This sounds like the Carter-era debate over whether the Presidency was too complex for one man to handle. At the 1980 GOP convention, there was a big push for Reagan to take Ford as co-President. Reagan proved that one man could do the job with skill and aplomb and still make to the residence quarters in time to watch "The Sound of Music" with his wife.

Seems to me that at least one part of the author's argument can be turned around as well: if Bush wins re-election, and this is seen to have been because of the Michael Moores and ANSWER types associated with the Democratic party, then there's likely to be a strong push to purge the party of their influence and return it to the center. (This would be somewhat akin to what happened to the Republicans post-1964.)

The left has raised their blood pressure to near stroke levels. Another Bush term could just be enough to blow the top.
This would be good news for the third world nations of the world, who are close to death thanks to leftist efforts.

My answer to your question is: I hope not. Gridlock is good. Whichever party wins the Presidency, I hope the other party wins the Congress. I'm thinking of voting for Bush just to keep Kerry out, and then voting for Democrats for Congress. I liked it when Clinton was President and Gingrich was Speaker of the House, and was able to shut down most of the federal government for a while. Gridlock is good. Government governs best when it governs least.

Its actually a pretty silly article - if Kerry wins and there's GOP congressional majority, he'll still be able to govern for the same reason everyone else has always been able to govern...because when you get down to brass tacks, both sides want something and they will compromise to get it done. Of course, if Bush win and has a GOP majority, then a whole buncha stuff gets done.

The country is quite governable. The beauty of the American system is that it continues to function more or less as designed no matter how contentious things get.

Whoever is President will have all the same powers the President has always had. That's the thing. THe governing powers have nothing to do with how popular you are.

Bush may have a problem with party discipline but Kerry's problems are even more severe. Kerry absolutely needs the support of two different groups to win the election: his base and moderates. A considerable portion of his base are absolutely opposed to the war in Iraq—on which Kerry has pledged to stay the course. Many moderates support the war in Iraq—they just wish it had been handled better. It is just not possible for Kerry to please both of these constituencies. One or both will be bitterly disappointed by a future Kerry Administration whatever it does.

Didn't a lot of pundits ask the same question in 2000, after the Florida mess? And yet, like or dislike his policies, I don't think anyone can say that Bush has been "unable to govern."