We are significantly better off with a split leadership of the three branches. I like having a pro-war and strong on terror President with veto power better than a rubber stamp for the spendaholic Republican Congress.

I hate to say it, but Congress has passed exactly two major pieces of legislation--minimum wage (which I dislike) and Iraq funding without deadlines.

In the first four months, the Dems have gone from simple obstructionists to having to lay out their agenda that is a radical departure from the campaign promises of the "Moderate" Democrats that ran in swing districts and capitalized on the culture of corruption campaign rhetoric that won the election. They have no coherent agenda except to tax the rich and are not even competent to use their "mandate" on Iraq to end the war. They are worse than the French... at least the French know how to surrender.

I always find that argument intriguing Justin, and don't dislike it. It has certainly worked out as a practical matter that Congress has done little - a good thing - and that the Democrats have received at least some pressure to make a positive case for their ideas - another good thing.

I worry that it is one of those too-clever-by-half temptations however, to try and have divided government. Just once I would like to see a Republican majority at all comparable to the complete dominance of the Democrats under Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter.

On the other hand, if there's too many of the current sort of elected Republicans, maybe not.