When the GOP takes the Senate

[Geee]

The Hill:

Conventional wisdom is clear that the next Congress has a considerable likelihood of being a Republican Congress.

 

That same consensus also holds that if the GOP does indeed take control, the next two years will be marked by confrontation with the White House and even less actual legislative action than the present Congress has accomplished.

 

To be fair, there is some compelling logic behind these conclusions.

President Obama has clearly opted out of the role of governing through legislation. He has become the most defensive president since at least World War II, blaming the Congress not just for all the ills of the nation but even for some of his international failures.

The president is pursuing this strategy while his party controls the Senate. This being so, it is difficult to imagine him shifting from that approach in a scenario where his party does not hold either chamber of Congress.

The Republican House appears to be equally averse to working with the administration. It has developed into a controlling party that has no control over itself.

Factions rule, and compromise or governance is simply not where their interests lie. Does adding a Republican Senate to the Republican House change this equation? Or, more likely, does it simply mean more of the same, only at an amplified volume?

The Beltway pundits are betting on the latter.

[Cyber_Liberty]

All of this handwringing assumes the GOPe would be as obstructionist as Harry Reid has been. I am entitled to dream, aren't I?