January 2013

• stlouiedipalma

  I know this is all hypothetical, but please bear with me. It could happen.
  
  It's January 20, 2013 and President (fill in the blank) is taking office, having defeated Barack Obama by a slim margin (51-49) in the Nov. 2012 election. Republicans still hold the House but the Democrats have strengthened their margins in the Senate by a couple seats. What does the new President do in his/her first hundred days? Many of the things Republicans have been clamoring for these past four years are now in play, but how do they get through the Senate? To me, such a scenario could be a blueprint for a repeat of the last four years. How does the New President break the gridlock and get things done?
  
  Do the Democrats copy the Republicans' "Just say No" strategy or is there a way to get them on board?
• jmog

  It wouldn't be the same as the last 4 years. The last 4 years the dems have had control of all 3 (house senate presidency) .
• BGFalcons82

  

  I think your scenario is suspect, but the prospect of divided government is certainly in play unless the R's can induce Perry or Christie to get in the game. Without either one of those 2, I don't see how any R could survive the onslaught from the media and beat Barry. Your senate wish is just that...a wish. They have to protect 23 seats and the R's just 10 this time around. Virtually all pollsters are in agreement at this time that the R's will pick up seats, it's just a question of how many. Be that as it may, back to your hypothetical....
  
  Divided gubmint can work just fine (Reagan's terms and Clinton's triangulation come to mind quickly). Business and investors are looking for stability/certainty and a divided house brings just that. I would anticipate that the liberal agenda against business (Cap-n-Tax, Global cooling...oops, I mean Global Warming...dang it...I really mean Climate Change, animosity toward drilling, etc.) would be stymied for enough time to allow growth (EEE-GAD, there's that rotten word) to occur. As Clinton learned, a growing economy helps keep deficits under control.
• Con_Alma

  The party of the Executive Office often times becomes the leader of that respective Party. His agenda sets the tone for that particular party in the legislative branch. The opposing party in the legislative branch doesn't "just say no", nor have they in recent accounts. In fact, I think the opposing party to the Executive Office is the only party that has put forth a proposal for a balanced budget plan.
  
  Often times an agreement is reached with certain conditions or a decline in proposed legislation unless certain changes are made.
  
  To expect one party's legislation or agenda is going to get through "as is" without compromise or changes is just unrealistic.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  stlouiedipalma;820646 wrote:I know this is all hypothetical, but please bear with me. It could happen.
  
  It's January 20, 2013 and President (fill in the blank) is taking office, having defeated Barack Obama by a slim margin (51-49) in the Nov. 2012 election. Republicans still hold the House but the Democrats have strengthened their margins in the Senate by a couple seats. What does the new President do in his/her first hundred days? Many of the things Republicans have been clamoring for these past four years are now in play, but how do they get through the Senate? To me, such a scenario could be a blueprint for a repeat of the last four years. How does the New President break the gridlock and get things done?
  
  Do the Democrats copy the Republicans' "Just say No" strategy or is there a way to get them on board?

  
  Way to pick up the Democrat talking points on the "just say no" thing. Kudos.
  
  Now, had you actually done a bit of research you'd know the Republicans didn't "just say no" at any point during the time when the Democrats had a super majority. When they did say no, they actually had valid reasons and proposed alternatives -- it's just that nobody heard about them because the media was focused on parroting Democrat leaders instead of doing actual research (kind of like what you did).
  
  As far as your scenario: I'd be fine with a split government (at the very least) because it does stop this assault on business we've seen since Obama took office. Perhaps with both houses of government, the Republicans can get some publicity on all the anti-business regulations and decisions that are being made, and through public pressure get them rescinded. If they pass bills that reign in, say the EPA or Commerce, then Obama will have to veto them...which will provide public information on what is trying to be accomplished. Public pressure may then come to bear and a compromise might ensue.
  
  It's a far better working scenario than what exists now, and certainly better than when the Democrats had a super majority in play. Speaking of which: how is it the Republicans could "just say no" when the Democrats held such a majority? Logically, the Democrats had the votes and power to simply push through what they wanted -- they did it with the stimulus and with ObamaKare, after all.
  
  So that is further proof the "just say no" talking point was as empty as the suit that now occupies the Oval Office.
• stlouiedipalma

  What I'm trying to say with this thread is "How does the party which controls two branches of the government get it's agenda passed?". The Democrats did, indeed have that supermajority but only on paper. They weren't able to reign in the more conservative Democrats in order to "ram" any legislation down anyone's throats. Then when Brown won the Massachusetts senate seat, they didn't have the magical 60 needed to hold off any filibuster threat. We all know that the Republicans used that threat more times than in any Congress, effectively killing much of what the Democrats wanted to do. That is effectively "just saying no".
  
  My scenario has the Republicans holding the White House and the House of Representatives. How does a Republican President get anything accomplished when he/she knows that any legislation that doesn't enjoy support across the aisle is doomed in the Senate? Compromise, gridlock, what?
• fish82

  

  It'll depend on the level of "mandate" from the voters. If the new POTUS beats Bam handily, then Harry will have no choice but to roll over...which he likely will, as his testes have been scientifically proven to be rodent-sized.
  
  The far more likely scenario is Bam winning a second term but facing a completely GOP controlled congress.
• Apple

  

  stlouiedipalma;821066 wrote:What I'm trying to say with this thread is "How does the party which controls two branches of the government get it's agenda passed?". The Democrats did, indeed have that supermajority but only on paper. They weren't able to reign in the more conservative Democrats in order to "ram" any legislation down anyone's throats. Then when Brown won the Massachusetts senate seat, they didn't have the magical 60 needed to hold off any filibuster threat. We all know that the Republicans used that threat more times than in any Congress, effectively killing much of what the Democrats wanted to do. That is effectively "just saying no".
  
  My scenario has the Republicans holding the White House and the House of Representatives. How does a Republican President get anything accomplished when he/she knows that any legislation that doesn't enjoy support across the aisle is doomed in the Senate? Compromise, gridlock, what?

  The bolded sentence has got to be one of the most obvious liberal attempts at revisionist history that I have EVER read!!!
  
  Dems weren't able to ram any legislation down anyone's throats? Dems weren't able to reign in the more conservative Dems?
  
  How soon we forget the back-room shinanigans when ObamaKare was rammed down our throats!!!! Hello????? Cornhusker Kick-backs?
  
  Hey Louie... If you believe ObamaKare was NOT Rammed Down Our Throats and Dems on the fence weren't reigned in while doing so, your opinions aren't worth the time to read.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Fact of the matter: I think the Democrats were AFRAID to do much of anything beyond ObamaKare. There was so much fallout from that even before the elections (and how the stimulus was handled) that I think they basically got cold feet.
  
  If not for that, I think we'd have seen a lot more legislative initiatives rammed through.
  
  What we got, instead, was a big, bunch of nothing. Hell, they didn't even do their duty and produce a budget -- and still haven't come up with one all this time later. No balls, the lot of them. I'm glad, though, because the damage could have been much worse.