How about we be grateful that neither Obama nor the spendy Keynesians have had much to do with the economy these last few years and it's recovering like it always does.
You say that the Keynesians didn't participate in the recovery and yet Bush's last budget, enacted virtually unchanged as he submitted it, resulted in a 1.6 trillion dollar budget deficit, a deficit that dwarfed his previous record ones. Surely even you recognize that this is a huge "spendy Keynesians" economic boost? It is an example of the most effective Keynesian active compensations, an automatic one that kicks in from the beginning of the recession.
It doesn't really matter if it was like most of Bush's policies, a huge, accidental, unintended consequence, it was a classic Keynesian response.
Oh, and about the damage from the sequester, which you touched on, you must remember that you are concentrating on the federal government's spending. Keynes recognized that what was important was total government spending, including state and local governments. And because the state and local government's had to balance their budgets even in the recession, their cutbacks dwarfed the federal government's sequester, in both magnitude and duration. And were one of the main reasons for the slow recovery, along with debt deflation, the cutbacks of the private sector to pay off debt, and the unprecedented refusal of the opposition party, the Republicans, to do anything to help the economy, in fact they opposed any and all steps to speed the recovery insisting on austerity, the one thing guaranteed to delay the recovery. As we have seen all over the world, austerity failed in every country. In Greece it has produced 26% unemployment and an increase in debt.
From previous discussions with you it is obvious that you don't seem to have a very good grasp of the theory behind the economics that you claim to believe in and try to use, so it is not very surprising that you don't understand Keynes.
Here is a Businessweek article that might help. It is an article that I was reading just before I read this thread. There are many more, but I would recommend that you start with his book,
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. It is not too terribly easy to read but it is because it is so dense with ideas, a welcome change from most economics books that are short of ideas but long on verbage.
