Another silver lining!

We told you so.

JONAH GOLDBERG isn't sure it would be so bad if the Republicans lost control of Congress.

As we noted just a few days ago, when the Dems win, they still lose. Pantload writes:

...the silver lining would be fairly thick...letting the Democrats run wild could be good for both the GOP and conservatives, as my colleague Ramesh Ponnuru recently pointed out in the New York Times. If you think Americans are itching for change now, wait until they break into hives after two more years of Republican monopoly on power.

Yay! More silver linings! So it'd be good for the GOP to lose now because ... people will hate them and their policies even more in two years? Err, huh?

But a Pelosi-run House could so horrify voters that it would probably prepare the soil for a Republican presidential candidate in 2008. Pelosi is, if anything, a moderate in the Democratic caucus, but she is indisputably far to the left of the American center, in part because she and her colleagues mistake passionately angry bloggers for the mainstream. Letting voters see this crowd try to have its way for two years would only help the GOP in the far more important 2008 election.

So this election we're about to lose: no biggie. The next one, though, that's a biggie! By the way, the Hastert-run House doesn't seem to very popular, and Americans currently favor a Pelosi-run house by double-digits. But I'm sure they'd be "horrified."

Moreover, it could very well boost President Bush’s popularity in his final two years — popularity he would need to conduct foreign policy, which tends to dominate the final years of all presidencies.

Nope, sorry Pantload. Nothing will raise Bush's numbers except improvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s one thing to carp and snipe at the president as the party out of power. It is quite another to use congressional power to hobble a wartime commander in chief.

Those mean, mean Democrats. All that carping and sniping at our Dear Leader. They're just so mean!

But he saves the best for last:

As for Iraq, antiwar liberals also would discover that having a majority within a party is not the same thing as controlling it. Democrats would not be able to force a withdrawal from Iraq, but they’d look even more McGovernite in the process.

60% of the American people appear to be "McGovernites", Pantload. But hey, if dismissing the American people and a combat vet who flew 35 combat missions over Europe in WWII make you feel better about losing the House, knock yourself out.

UPDATE:

Couldn't let Putz's comment go:

If it weren't for the war, and the Democrats' fecklessness on national security, I wouldn't dread it either.

Aside from the sheer idiocy of the "feckless" part, how does winning back the House give the Democrats control of "the war"?