Technically I think McCain was on the right side of things in opposing the Bush tax cuts.

Here is why:
Under Bush you have:
War in Iraq: stimulus
War in Afghanistan: stimulus
Tax Cuts: Stimulus(opposed by McCain)
other increased spending Fannie and Freddie homeownership as part of the ownership society(parts of which opposed by McCain): Stimulus
Financial bailout: Stimulus
Record low interest rates: Stimulus

Under Obama you have:
War in Iraq: stimulus
War in Afghanistan: stimulus
Tax Cuts: stimulus
other increased spending as part of the green(Chevy Volt), new GM/new foundations economy, cash for clunkers: stimulus (parts of which opposed by McCain)
Financial bailout: stimulus
Record Low Interest rates: stimulus

A lot of these record deficits were forcast in the days of Bill Clinton, which is why he said the age of big government was over, especially once we got the republicans in power to hold his feet to the fire. Clinton helped the future viability of the welfare regime.

In terms of lower taxes Bush delivered on a conservative promise. If you like conspiracy theories Bush also destroyed the future viability/possibility of the welfare state by growing deficits with unecessary over stimulation, that deprived the welfare state of necessary bullets during recession.

Now the funny thing with Obama is that he knows that the age of big government is over....but in the short to medium term the age of big government must remain alive in a recession. We can get out of Afghanistan when the cyclical boom in inventory replacement in aerospace that will keep Boeing and Lockeheed alive starts with full force. We can get out of Iraq and trim defense spending once this isn't one of the few healthy legs of the economy. As it is I actually think that just on a fiscal note Obama isn't going to do anything in Afghanistan that hurts the defense industry. He can't deprive himself of economic stimulus that has republican support. (McCain support at least)

So now McCain is for tax cuts and for all sorts of stimulus, but this is really the policy recommendation for recession. It is perfectly sensible to be in favor of lower taxes during a recession, but not during times when government is already doing deficit spending(when McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts). The only problem is that there aren't that many bullets left in the gun....Bush shot them all, the fed already was low...taxes already were cut, and the fact that the Bush tax cuts might expire under Obama is a big problem for Obama if he is listening to even liberal Robert Reich.

Had the bush tax cuts never existed there wouldn't be this overhang going into 2011...the deficit wouldn't be so bad, and obama would probably have made even more middle class tax cuts at this juncture, along with more spending and maybe less deficit spending overall (since he could do more on a relative basis, but even then he would be seeing all too clearly and first hand what Clinton saw on the horizon....that horizon is now)

Look a conservative wave is comming, but a lot of waves are comming because the entire welfare state regime is about to die(or at least this is a common popular view.)

I think from the perspective of a sort of pro-welfare state(powerfull america) Neo-Keynsian/McCain type view...Bush will be remmembered as the president who over projected american power, over stimulated, over spent, and thus created conditions where credibility of stimulus tools to invigorate animal spirits were no longer present looking foward given the elephant in the room deficit.

Obama will be seen as the president whose ideological spending would have came at the right time in a disciplined neo-keynesian welfare regime.

There is no disputing that Obama got a bad hand dealt, that he will have to own the hand and play it, but that at some point the deficit became like exposed aces in the burn pile. If two aces are showing in the burn pile and two are on the flop, Obama can't bluff. Bernanke made clear that he wants more government spending, that he especially wants tax cuts(and the bush ones) but that he is also really worried about the deficit. That is even if Obama can magically get the unemployment to the overly optimistic fed figure of 7.1% by Jan 2012...Jan 2013 won't look much better...the deficit overhang going foward almost regardless of political climate means increased taxes, reduced spending and a combination of both in larger and larger proportions. (In fact if Obama can get unemployment to 7.1% and get re-elected he will have to promise to increase taxes and cut spending and end the war, and 7.1% will be the low out to 2016.)

With the Macro picture being what it is I don't think McCain would have done much better or worse (so to a great extent I accept that his inability to articulate economic policy apriori doesn't matter than much...he isn't Bernake) plus it is really politicians who didn't realize the full weight of the Clinton/Gingrich outlook who spent too much time winning votes by promising tax cuts and fighting a good war and other government spending. If anything Cheney and Kristol should be taking it on the chin, for saying: "Deficits don't matter" Or hailed as heroes if you are a certain type of conservative. Deficits do matter....but perhaps in a way if the tax cuts had not been handed out to the people the money would have simply been spent by washington... except that the money was spent by washington anyways...because the system can sustain times when deficits don't matter....thus the liberal democratic neo-keynesian welfare state is remarkably stable and stabilizing provided it is ran like Germany.

I don't mind if you identify McCain as something other than a conservative. I think he is a pro liberal democratic welfare state neo-keynesian neo-conservative.

You guys seemed to never try to understand his policy consistency.

And you tried to sell him by packaging him with Palin which did and does make for policy travesty and incoherence.

But you could have gone with coherence and packaged him with Leiberman.

Also one problem I have is that once I start chearing for a team, since I am not paid to do so... I continue doing so, especially if I am cheering for a reason I see is underserved or slightly different.

Also McCain was never pro-amnesty, but he was also never anti-immigration. Even now he isn't anti-immigration.

While there is a lot of conflicting information, I think the weight of the evidence stands behind the view that immigration is a net positive. The CBO(congressional Budget Office) said so in 2007. According to pro-nafta Clintonomics immigration was a good thing. Actually I wonder if some of the voices on the right that Clinton co-opted(it is hard to sort out what is true clinton and true gingrich) didn't really push pro-immigration to the left. Stephen Moore(a true Reaganite?) was recently on CNBC talking up a study showing that immigrants add much more to the economy than they take away. You can still find some support at Cato and Heritage...

In any case this is a hot issue in Arizona, and I hope arizone voters don't get too caught up in what the "right" position is, whatever it is.

Maybe McCain is just too old and doesn't understand the new conservatism.