I think you could see the opposite, not having Obama in office means that the Democrats can still largely blame McCain for being "like Bush" and the Republicans for the apparent economic stagnation. In OTL the public reactively voted them out on "jobs." Here it's not as obvious to swing voters.It's not so much I don't think that Mccain would be intrested, as much as A: The Democrats would NOT want to hand him a victory on one of their key issues. THIS is why I think Mccain would put it aside.
B: I find (in a lot of ways) that the 100 days of Obama's presidency foucsed on health care instead of trying to get the economy restarted, as primary foucs, a bit... disturbing. I also tend to think Mccain's a bit smarter than that. (Plus, a republican Win, means less Democratic seats. How many? Unsure of. LIkey majoirty still is democrat, but not as big)
I acutally voted for him, mostly becasue I just got a vibe from Obama that "This man is dangerous" (Before I get harrased on 'racism' I was one of the first people to try to join Powell's potental campigan in 96. It's also I've been THOUGH Chicago... and if there's a city more corrupt than New Orleans... well.) I don't regret voting for Mccain. I can say when people bitch at me over the situation we find ourselves in... "Hey, I voted the OTHER guy." There are some benfits.
That was pretty much my reasoning. I figured McCain was marginally better and I could at least say I didn't vote for Obama when he inevitably won. In retrospect, very stupid and reactive on my part .
Fair point in that case.One of Mccain's plans was to cut that issue (Do you realize, that even if you're building the same. excat. plant, you have to get the same plans reapproved again, same excat process? Gyah.) in some degrees. Plus, the funding issue. 200 billion secure, arranging for the rest would be a lot easier.
Note: I did not say any of these reactors would be online (in fact, I'd be plesantly suprised if they'd be even broken ground by 1/1/12) or seriously under construction.
Well that depends, remember that McCain was for cap and trade. He could still wind up pursuing that in office. I don't think he'd feel beholden to "the base" like a lot of people here assume. I think if anything we might have a "Nixon in China" type scenario where on certain policies he takes a more "liberal" position on in his administration. Case in point, immigration.Ah, heres where you misunderstood me (And Obama's beaten Carter already, in that regard. *Sigh*). I did not say he'd cut any (or cut the total number) I said "he would not do as MUCH". Meaning less reguations than Obama's admistration. Not less than when he started (Yeah, That's a forlorn hope...) Not to mention highly unlikey a few regulations that raised wholesale electric rates nearly _10_ times in the Northeast, unless you're in Ohio, where it hit _25_ times increase.
Well if you assume that the GOP still takes power then a massive military build up is very likely, although I'll conceded I assume that wouldn't happen. Keep in mind that McCain's stimulus plan alone was estimated at $425 billion dollars and that got reject, and most of that was credits. Meanwhile Obama stimulus wound up being significantly more than the original $787 billion price tag. It therefore seems very likely that the end stimulus would have been significantly higher than $425 billion and that probably would have had more long term credits, sapping funds.Acutally... note the amount I stated. 900 billion. THere's several issues he's unlikey to have spent money on that Obama and the Democrats did. As for increasing military spending. Bwahaha. Unlieky with the makeup as is. Which is why I don't quite think there would be as MUCH. Still, 900 billion is a lot. Some military spending would have gotten though, yes, but not the huge increase People think. Some things that the Democrats and others spent money on, would not have gotten spent on. It's a wash.
As I said in another thread there isn't an 100% consensus on multiplier, even a lot of not-heterodox economists like Robert Barro dispute it.(Side note: There IS a keynesian mulipiter, it's proven. It's how it's spent, not just spent, it's on what, how, and why... and Kenyes also proposed tax cuts as well. The basic theory is, you spend some money now to keep industry busy, while the tax cuts take effect. You're supposed to do both. THEN when the Economy's booming, pay it back)
Acutally, this is where I disagree wtih you. How unpopluar Mccain is, depends on too many factors. I do agree the Democrats would not lose as badly (in fact, I doubt here, they lose control of the House in fact)
Well the house is a toss up. I'm inclined to think it wouldn't happen, remember that even a 1994 scenario was seen as ASB not too long ago on this board never mind what actually happened.
Fair enough.Stranger things have happened. Note I did agree it was likey.
[/QUOTE]Iran, mabye. However Talk is cheap. To be fair, I HAVE met and talked to Sen. Mccain personally. I don't think he's as eager to scream and leap as you think, but I've been wrong before.
And as for all his record, its' more _being prepared_ and devotion to airpower, than acutally putting boots on the ground.
(Vietnam killed THAT in his mind.)
He had Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol as advisors and advocated US involvement in Iran in 2009 to help the protesters. He routinely made it clear that the US would aid any dissident group in enemy states. It's hard to imagine a more militaristic candidate getting the nomination, other than Rick Santorum.