By Patrick Appel
A reader writes:

So Krisol's making a balance of power argument here--if you don't want the liberal crazies tramping all over unfettered and free, then vote McCain.  Fine, I think six years of Republican control have taught us some great lessons about what life is like without gridlock, but rhetorically that's a tricky jig to dance to.  McCain can run against congress all he wants, but it's a bad idea for all the reasons you stated and two more.  Sure, historically Congress has low approval ratings, but individual Senate and House member approval ratings almost always fall along state party lines and stick around the mid-40s/50s/60s.  Point is, conventional wisdom and individual polling says Americans are far more likely to favor their own rep over all of "congress".  Which makes it tough to separate the two when you're stumping locally--especially if your stumping with a local candidate in tow.  And for all of the complaining we do about congress according to the polls, state-by-state we'll keep electing many of the same people.

Second reason is he's a member now, and has been for quite awhile.

So I'm not sure where he's going to draw the line in the sand here.  Given his maverick status, he's been an integral player on both sides of the aisle and has proudly stated so many times for many bills.  Given the large amount of distrust on the right about McCain, I'm not sure they'd endearingly view him as a strong check against a Democratic majority.  Hell, right now they don't view him as a strong check against appointing an anti-Roe judge, either.  Additionally, part of his experience argument lies with his years in the Senate, and blasting the institution he's lived in for years clashes with where his experience lies. 

Like I said, tough rhetorically to make, and it just doesn't seem like it would resonate.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.