Who'd a thought there'd be less gridlock with a Republican majority

[Burgold]

Boy,

A lot of stuff got done all of a sudden and the Republicans were a big part of it. Are the Democrats better at gridlocking Obama than the loyal opposition.

Good start. Hopefully, it bodes well for all getting things done. We need a government that is demanding, but actually is capable of talking with each other and finding areas of agreement.

[twa]

Not too surprising they pushed things thru and compromised BEFORE there is a rep majority

[mjah]

Burgold, that post was a joke, right?

There is no Republican majority, and come January there won't be either. Just a balance.

[Burgold]

Burgold, that post was a joke, right?

There is no Republican majority, and come January there won't be either. Just a balance.

Yes and No.

or

No and Yes.

Depending on your point of view.

There was a philosophy in the House over the last two years which proved detrimental to progress. The Repubs were obsinate as a stone. Pelosi was my way or the highway. Now, suddenly in this lame duck period... there were honest compromises and efforts to get something done instead of just standing in the way and demonizing.

Is this a hopeful sign? Is it the eye of a hurricane? Is it a temporary lapse of sanity? Time will tell. I'm just glad that we aren't stuck in a Sargasso sea hoping for a breeze that never arrives.

In a weird way it felt like Obama faced an insurmountable degree of gridlock even when he had a supermajority. Now, with the parties split and the Repubs heading the house... suddenly there are cracks in the dam.

I still fill ill at ease with a lot of the players, but this wasn't a bad week.

[mjah]

Yes and No.

or

No and Yes.

Depending on your point of view.

In that case, I both agree and disagree with your thoroughly insightful, preposterously misguided post.

[Fergasun]

The 111th Congress spent most of their time trying to get health-care done. The GOP did a good job in running out the clock. The problem was never the House, as the majority can pretty much do what it wants. Since the Democrats had the majority the debate would be focused on liberal-moderate rather than conservative-moderate. Just watch at how much "infighting" will happen in the GOP house where the conservatives will have power to push things to the right. The same dynamic will be in play, only conservatives will be squabbling (although there's not a GOP president, so that adds another layer of intrigue). There are different dynamics at play in the House and the Senate.

I can think of a number of things that the Democrats didn't accomplish, card check, immigration reform / Dream Act, climate change and closing Guantanamo. One area they really lost out on was the FY11 budgets. The door is open now for the GOP to control a major part of this years budget.

That being said, health care reform is very big (if they can keep it), as was the stimulus. Having two Supreme Court nominees was also very under-rated. I'm "meh" on financial reform since its all very dependent on the regulators and regulators never want to shut things down when they are going good for fear of getting blamed. I don't see how Democrats wouldn't be happy with the accomplishments of the 111th Congress. It could be 2016 before they have another opportunity like they just had.

Next year we really see gridlock. The 112th Congress is going to be absolutely crazy... with the GOP having a large majority in the House, trying to impress voters for 2012, and the Democrats pretty much on the defensive in regards to their agenda. The deficit and budget wars are going to be huge and most likely ugly. I'm already thinking there may be a government shutdown in March.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I have a few thoughts on this:

Republicans decided to not work on anything with the Dems as a strategy to get back into power. It worked. Now they're faced with actual governing and with more of the power in their corner, if things don't get done they also get more of the blame.

I also think they had the moderates (Collins, Snowe, Brown, Murkowski, etc) locked up pretty nicely. With the election over, they're free to do their moderate thing.

And finally, while they have more control, they hardly have enough control to really do anything. To get things done, they're going to need Obama's signature. Now they're throwing each other bones and hoping the sentiment sticks around for when they start trying to get their own stuff passed.

It's probably some combination of the three. It's going to be real interesting to see what happens next month when the new Republican-controlled House gets sworn in and the Dem's majority in the Senate shrinks substantially.

[Burgold]

I have a few thoughts on this:

Republicans decided to not work on anything with the Dems as a strategy to get back into power. It worked. Now they're faced with actual governing and with more of the power in their corner, if things don't get done they also get more of the blame..

That's partly what I'm thinking too. While the Republicans stated that their primary and overarching goal is getting rid of Obama... they also need to be seen as doing something. So, there is going to more back and forth and compromise... even if some,like McConnell, find the word loathsome. Likewise, the Dems are going to have to swallow their bile and compromise too because they are not the minnority party in the true sense and can't just stand in opposition. In fact, neither party is well served by being solely the angry party of opposition... though I suppose the House could pass poison pill bill after poison pill bill making Obama veto, veto, veto...

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Somewhat related to the topic.

Mr. Obama discussed the pitfalls — and opportunities — of divided government with former President Bill Clinton during a long meeting this month. He also has held private discussions with an array of figures, including Leon E. Panetta, the director of the C.I.A., who served as a chief of staff to Mr. Clinton; John D. Podesta, another former Clinton chief of staff; Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader; and Kenneth M. Duberstein, a former chief of staff to President Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Obama is reading the biography “President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime,” by Lou Cannon, aides said, and recently completed “The Clinton Tapes,” by Taylor Branch, who chronicled the 42nd president through a series of private interviews.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/us/politics/24obama.html?ref=politics

[aREDSKIN]

Not too surprising they pushed things thru and compromised BEFORE there is a rep majority

+1 and even some repubs knew enough to pass even unpopular bills to ensure that "compromise" is the sellable narrative.

[Fergasun]

You guys are thinking about it wrong. There are areas where there is wide disagreement between the parties. Health care, stimulus, tax breaks for the rich, climate change, and immigration reform are places where the parties will likely not be able to compromise or be forced to pass such limited bills. (I have no idea with the GOP opposed DADT repeal.) Then there are other issues like the 9/11 responders bill, the START treaty just to name some recent examples where the GOP is objecting to the form of the bill and likely to compromise. The reason a bunch of stuff got done after the election is that the American voter made it clear which way they were turning. Had the voters maintained the Democratic margins in Congress I think some of the moderates would be willing to triangulate toward the liberal spectrum on things like the 9/11 bill. However the Scott Brown election was a harbinger of things to come and where the voters were headed.

[aREDSKIN]

+1 and even some repubs knew enough to pass even unpopular bills to ensure that "compromise" and getting things done is the sellable narrative.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

+1 and even some repubs knew enough to pass even unpopular bills to ensure that "compromise" is the sellable narrative.

What "unpopular" bills in particular are you referring to?

Just curious.....

[SnyderShrugged]

Not surprised at all. I've said for years there is no fundamental difference between r and d. More of the same. Spend, debt and war.