Sometimes you can win politically in the long-run by losing elections in the short-run. Right? Isn’t that the theory that Chris Bowers is operating under? Whatever your problems with Barack Obama, would you really prefer a president John Kerry (with adulterous vice-president John Edwards in tow)? And, without Bush’s disastrous second term, we wouldn’t have anywhere near these congressional majorities. If you can set aside the immeasurable damage that Bush created in the 2005-2009 time period, we clearly are better off that Bush defeated Kerry. What were we thinking when we campaigned against Bush/Cheney in 2004?
Of course, you can’t play at politics this way. You have to play to win. Losing elections is not a sane way to advance a political agenda, even if it might occasionally work out for the best. If the world could be spared a second Bush term, it was our responsibility to do everything in our power to see that that happened. Ask New Orleans. Ask the unemployed. Remember Samuel Alito and John Roberts.
As for the elections that we won in 2006 and 2008, we can only imagine how paralyzed Washington would be if Congress was still controlled by the Republican Party. Even a few less members of each house would render Obama’s presidency impotent. I understand the sentiment, but we really don’t have the luxury of holding out for a progressive Shangri-La.
P.S. It appears that Nate Silver agrees with me.