Romney's legislative plan could actually make it harder to reach across the aisle. Mitt's bipartisan talk draws doubters

DAVENPORT, Iowa — In his closing pitch to voters, Mitt Romney is leaning hard into the idea that he and Paul Ryan will work as bipartisan deal makers if they claim the White House.

But the likelihood of Romney and Ryan locking arms with “good Democrats,” as Romney put it this week, to solve the nation’s problems is dubious given the GOP nominee’s legislative priorities.


As the former Massachusetts governor talks comity on the campaign trail, Romney wants Capitol Hill Republicans to craft a legislative plan that could make it harder for them to work with congressional Democrats early in the Republican’s potential White House tenure.

First and foremost: Romney’s “readiness” team has been meeting with national Republicans in Washington about the GOP nominee’s No. 1 campaign promise: how he’ll repeal President Barack Obama’s health care law. Some scenarios to accomplish that goal have already been mapped out.

Yet if Romney makes good on his pledge to roll back the health care overhaul — which he almost certainly must in some way given his insistent campaign rhetoric and likely pressure from conservatives — that will hardly foster the bipartisan atmosphere that Romney has recently lauded.

Repealing the law is a “red line” for most Democrats, according to several lawmakers and party officials. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and other top Senate Democrats would bitterly oppose any attempts to pare back the law. Romney would be forced then to overcome a Democratic filibuster, try a risky legislative maneuver or issue an executive order — moves that would be painted by Democrats as a highly partisan gambit.

Furthermore, Romney’s team would like Congress to pass a package of targeted reductions of already approved spending soon after the Republican is installed in the White House, according to sources familiar with his plans. But Democrats have been cool to the idea of additional spending cuts without revenue increases.

If Romney is elected, his team wants Congress to use the lame-duck session before he is inaugurated to extend funding for the government past March — which would avoid a messy spending fight during his first three months in office. Spending skirmishes have been among the messiest partisan showdowns, pitting Republicans against Democrats and members of Congress against colleagues in their own party. Even Republicans concede this would be a tall task.

That’s all on top of fights over automatic defense spending cuts, debating how to deal with expiring tax rates for all Americans and renewing the reimbursement formula for doctors who treat Medicare patients. These legislative battles will occur no matter who wins the White House.

Furthermore, Ryan — Romney’s vice presidential pick and the House Budget Committee chairman — is a lightning rod for the most controversial policy proposals, though it’s unclear how hard Republicans will push Romney to pursue a budget modeled on the Wisconsin lawmaker’s or something different.

Put together, the talk here today about how Romney is “going to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats” is greeted by some in Washington as just that — talk.

“I think the way Romney is comporting himself makes it very difficult for him — and he’s done it to himself — to govern in any kind of bipartisan manner,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who noted several times that he was absolutely confident Obama would win another term in the White House next week. “The differences between us couldn’t be greater. And you gotta remember who he chose as his running mate. As much as Republicans hate Obamacare, Democrats hate the Ryan budget.”

Romney’s campaign dismissed the fresh insights into the governor’s legislative preferences that were outlined to POLITICO by multiple sources without attribution to speak freely about the path forward in Congress should Romney win the White House.

“These rumors are riddled with inaccuracies and anyone spreading this speculation is not informed,” a campaign official said.

The Romney campaign did not comment on what precisely it believes is inaccurate.

Romney’s new pitch for bipartisanship — hinted at in recent weeks but intensified Sunday during a trio of stops in Ohio — also puts into full view a question that’s been plaguing House Republicans for months: How do their members interpret a Romney victory?

Does it mean Ryan budget or bust, or middle-of-the-road governance? Louisiana GOP Rep. Steve Scalise, a candidate for the chairmanship of the conservative Republican Study Committee, said the kind of bipartisan legislation Romney should pursue would be enacting the nearly three dozen House Republican-passed bills that were ignored by the Senate.

“A Romney win would be a clear sign that people across this country think that we’re headed in the wrong direction, and they’ll be sending that message by firing the president … who hasn’t done the job,” Scalise said.

Scalise added, “I think you would see a mandate by people across the country that they want to end the radical regulations, starting with Obamacare, and turn around our economy and start creating jobs, and there are really good solutions that Mitt Romney’s talking about, and frankly some good bills that the House has passed, with bipartisan votes, to get the economy moving again.”

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), a member of the House Republican leadership team, said Romney will “have to work with the House and Senate.”

There are natural boundaries to Romney’s pitch for working together. Chiefly, he might not win the White House. The most recent POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Tracking Poll of 1,000 likely voters had Obama ahead of Romney, 49 percent to 48 percent.

Romney’s new tone is a marked contrast from the primary season. Eager to avoid being defined as “a Massachusetts moderate,” as Newt Gingrich called him, the former governor tacked right and took a hard line on a host of issues.

In February, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Romney famously described himself as “severely conservative.” But his new push is designed to win over general election voters and solidify his edge with independents.

And if he gets to Washington, Romney will have ground to make up with members of Congress. He’s not a Washington insider, having never met with the full House Republican Conference as the party’s nominee.

In Findlay, Ohio, on Sunday afternoon, Romney pledged to “go to Washington with Paul Ryan” and “meet regularly with Democrat leaders” — using a term for the opposition party despised by its members.

Romney has taken recently to reminding crowds that “by the way, Democrats love America, too.” And he’s positioning Ryan — a 13-year veteran of Washington — as someone who works across the aisle. And of course, Romney cites his work as governor with the deeply blue Massachusetts Legislature, where he was “able to cut state spending — not just lower the rate of growth but cut it.”

“I’ll meet regularly with Democrat leadership and Republican leadership, work for the common interest of the people of America,” he said in Davenport on Monday evening. “Put the interest of people ahead of the interest of politicians, but I also want you to know how optimistic I am, I wouldn’t be doing what I’m doing if I were a pessimist, all right? This job is quite an undertaking. It’s a thrill to get to do what I get to do.”

Among the activists who pack Romney’s rallies, it’s easy to find skeptics of his odes to bipartisanship.

“He’s a lot smarter than me, but I don’t know if that’s always possible,” said Kevin Knight, 48, of Avon Lake, Ohio. “If it is, great. One thing I have not liked in the past is when we’ve elected people who said they were going to represent our views and then they get there and they don’t.”

He complained that some of the 2010 class of tea party freshmen fell into a “muddle” once they got to Washington.

Knight added, “There’s too many progressive Republicans, and I’m a really small-government guy. I’m hoping Romney will recognize that.”

John Bresnahan contributed to this report from Washington.