no, because the dems had been in control of congress for the last 2 years of bush and were doing their best to sabotage him. he warned of the housing crisis, for example, and the dems gave him the finger. so, mccain would've had to deal with them also until 2010, but he wouldn't have taken the same course. i don't even think hillary would've put us in this position.
Did you think things were going in a good direction when teh 2008 elections were talking place?
that said, it's irrelevant with regard to the position of the company and who's running it. if you were an investor and the ceo was running the company into the ground, why would you continue to push to keep him? he losing your money that you invested. nothing's different here. newb, it's ok to free up people's future for other opportunities when they've proven ineffective at their current position.