Sometimes I Wonder

From Waldo Lydecker's Journal, this endorsement from the Greenville (SC) News. The bulk of the text is quite judicious and evenhanded, in fact quite complimentary to both candidates -- until you get to the last couple of paragraphs, in which the rationale for the endorsement becomes crystal clear:

A powerful argument against an Obama presidency is that it most likely would put an extraordinary degree of power in the hands of one political party. Democrats are expected to build significantly on the working majority they hold in the Senate and their edge of about 30 seats in the House. This political muscle would be far greater than the four and a half years under President Bush when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, mostly squandered their leadership position and alienated many independent voters.

Americans often have shown disdain for the governing excesses that come when one party has virtually unchecked power through holding the White House and significant majorities in both houses of Congress. The first two years of President Clinton's first term and the four years of President Carter's one term offer clues about what can happen when one party has to pay little to no attention to the other.

Would you think that someone is trying to sweep the Bush II presidency under the carpet? The statement about "political muscle" is quite nonsensical. Aside from the fact that, unlike Republicans, Democrats tend not to march in lockstep, some of the worst legislation ever in the history of this country was routinely passed by the Bush Congress, sometimes without even being debated. It is perhaps instructive that the dire warnings are centered on the Carter and Clinton presidencies, the Bush II years having been, obviously, all good.

Jeebus.