff adds about the GOP. “And among those consequences is the cost of losing.”

The consequences of losing also exist for Romney, whom Obama defeated in November.

Romney’s favorable/unfavorable rating in the poll is 35 percent/44 percent (minus-9 points), down from his 43 percent/44 percent score (minus-1) before the election. Much of that drop comes from Republicans and conservatives. 

Majority supports same-sex marriage

Finally, for the first time ever in the NBC/WSJ poll, a majority of respondents – 51 percent – support same-sex marriage.

That percentage in support is up from 30 percent in 2004, 41 percent in 2009 and 49 percent in March 2012, demonstrating how quickly public opinion on this issue has changed in just eight years.

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted Dec. 6-9 of 1,000 adults (including 300 cell phone-only respondents), and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

Updated 7:39 p.m. — Republicans stand on the cusp of delivering a major blow to organized labor, as they prepare to vote Tuesday on legislation to make Michigan – a state linked to unions in the public conscious – a “right to work” state.

Carlos Osorio / AP

About a dozen members of the Michigan Nurses Association stand on the state Capitol steps in Lansing, Mich., Monday, Dec. 10, 2012, protesting right-to-work legislation.

State lawmakers are expected to approve legislation barring rules in workplaces that make union membership a condition of employment. The offensive would mark the culmination of efforts by Midwestern Republican governors to curb labor rights in the heart of industrial America, where unions once loomed large.

President Barack Obama led Democrats on Monday in a counteroffensive, hoping to stymie Republicans in control of Michigan’s House and Senate, who could act as soon as Tuesday to approve right to work legislation after approving initial versions of the proposed law last week.

Related: Obama decries right-to-work proposal during trip to Michigan

“These so-called right to work laws, they don't have anything to do with economics. They have everything to do with politics,” Obama said in Redford, Mich., where he had planned to travel well before the labor fight erupted last week. "What they're really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money."

But Republicans maintain commanding majorities in Lansing. And Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has said he would sign the legislation if it reached his desk. With that, he would become the latest Republican governor to be elected in 2010 in a Midwestern state to advance legislation meant to curb labor rights. A familiar battle, which played out with such intensity in other states over the last two years, has now found a new epicenter in Michigan.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker memorably pushed legislation through his statehouse that stripped public employee unions of their collective bargaining rights; his initiative prompted a recall election, which the Republican survived in June. Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s similar effort to curb bargaining rights was only halted when voters reversed such a law through a ballot initiative.

But Michigan Republicans might now succeed in passing a right to work law, a favorite proposal of conservatives that isn’t even on the books in Wisconsin or Ohio. Snyder, who had previously said that seeking such a law wasn’t on his agenda, may now preside over one of the most striking symbolic blows to organized labor in some time.

“I think he's defaulting on his responsibilities,” Michigan Democratic Rep. Sander Levin told NBC News on Monday. “It's a cave to the radical right.”

Levin was among the group of lawmakers who met on Monday with Snyder to plead with him to veto the legislation, or at least delay a vote in the state legislature. Absent that, Levin said Democrats want Republicans to change their proposal to allow for voters to repeal the law through a ballot initiative, as voters did in Ohio. The Michigan law is coupled with an appropriations bill that would exempt it from a popular vote challenge.

Related: Dems launch blitz to halt 'right to work' law in Michigan

“I would have a very difficult time seeing that get changed,” said state Rep. Marty Knollenberg, the chief sponsor of the law in the state House. He contended that the appropriation provision is necessary to help implement the law.

In short, opponents of the Michigan proposal would have little recourse available to challenge the law in the immediate future, making its impact on a union-heavy state like Michigan even more pronounced.

“I think the Republican strategy in doing this so quickly is that they don’t want what Wisconsin had, dragging on for so many days,” said Bill Ballenger, the editor of the influential “Inside Michigan Politics” newsletter. “This is a blitzkrieg, and Republicans hope it’s going to be over and done with tomorrow.

While Republicans in the Michigan Capitol had long pined to advance this law, it languished until after the election. In November, the state’s voters rejected an amendment that would have added a right to collective bargaining to the Michigan state constitution. Amid rumblings that the GOP leadership would resurrect the proposal, it was brought to a vote in the state House and state Senate before organized labor and Democrats were effectively able to mobilize.

Democrats have now turned their attention toward Snyder, who had styled himself as a kind of pragmatic Republican who avoided the ideological trench warfare of his fellow partisans, in halting the law.  According to congressional Democrats, during a meeting with Snyder the governor said he took their concerns “seriously,” though they’re less optimistic privately that he’ll reverse course.

Organized labor groups are organizing a “day of action” on Tuesday in Lansing, including a march to the state capitol that will likely invoke memories of the tens of thousands of activists who flooded the state house in Madison, Wis., during the height of Walker’s legislative battle in 2011.

But Knollenberg said he “can’t think of anything” that would prompt him to back off the legislation. Moreover, Knollenberg suggested it’s state Republican lawmakers – rather than Snyder – who are driving the effort. 

“It certainly started from the legislature, and then it was presented to the governor,” he said.

“It wasn’t on his priority list, as he indicated,” Knollenberg said of Snyder. But once Republicans had gathered adequate support for the proposal, Snyder “adapted his beliefs and saw that this was a real opportunity to put Michigan on the map in terms of creating jobs.”

And as the law’s passage seems more like a fait accompli, Snyder, if nothing else, will join the ranks of Walker and Kasich. All three will be seriously targeted by Democrats and organized labor in 2014, offering a chance for voters to render their verdict on this trio of Republican antagonists.

For their part, Democrats warn that the toxic partisanship that took hold in Wisconsin and Ohio would now spread to Michigan.

“Instead of Michigan united, it becomes Michigan divided,” Levin said. “We’ve gone from a bipartisan effort to deepening partisanship.”

Alternatively, it could enshrine Snyder – a former business executive who postured himself as “one tough nerd” during his 2010 campaign – as a darling of conservatives who wish to further put unions on the defensive.

“For the state, I think it's absolutely monumental,” said Stu Sandler, a Republican consultant in Michigan. “It's the most significant piece of legislation in decades, and sends a very strong signal about the direction the state is heading.”

Warned one senior labor official, "If this bill is signed, it's going to be Thunderdome between now and 2014."

Knollenberg argued his legislation is only about providing opportunity to the state’s workers.

“I just hope that at the end of the day … the unions will then have to sell their story as to why they’re benefiting the workers,” he said. “I believe that if they can demonstrate their value to their workers, they’ll do fine. But they’re going to have to work for it.”

Update: Not all hope was lost for supporters of organized labor, who believe they would be able to use a citizens initiative under Michigan law to eventually challenge the right-to-work law. Under such a scenario, if labor supporters could gather a higher number of signatories to a petition, they could force a vote to undo the law in 2014. However, the new right-to-work law would be allowed to take effect in the meanwhile.