With a Big GOP Wave, Americans Voted for More Gridlock—And They Knew What They Wanted

Reason.com ^ | Nov. 5, 2014 | J.D. Tucille

[Colofornian]

On election night, TV talking heads watching the Republican wave/surge/tidal flow across the country earnestly looked at each other and asked if the new Republican Senate majority can work with the president and overcome the gridlock that has so turned off voters. Umm...what?

Yeah, I know Americans keep telling pollsters that they can't stand "partisan bickering" and really hate Congress for its inability to get things done. But there's a strong hint that they're regurgitating sentiments that all of those right-thinking pundits tell them that they're supposed to mouth. After all, those same Americans just handed control of the Senate and an expanded House majority to the political party that has stalled the president's appointees, challenged his policies, and attacked him at every turn.

Could it be that, kumbaya language aside, the electorate likes to see government frozen in its tracks? After all, President Obama's personal approval ratings are also in the toilet, and his signature policy—the Affordable Care Act—continues to evoke a mass gag reflex from the public and was specifically cited as a negative by almost half of voters in this election.

So, if American voters don't like Congress, and don't like the president, and don't like the major piece of legislation that was produced when Congress and the president last worked together, what evidence do we have that the public is looking for more close cooperation between the executive and legislative branches?

In fact, polling finds that Americans think government is too powerful and too intrusive, with trimming back the size of the state popular among the younger voters that everybody watches so closely. And if you want to restrain government, divided government has a good historical record of achieving restraint by accident, if not as a deliberate policy choice.

Americans don't like gridlock? Maybe they think they're not supposed to like gridlock. But they just voted for more of it. And they may well know what they're doing.

[ThePatriotsFlag]

EXPOSED gridlock. How did Reid hide the 359 bills the House passed, and how did he blame their disappearance on the Republicans? Now the bills will pass both houses and the Democrats phill be fully exposed as the gridlock problem.

[Colofornian]

However, I think this argument is faulty. Gridlock is what we had. Gridlock was the Republican House standing in the way and Harry Reid bottling up the Senate. What we have now is a Congress with an opportunity to start rolling back some of the changes of the past six years. People don’t want gridlock. They want to throw the machine into reverse and get the hell out of here! [Freeper Gridlock]

Well, in post #4, I used the sports analogy that gridlock can be a "good thing" at times in football, basketball, & hockey.

So, to continue with the analogy none of those sports are meant to only play defense.

Yet, in light of your comments, 'tis times where you play offense -- not with the purpose of scoring -- but for other reasons.

For example, in football, you want the power of possessing the ball in order to do things at certain times of the end of a half to expire the clock if you're ahead. IoW, playing offense can be a form of playing defense (keeping the ball out of the other side's hands). Same with hockey: You want the power of possessing the puck to eat up the time if you're down a man (have a guy in the penalty box).

What we have now is a Congress with an opportunity to start rolling back some of the changes of the past six years. [Freeper Gridlock]

Well, yes, 100% of the Senators who won Tuesday campaigned versus ObamaCare. So such a rollback was stated in those campaigns.

Beyond that one, not sure I concur with your comment: I think this argument is faulty [Freeper Gridlock]

As Marron pointed out in post #14: Part of the reason conservatives go bad once they get to Washington, is the bias toward “getting something done”. No one ever went to Washington with the intention of stopping the government from solving problems. They all have the built-in bias toward “getting about the business of the American people” which can be exactly the wrong thing. The American people are supposed to be “getting about” their own business...

So I think that's what this article's author had in mind as his description of "Gridlock."

IoW, the American people by and large prefer stalemate to checkmate. Why? Because under the current "checkmate" model as Congress perceives it...
...we the taxpayers lose.
...we the healthcare recipients lose.
...we the small businesses lose.
...we red-tape entangled ones lose.
...etc.

When the president gets in your way. Put Congress in his way. Indeed, the American people knew what they were doing.

[ripley]

“Another Liberal idiot..”
He’s not an idiot. He’s engaging in the usual Liberal distortion and subversion that appeals to the goose-stepping proletarians among us.

IMHO

[Impy]

I am tired of hearing about “gridlock” and how “bad” it is.

If “gridlock” = stopping Obama from passing nasty shite, then sign me up for “gridlock”.

[caww]

I don't know how this will play out...What exactly the Republicans will attempt to put through...but whatever does "pass" Obama will surely snatch it as his own and trumpet it as so.

Obama never saw himself as a SERVANT to the people....rather as King Ruler. Just as Valerie said from the get go.

[lulu16]

I actually saw her say that when it happened. She was elated and did not stumble over the word “rule.” Notice she is keeping a low profile these days.

[caww]

Yes she is staying low...at least visual. But make no mistake she's already moved ahead of this election and setting the stage for Obama’s next move. They knew this was coming so they've been ahead of it for some time....that's why Obama said he'd push through Amnesty prior to the vote. Also why he said he'd be meeting with the Congressional Leaders Friday..in the heat of the voting. The “King” will always interject ‘himself’ into anything he believes he should have a say in. Remember he also said in his speech that he could cancel his meeting with leaders by right of his position ... to remind people he's the man in control.

[QualityMan]

EXACTLY

the system was designed for a specific amount of gridlock, all the time. THAT is the POINT.

to think otherwise is “progressive”

[The Enlightener]

USA Today's editorial board, reading the polling tea leaves going into the election, was already deciding one of its narrative mantras would be: No more gridlock On this Election Day, more voters now say they want compromise instead of unyielding confrontation.

How can anyone fall for this crap. If they wanted compromise, people would have voted against the republicans "causing" the gridlock. Instead, they voted against the democrats. It wasn't 50/50 either, they voted lock, stock, and barrel against the democrats. Why would that imply that the American people elected republicans to compromise with the losers on the agenda the voters rejected?

[caww]

..”Notice she (Valerie Jarrett) is keeping a low profile these days.”.....

She’s busy occupied with the Iranians on Obama’s behalf of course and has been doing so for months and months, she’s the lead on talks with Iran, though it’s supposedly “secret” it’s really just “back channel” talks she’s been working on....which she should be disqualified from doing so.... she has little experience in International Affairs and certainly wasn’t “appointed” as such. But Obama will abide by what she wants as usual regarding Iran.

November 24th, I think, is the cut off date so she and Obama want to strike a deal with Iran before then...bypassing Congress of course.

Here’s some interesting information on Jarretts’s father and tehir history with Alinsky etc...
“Obama just happened to know 60s far-left radical revolutionary William Ayers, whose father just happened to be Thomas Ayers, who just happened to be a close friend of Obama’s communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, who just happened to work at the communist-sympathizing Chicago Defender with Vernon Jarrett, who just happened to later become the father-in-law of Iranian-born leftist Valerie Jarrett, who Obama just happened to choose as his closest White House advisor, and who just happened to have been CEO of Habitat Company, which just happened to manage public housing in Chicago, which just happened to get millions of dollars from the Illinois state legislature, and which just happened not to properly maintain the housing—which eventually just happened to require demolition.

Valerie Jarrett also just happened to work for the city of Chicago, and just happened to hire Michelle LaVaughan Robinson (later Mrs.Obama), who just happened to have worked at the Sidley Austin law firm, where former fugitive from the FBI Bernardine Dohrn also just happened to work, and where Barack Obama just happened to get a summer job.”

Here’s an interesting older article about her involvement from Brietbart

Peace/2013/www.breitbart.com/Big11/26/Valerie-Jarrett-Chicago-and-the-Iran-Deal

[lulu16]

I seem to want to go down memory lane too. I do remember of which you write, but I am still a little fuzzy on her ethnic makeup. Is she black on both sides of her family? She has that tamed ferret face, and it could be said that she is creole. But how do black people end up being born in Iran? And does she have personal ties to Iran, which I have also suspect why Obama has given Iran favored nation status, e.g., the young people revolt a few years back, where he turned a blind eye.

So, it did not put it together that she has been the one who has the pen pal relationship with Iran. Col. Ralph Peters tore into that idea last night. The Obama Doctrine is such a piece meal strategy, with haphazard strategy. We want to make sure that Iran does not become any more a nuclear threat than it is. Grand Vizier Jarrett seems to want it to be the the Persian power of yore, dominating the Middle East and bringing Israel to destruction.

As an aside, I remember, when Jarrett and company took a junket to the Olympic committee to pitch Chicago as the site, having her slums ready to be torn down, as the future place for the Olympic Village, but they were out in the first round? But they keep on keeping on, don’t they?

[caww]

Valerie Jarrett was actually born in Shiraz, Iran. Her parents were African-American working In Iran... as part of a program where American physicians and agricultural experts help developing countries... Jarrett was raised there til 5 yrs. old....eventually they moved to Chicago.....Jarrett's mother has long ties with Iran's Universities. You can see Jarrett's resemblance to her parents.