I mentioned in an earlier post to this thread that having a President and a Congress controlled by the same party carries some risk--risk that some wrong-headed legislation is enacted. Maybe an even more important and long-term risk has to do with Supreme Court nominations.

But in this instance, with one candidate saying he supports the policies of the prior administration--policies which have had such disastrous effects in many different ways for the U.S.--I think many will conclude that assuming such a risk might be justified.

Like you, Steve, in ordinary times I would prefer the check and balance of different parties controlling the executive and legislative branches. But these aren't ordinary times. The U.S. is confronting issues that could become even more damaging to the future of coming generations if subjected to yet another four years of political bickering, polarization and legislative stalemate. I guess I'm reaching the conclusion that even with the same party in almost total control--as it was for the first six years of the Bush administration--I don't think the results could be any worse.

In the case of this year's elections, we might get the best of both worlds. If McCain were to win the Presidency, there's an outside chance that the Democrats could win enough of a plurality in both the House and the Senate to permit cloture as well as to over-ride a Presidential veto. The result wouldn't be much different from both the executive and legislative branches being controlled by the Democrats. However, I doubt that a new President with such a thin mandate could be too effective in re-establishing leadership, either domestically or on the world stage.

With either result, critically needed changes are likely to occur. And in the end, the public can re-establish the balance you desire in the 2010 mid-term elections if that seems justified.