Re: anybody but....

How can you even write this. If you want more deficit than the record one's Bush run up, a continuation of the war that will cost over 2 trillion dollars or over $8,000 per each man, woman, and child, the loss of respect of all of the countries in the world except England, a new war with Iran, (do I need to go on), then follow the advise of Contract Specialist.

When Bush came into office, we had a surplus in the budget. The first year, he used it up and went on to set record deficit, even outspending Reagan. So if you want more of the same, follow his/her advise.

Re: anybody but....

Of course the Regular Everyday Joe has conveniently not mentioned the fact that Bush inherited the beginning of a recession (tech bubble started it's decline in early to mid 2000), and had to deal with an attack on a major mainland civilian population center which made the inherited recession drop like a rock. This is a one-two punch that no President in the last century has had to deal with. We need to be careful and use our heads before buying into partisan rhetoric such as this.

Re: anybody but....

Here we go again... a column about 2008 Presidential candidates and the Bush bashers regurgitate the same old stuff again.

I got news for you folks... he ain't running for President..

Re: anybody but....

No, Bush is not running again. Despite this (and it's true), his successor will have to address issues that he introduced.

He may have inherited a recession. Let's say he did. Let's even say tax cuts benefit the overall economy (which I don't believe they do), there's no need for the amount of additional debt we've accumulated. His policies are at fault.

I think that any of these candidates will bring change. I'm most in favor of Ron Paul because he seems to understand what the economy and government's role in the lives of citizens is about. Of course, I'll settle for nearly anyone, anyone but Romney.

Re: Paul and Huckabee

I have never understood why people get so worked up about evolution, on either side. Nor do I understand all these lawsuits about same in schools. The teaching of evolution will affect only that tiny minority of students who want to go on to be scientists. I agree those students should have access to courses teaching evolution, otherwise they'll never be able to get jobs as scientists, but the others will not care whether the test was on evolution or creationism after they have passed it. As for those who've already left school...when was the last time your boss asked you to report on Archaeopteryx?

Re: Paul and Huckabee

Reformed conservative -- tha's a pretty mind-boggling comment. Maybe schools can teach that the sun revolves around the Earth or that the Earth is flat. After all, when was the last time your boss asked you about those concepts?

Re: Paul and Huckabee

Now that you mention it--it probably wouldn't make any difference, except to that minority of kids who want to be scientists. Nobody really cares any more. I suppose we can deplore this, but in the meantime, I still say all those evolution lawsuits are wastes of time and money.

Re: Paul and Huckabee

Why don't we really take the reformed conservative's idea to heart and only teach things directly applicable to what we think we might need in careers available now... After all there's no point in even considering the possibility of expanding ourselves beyond what we think we need to know at this very minute. That would be a waste of money.

Re: Paul and Huckabee

Careful, if the powers-are-be are reading this, they'll take you seriously!

All kidding aside, I think our society has gone a long way along that path, or so I gather from the people with Liberal Arts degrees who can't find a job. For now, I'd like to see schools concentrate on basic citizenship skills. No more high-school graduates who can barely read.