Four years ago, the Democrats retook Congress with little more than the chant "Bush sucks!" Two years ago, Barack Obama won the presidency with rhetoric of "hope" and "change" but little mandate to do anything other than "fix things."

Guess what? A year-and-a-half is hardly long enough to "fix things." Bill Clinton learned this when Republicans took control of Congress after the 1994 midterms. George W. Bush's numbers were very similar to those of Clinton and Obama in his first year (mid-fifties), and the economy wasn't getting much better. There's nothing in the historical record that suggests Democrats couldn't have retaken both houses of Congress in 2002.

Then came 9/11. There's nothing like a war (or two) to help with elections. Bush's second midterms, of course, brought the Democrats back in full force.

So Obama's problems aren't revolutionary. He's hardly the least popular president of the past three years, much less the past 20 or even the past 100. The Democrats will lose seats in the November elections. Of course.

While it seems increasingly unlikely that Republicans will retake both houses of Congress, some smart folks in the GOP are actively hoping that they don't.

The logic for this is two-pronged. First, the Prez will have a much easier time running for re-election against a Republican Congress. It's always easier to get votes if you have a fully-stuffed punching bag. Every Republican running today swears by pounding on the Prez. If a strategy works, only a fool would abandon it.

The second reason for the "I hope we lose" idea is much more important. Republicans have heaped much more scorn on Nancy Pelosi than Harry Reid. This makes sense. Pelosi is, in fact, an effective leader of the House. She has consistently followed a program of putting forward an agenda that is best described as watered-down progressivism. That is, programs designed to give some comfort to the middle and working classes (the Health Care legislation, for example) and modest restrictions on businesses in the realms of finance and the environment.

I find this agenda reasonable, but plenty of conservatives don't. Okay, we can disagree. Policy differences are irrelevant, however, to the easy judgment that Pelosi has been effective in getting legislation through the House.

On the other side of the Capitol, Reid has been an astoundingly uninspiring leader. He has followed Pelosi when he thinks the political winds are blowing in that direction, but he doesn't seem to have any agenda of his own. Apparatchiks are difficult to demonize because they're not interesting enough to hate. This may explain Reid's ability to keep getting re-elected (up until this November).

If the Republicans come to power, however, what will be the agenda? Most of the Tea Party stuff is unpassable. Shut down the Fed? Not gonna happen. Shoot alleged illegal immigrants on sight? Um, no. Close the government until the deficit is erased? Are you kidding?

Republicans have no idea what they would do if they do find themselves in power on November 3. What voters will see are the members of the newly-elected loony fringe of the party presenting themselves as the new faces of the GOP, with the party leadership powerless to refute such assertions. By the time these folks take their oaths of office in January, it's quite possible that many voters will have already gotten a severe case of buyer's remorse.

But even if that isn't the case, the lack of any coherent GOP agenda will doom not only the likely short-lived Republican majority in Congress but also the eventual 2012 standard-bearer. Those who count electoral votes say Obama's re-election is far from secure, and I agree. But these same folks don't see much hope for Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin, either.

Many commentators see the Tea Party movement as evidence that the center has disappeared from American politics. I don't believe that. America is fundamentally more conservative and business-centric than most industrialized nations, but not to the extent that the ideas espoused by the Tea Party will ever attract anything close to majority approval.

Like most nations, we have significant minorities that hold ideas highly disliked by other significant minorities. Unlike most nations, most of the time we figure out a way to make things work. In the middle. Of course.

The Tea Party energy may be a good short-term tonic for the GOP. But it is long-term poison. Large groups of people in this country, people who might well vote for the occasional Republican, feel that the Tea Party demonizes them and theirs. And if the party leadership finds itself compelled to espouse those positions (and those of other far-right factions), the GOP will continue to be the party of really rich people and the church-going, heterosexual white people who follow along. That's just not the trend of the future.

It's nice to win elections. But as Harry Reid should know by now, sitting in the seat of power without a clear vision of the future is no way to run a country. Right now, Republicans are running around like chickens with their heads cut off, hoping that they reach the finish line before they bleed to death. That might work, but not for long.

Jon Worley thinks crazy politicians are a wonderful diversion, but that their shelf life is oh-so-short.