A new election, a new year, a new outlook, right? Yeahnotsomuch. Washington gridlock isn’t going anywhere, and now it appears that compromise could be a lost cause in 2013 for many state governments. One-party rule will see to that. Via the New York Times:
Come January, more than two-thirds of the states will be under single-party control, raising the prospect that bold partisan agendas — on both ends of the political spectrum — will flourish over the next couple of years. [...]
Twenty-four states will be controlled by Republicans, including Alaska and Wisconsin, where the party took the State Senate, and North Carolina, where the governorship changed hands. At least 13 states will be Democratic, including Colorado, Minnesota and Oregon, where control of the legislatures shifted, and California, where the already dominant Democrats gained a supermajority in both chambers. (The situation in New York, where the potential for single-party control by the Democrats rests on the makeup of the Senate, is still uncertain.)
Power will be split in, at most, 12 capitals — the fewest, said Tim Storey of the National Conference of State Legislatures, since 1952…. Over all in this election, Democrats had more victories among the roughly 6,000 state legislative seats that were up for grabs…
Here’s one example of what happens when Republicans run states:
News21 also has this report on the close affiliation between the bills’ sponsors and the conservative nonprofit group, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
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.
Have you heard the one about John Boehner saying that when Congress ups the borrowing cap, he’ll make sure to demand plenty of spending cuts to offset the raise? Sound familiar? Tax cuts BAD, spending cuts GOOD.
Is he, is the GOP, willing to sabotage the economy, despite the devastating effects that would have on millions of Americans, in an attempt to defeat the president?
Why, what reason would anyone have to believe such a thing!?
WASHINGTON (AP) — Are Republican lawmakers deliberately stalling the economic recovery to hurt President Barack Obama’s re-election chances? Some top Democrats say yes, pointing to GOP stances on the debt limit and other issues that they claim are causing unnecessary economic anxiety and retarding growth. [...]
[T]here’s evidence that unceasing partisan gridlock and the prospect of big tax increases and spending cuts in January are causing some companies to postpone expansions. Even small economic slowdowns are bad news for Obama, who is seeking re-election amid high unemployment.
Sen. Chuck Schumer says that another debt ceiling crisis would be inevitable, thanks to The Boehner:
“I hope that the speaker is not doing this because he doesn’t want to see the economy improve, because what he said will certainly rattle the markets.”
Nancy Pelosi agrees:
“It already can be damaging, just the fact that it’s brought up,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday.
Republicans say it’s absurd to make such an accusation.
Pot. Kettle. Absurd.
I couldn’t help but notice a few zillion headlines illustrating how divided Americans are. Even Steven, fifty-fifty, split down the middle. No wonder it’s so difficult to get anything done, especially considering that little GOP obstruction issue:
New York Times/CBS News poll: President Obama’s job approval at 50%.
Public Policy Polling survey: President Obama 48%, Mitt Romney 46%.
And that’s just what I dug up in a few minutes.
The Political Carnival T-Shirt
Modeled by @suzannegypsy
Lt. Col Barry Wingard is the lawyer for Gitmo detainee Fayiz Al-Kandari. For their ongoing story + related topics, please click on the link below:
Kuwaiti Citizen Detained at Guantanamo since 2002
The Political Carnival is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.
Photographs on The Political Carnival site (please read):
Photographs from other sources sometimes appear on TPC for humorous or illustrative purposes. As it is not our intention to use these images in any inappropriate manner or to infringe upon any rights held by others, anyone holding legal rights in the use of these images who wishes to have them taken down please contact us immediately requesting such removal, with which we will comply promptly.