.

Romney and GOP Are The Only Choice For Ending Gridlock in Washington

Looking at our choices from an analytical perspective, the only rational choice to end the gridlock in Washington is the GOP and Romney. We need a President with ability to be a leader.

As I have been talking to voters I came across one that expressed concern about the current gridlock in Washington. There have been times where the country would have been better off with gridlock in Congress. Clearly 2009-2011 was one of those periods of time, much of what was done then has made things worse and prevented a better recovery. Going forward if we continue on the current path and trends, we will face a debt crisis. So clearly we can’t afford more gridlock on the issue of spending reform. The question is how our vote will affect this dynamic. To understand our options we should look at what might happen this year from a strong Democratic Wave to another strong Republican Wave.

A strong Democratic election, I would define as at least coming close to taking the house, holding the Senate, and President Obama wins.  I see no point in trying to analyze this possibility as there is no chance of this happening. A few months ago I saw forecast for the house elections showing anywhere from 7 seat gain for Democrats to a 15 seat gain for Republicans. Not much has changed so it is clear we will have a strongly Republican House.

This leads to the more likely possibility of a moderate Democratic year. This would mean Democrats make small gains in the house, Democratic control of the Senate, and President Obama wins re-election. This would lead to worse gridlock than we have today. I say this because the GOP can’t go along with any proposals Obama has made since they all make things worse. Obama basically told an Univision reporter he can’t be counted on to do anything if he has to work with any Republicans. In addition Obama will be more intransigent if he does not have to face re-election. The only thing to hold him back would be concern for his party, but he has made that clear he only cares about himself and his agenda, so that will mean nothing.

I think the most likely possibility is a moderate Republican year. Given the decisive advantage in the house this could mean only a small change +/-10 seats for that body. This would mean small gains in the Senate either barely controlling or just out of control. Of course this would mean a Romney victory. This would likely end the gridlock for many issues. This is true for three reasons. First many moderate Democrats in the Senate know they need to deal with issues to avoid a debt crisis, but they can’t voice this ahead of the election. To confront reality now, would be to admit failure of their ideas and to admit the two major pieces of legislation they passed, Stimulus and Obamacare, were incredibly irresponsible. The second reason is that we would have leadership for the first time in years in the White House. The final reason is replacing a rigid ideologue like Obama with a moderate like Romney gives a chance to find solutions in divided government.

The last possibility is a strong Republican year. Again given the already decisive margin in the house this could mean anywhere from a 0-15 seat gain. In the Senate it would mean getting to 53 or more GOP Senators. Obviously this would include a Romney victory. This case would completely end the gridlock for the reasons listed in the last section. In addition Washington will have been sent a strong message that the people are ahead of the politicians and we want them to act like adults. They will get the message to take the debt, economy, saving Medicare, and saving Social Security seriously. Democrats will still fight battles on key issues to them, but there will be enough moderate Democrats who care more about saving the country than furthering a failed progressive agenda to make significant progress. Clearly this would be the best outcome for the country to have a chance to confront our issues head on.

We may disagree on what needs to be done, but it is clear only a Romney victory leads to hope of ending the current gridlock and hope of avoiding a debt crisis. As was clear in the debate Romney is the only candidate that is a proven leader and the only one who has shown he can work with any opposition. The best way to end gridlock would be for one party to get smacked hard. The only chance to do that is for another strong Republican year. So if gridlock is your concern you should vote for Romney for President and Thompson for Senate. As a side note on our Senate race, since Tammy Baldwin is the most extreme member of the house, she would have trouble working with any reasonable person. We saw this in the Senate debate were all the examples she gave of working with GOP were to increase spending, increasing spending does not require much compromise for a extreme liberal. Thompson being a moderate would be able to work with both parties to get things done. Democrats may be slow on the uptake as shown by not taking the Scott Brown hint, and moving further left after the 2010 GOP tsunami, but I think they would get the message if they lose at least 6 Senate seats and the Presidency.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Bernard Forand October 09, 2012 at 05:13 PM
Bren Spot on. Democrat already have the Executive Branch and the Senate now all they require is the House to put it all in. Noticed Romney’s blip from the debate is evaporating already. Soon will be a dip. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/oct-7-national-polls-show-signs-of-settling/
Bernard Forand October 09, 2012 at 05:29 PM
Agree with ya Bert; I’ll just add on what all that resulted in. Stormy weather. Cost increases in financing markets due to laissez-faire polices of the Bush administration. {DEREGULATIONS} ! Hedge funds are speculative , are held accredited by affluent investors. Exempt from many of the public disclosures and requirements of federal securities law. Virtually non-entity prior to 2001. Bush administration hedge funds exploded from $250 Billion enterprise, to a $2.5 Trillion enterprise. Lax enforcement of SEC regulations allowed “naked short selling” which makes its profit off the Main Street investors. Buy low sell high standard investors philosophy to the markets. Hedge fund with their vast reserves of liquidity could manipulate the prices to markets with no chances of lost. Make a share drop for short sales profits and rise for harvesting profits. Using other people’s monies! Christopher Cox SEC chairman looked the other way. Small businesses suffered. They lost the consumers confidence. Driving some into bankruptcy and disseminated the average retail investors. Volatility contributed to tumultuous finish to Bush administration. 2008 with reckless policies and omissions, Bush entered office with DOW at 10,587; left office with the Dow at 7,949 producing a negative market loss through out his tenure. Last 17 months stock markets experienced an historical loss of 58%! This was worst than any 17month rolling cycle of the Great Depression.
Bernard Forand October 09, 2012 at 05:38 PM
Penny your numbers are just as dysfunctional as your brother Bryant’s comment. Both are transparent in obvious errors. Enuf said.. Pfffttt.
oak creek resident October 09, 2012 at 05:49 PM
>?!?! Obama insulted ALL of our overseas friends, now even israeli doesn't like us. Thanks Obama! He bowed and pandered to every muslim king he could find. To the contrary, they hate us even more and what's worse, see us as weak. Obama is weak, and a liberal coward. America is not.
Bernard Forand October 09, 2012 at 05:54 PM
Cow Dung and his merry entourage of flies are so focused on the those little nuggets. They want us to focus on old regurgitated rhetoric and or their decaying red herrings. Lets just see one example of where the republicans are indicating they want to go. {No Surprise Here} Mittens wants to increase “spending” to the Pentagon by $ 2 Trillion. HMMM They are overly budgeted as it is! Why more. OUTSOURCING! Yes sir reee bub. Thunder on the Horizon. Soon we will be able to outsource our children to foreign soils. Once again and again and again. it’s the republican way http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/05/barack-obama/obama-says-romney-would-spend-2-trilllion-military/ Obama states Romney will raise Pentagon budget by $2 Trillion! True “You don’t need no ticket you just get on board”

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »