I wasn't a big fan of McCain either. He had a tenuous grip at best on the ideas he was supposed to represent, and probably would have screwed up a number of things too.

But at least he would have been a partial brake on the Democratic Congress, and if he erred, he stood a much better chance of erring in favor of liberty over collectivism.

You Obama voters got what you voted for. "Change." Like amputating a leg is "change." What you've wanted for years: A 100 percent Democratic power structure, with the Congressional opposition completely marginalized, and the Great "Progressive" Leap Forward that the Democrats have been dreaming of for decades. I remember the cheering after the election. The Good Guys, the Super Geniuses, the Lightworkers, finally would have free rein after being stifled so long by Republican troglodytes.

The tactics? Crush the corporations. Make profit a crime. Strip money from the producers and investors and distribute it to your voters. Take control of the energy, health, and financial industries. Extend Federal rule to the most microscopic local levels. Tax, tax, spend, spend.

And above all, power. No policy, no action, except those that give the government more power.

Pretty right down the line of the stereotype. It was a stereotype for a reason - you saw exactly this sort of thing when Democrats got enough power at state and local levels.

It wrecked those cities and states, too.

Yes, we would have been better off with McCain and Palin. I'd say Palin compares favorably to the thundering idiot who's vice president now.