In what could potentially be an effective argument, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis and surrogate Tim Pawlenty are making the case for a McCain presidency on the grounds that unified government would give too much power to the Democrats.  They may have a point if it’s handled well enough.

I’ve previously expressed my support for divided government.  I argued that it forces Congress and the president to work together in order to come up with a bill that will pass, but not pull the country in too far in one wrong direction or another.  I believe both the liberal and conservative extremes are bad for America, and divided government helps to stop us moving toward one of those extremes too quickly.  So an endorsement for divided government is intriguing.  Here’s what Davis has to say about it:

Do we really believe that the American public is going to feel safe by having both the head of the Congress and the head of the White House from the same party that has had so many challenges with the way they’ve run Washington over the last couple of years?” McCain campaign manager Rick Davis asked on Fox News Sunday.

Although he makes a good point, there’s one caveat: the Democrats have been notoriously bad vote gatherers.  They haven’t passed much major legislation, and when they have, it’s been watered down to the point of almost being ineffective.  In short, this group of Democrats sucks at getting an agenda passed.

Then, the one major recent legislation they’ve passed, the bailout bill, was largely successful because it was suggested by the Bush administration.  Even then, the original bill failed, only to be replaced by one that ballooned the final price significantly.  It’s pretty easy to come to the conclusion that the Democrats would be more successful with an Obama administration, but they wouldn’t exactly have to do much work to get it done, considering their record now.

Or would they?  There are many times in the Senate where a 60-vote threshold must be passed in order for legislation to proceed and to avoid filibuster.  A cloture vote is an example of this.  Now, it’s the minority party in the Senate that holds the most power to filibuster a bill.  Who’s the minority?  The Republicans.  Even if the Democrats get close to the 60-vote threshold in seats, there’s no guarantee they’ll reach it in votes.

Not only would an Obama presidency likely make the Republicans more determined to block legislation, not all the new Democrats coming into office would always be on the side of the liberals.  Several of the newer Democrats elected in 2006 and after have necessarily been moderates, since they come from historically Republican dominated districts.  This effect is probably likely to be seen again, since many of the hot races in 2008 are from Republican dominated districts.  This might make it less likely for Democrats to gain the majority they want.

Of course, if these new Democrats feel a twinge of party loyalty, it could be made easier.  But this isn’t a guarantee.  Then there’s the Repubicans.  If the Democrats want to reach that 60-vote threshold, they’ll still need Republican help.  Whether or not they get this help remains to be seen.  But if they don’t, it could mean they’ll have a tough time passing bills.  Of course, I could be entirely wrong.  Perhaps the Republicans won’t be able to get the votes against bills, but they have been better at getting members of Congress to line up  and vote their side than the Democrats have.

Finally, there’s current circumstances.  The Republicans are not getting back control of chamber.  And the Republican administration is riding on a thin cloud of popularity, and the bailout bill didn’t help that.  An Obama administration is likely, though not guaranteed.

Yet, that could also present an opportunity for the Republicans.  Give Congressional Democrats a couple years to screw up, and hope that the 2010 midterm elections bring them back into power in one or more chambers.  It’s a strategy that could work.

I’m definitely for divided government, but the Democrats’ time for unified government may have come.  They can’t possibly be any worse than the first six years of Republican unified government was.