It doesn't. But, it avoids a bigger disaster -- a Romney Presidency, which will be bigger than either Bush Presidency.
You keep wanting to pretend voting for a man with liberal record and no principles is going to make the country better. It won't.
Let’s see, will a flip flopping, mushy moderate who always has a finger in the wind (but does have a lot of business sense) prove a less competent steward than a resolute far lefty who pretends that, say, requiring religious organizations to carry insurance policies that support things contrary to the religion (with the meaningless difference of “who” pays for it being “the company” i.e. the subscriber) is some kind of compromise?
The choice in November being such stinks to high heaven, of course.
“You keep wanting to pretend voting for a man with liberal record and no principles is going to make the country better. It won’t.”
And you’re pretending that a second Buckwheat term won’t damage the republic more. Buckwheat is already illegally ruling through the fascist bureaucracy and executive dictates, doing whatever he wants.
If we had Republicans such as Thaddeus Stevens and the Radical Republicans like in the 1860s, I could see taking Buckwheat out. Stevens stripped Johnson of his commander in chief role and took over the military. He also effectively neutralized the court and pushed through Reconstruction without Johnson’s assent.
The entire Republican leadership today are gutless worms. There’s not a single Thaddeus Stevens among them.
What’s your plan to neutralize Buckwheat and his Nazi bureaucrats?