You’re correct, in that the argument might be valid. I’d argue instead that it’s unsound.

Premise 1: If the crisis had been worse, he could have passed cap’n'tax and health care reform.

Rebuttal: Not sure. Stimulus round 2? Yeah. Nationalization of the banks? Probably. Environmental regulation or socialization of health care (long-term problems for which the solution has little short-term appeal), I’m not sure I buy it.

Premise 2: He effectively managed the economic situation.

Rebuttal: He let Summers & Bernanke throw money around into the banking system with reckless abandon and passed a pork-laden stimulus package with spending that won’t actually spend much until next year. And oversaw unemployment up to the 9.4% mark. It’s also highly unclear — since the financial problems are ongoing — whether they can keep the helicopter drops of money from turning into runaway inflation before the end of his term.

So I think premise 1 is arguable (but probably the stronger of the two). Premise 2 suggests that without his “effective management”, the economy would have gone nuclear, which I think is unprovable (since you can’t prove what would have happened) and also incorrect.

Shorter Emanuel: “Anything good? We get ALL the credit!! Anything bad? Blame Booosh!!!”

Let me get this straight: He appears to be saying that what they did was a “mistake” in that it did not cause sufficient economic MISERY, so that even more draconian reforms and transfer of power from the private sector to DC (like that January “stimulus” lard package) could have been crammed down the throat of a public in panic “save us now” mode. So this Dickhead is now REGRETTING that unemployment did not hit 18% while President Wee Wee’d was still above 50% in his approval ratings?

I like that benign sounding “sitting atop a much larger balance sheet.” As if this multi-trillion dollar mess is just a little bothersome accounting quirk.