There is no doubt in my mind that had he been elected, we would still have a “stimulus” bill. It would have been bad. Very bad.

And, unlike a law passed along partisan lines, a law that was pleasing to him and to a Democrat majority would have been impossible to repeal.

Agreed.

And I’d also add that throughout the campaign he exhibited an erratic (September campaign suspension) and inexplicable (selection of Sarah Palin) decision making process that strongly suggested to me that he was temperamentally unsuited to sit in the Oval Office.

Doug doesn’t yet appear to understand that Obama’s intent is to use Chicago style politics to transform government into a Euro-socialist affair. Nor does he appear to understand that McCain’s big govt stuff would have been tactical change, at best, but that Obama has the ability, just like FDR did, to make strategic multi-decade changes.

As opposed to McCain getting us to the same destination but calling it “bipartisanship” ?

If McCain had won it might (might) have slowed the pace of things, but we’d still be arriving at the same destination.

McCain supported TARP, do you really think he was going to discover some non-existent commitment to free markets if he became President ?

Of course he wouldn’t have, especially not with a Democratic-controlled Congress and his career-long desire to be “bipartisan”

At best, with McCain we would’ve gotten four years of grid-lock.

At worst, we would have gotten a continuation of the Bush Administration and socialism with a Republican face.

That’s why I refused to vote for him.

Not sure where to go now, the last, best hope is now being turned into Western Europe and the libertarians are cheering it on because they think it will get better in 4 years.

I’m not cheering it on, merely recognizing that it’s happening and recognizing that, if it does happen, it will be largely because the Republicans abandon any pretense of believing in free markets and limited government decades ago.

Object lesson:

We have a family friend in Ohio who has four kids, a decent job, and who voted for McCain in November.

He said recently that he does not believe the Republicans now when they talk about fiscal restraint and small government and that he’s willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on the stimulus bill.

The reason ?

Because of the way they’ve governed since taking over the House in 1994.

I think he’s wrong for supporting the bill, but his reasons for doubting the Republicans are entirely sound.

When I look at his voting record, when I look at the programs he supports, his speeches, I see a Scoop Jackson democrat, who supports big government at home and interventions and wars overseas.

Moreover, McCain had an anger management problem. The guy was seriously unhinged. There is no doubt in my mind that had he been elected, we would still have a “stimulus” bill. It would have been bad. Very bad.

And, unlike a law passed along partisan lines, a law that was pleasing to him and to a Democrat majority would have been impossible to repeal.

The Democrats are going to fail. Badly. Just as Bush killed the Republican brand, Obama is going to kill the Democrat brand. He’s already started. Unlike FDR, he wont be able to use the FCC to silence his political opponents.

Tarran begins to understand why McCain wouldn’t have been the disaster that Obama will be. Doug doesn’t yet appear to understand that Obama’s intent is to use Chicago style politics to transform government into a Euro-socialist affair. Nor does he appear to understand that McCain’s big govt stuff would have been tactical change, at best, but that Obama has the ability, just like FDR did, to make strategic multi-decade changes.

Not sure where to go now, the last, best hope is now being turned into Western Europe and the libertarians are cheering it on because they think it will get better in 4 years.

Really, given both huge government advocates, I guess I prefer one that makes pretty speeches. It’s kinda like a mugger who dresses well.

tarran is right, there’s no reason to believe that McCain would be any better than what we’re facing now.

He supported the TARP bailout so much that he went through the motions of “suspending” his campaign in order to go to Washington to save the deal. So, I guess we have him to thank for the crap sandwich bailout and everything that flows from it.

His running mate supported it as well.

There’s no reason to believe that a President McCain would have done anything differently than Bush did in response to this “crisis”, which means he would have been as big a disaster as his predecessor — with the side-effect of even further destroying the Republican Party’s credibility when it comes to fiscal conservatism.

Much like the defeat of Bush 41 in 1992, I think it’s likely that we’ll look back at the defeat of McCain/Palin as one of the best things that could’ve happened to the GOP.

Then again, McCain would have faced a contrarian Congress, whereas Obama faces a compliant Congress that seems to be trying its best to give him whatever he wants.

The early signs are that he will prove to be a bigger disaster than George Bush.

I hate to say I told you so, but it was obvious a year ago. While McCain might have been a poor choice, he wouldn’t have been the worst disaster since Carter.

Obama worse than Bush – in more ways than yet we know

Not enough people to satisfy our needs – it’s why Japan and Europe with their aging poulations and xenophobic immigration policies preceded us into economic malaise by about a decade…we need more immigration(legally) and less abortions(we’ve lost a whole generation which should be helping us grow the economy)

The able bodied will not be unable to find work – I dare say too many able bodied are in fact hiding from work (ie. the UAW) – but point well taken – still we ought put those who are essentially day laborers at the top of the economic food chain

as for stimulus the concept is far more malevolent and subtle than you say – what the Dems are essentially doing is putting money into industries (windmills, autos, roads,) which then require huge ongoing maintainance expenditures and wow – these will go to unions thus stifling more efficient use of capital.

For example how many years in a row must we see pot holes repaired and cheaply built roads redone over and over at great expense in the name of “JOBS” and ‘VOTES” and slush funds when they can build to last 10 years ?