Want some insight into how Willard Romney would handle a Congress that is as gridlocked our current one is now? And how Massachusetts lawmakers felt about Romney’s corporate style? Look no further:

BOSTON (AP) — What worked for Mitt Romney in the corporate boardroom didn’t fly in the more raucous corridors of the Massachusetts Legislature. [...]

[H]is top-down, corporate management style soon rankled Democrats who overwhelmingly controlled the state House and Senate and saw themselves as an equal partner in the government. His approach jolted a clubby political culture where schmoozing over after-hours drinks and cutting backroom deals are well-worn pathways to success.

Unlike his three GOP gubernatorial predecessors, the politically inexperienced Romney was never at ease in the chummy world of trading favors for votes. He bypassed rank-and-file Democrats and dealt mostly with the party’s legislative leaders during his four-year term, though he did work with Democrats to pass the state’s health care overhaul. [...]

Some Democratic lawmakers accused Romney of being aloof, unapproachable and not much interested in working with them to build the kind of friendships and alliances that are needed to help pass legislation.

By treating government as a business, he alienated the very people he needed to work with. The only exception was when he worked with Democrats on the type of health care bill he now wants to repeal.

Former House Speaker Tom Finneran said that “Romney delivered a PowerPoint presentation brimming with numbers and charts on his plan for fixing the budget” and that it was obvious that he didn’t value input, just went around “issuing marching orders.”

There’s your CEO, folks. Not exactly conducive to playing well with others.

“Initially his sense was, `I have been elected governor, I am the CEO here and you guys are the board of directors and you monitor the implementation of what I say,’” Finneran said. “That ruffled the feathers of legislators who see themselves as an equal branch (of government).”

There’s that sense of entitlement again. This out of touch candidate is most definitely not “one of us,” and he appears to revel in his elevated status.

Tom Birmingham, a former state Senate president, said, “To call him disengaged would be charitable.” The AP article says that he opted for confrontation over compromise.

So a President Romney would be more of the same, only on steroids.