>The 2 Bushes and Clinton, yes. I don't include Reagan in that group. I also think that Obama does have a bigger share of the blame. He was able to raise the deficit in a little over 2 years what it took W. Bush to raise in 8.

Your statement that he raised the deficit in 2 years what W did in 8 is founded on the premise that he's 100% responsible for the deficit which is obviously far from true. Obama inherited 2 wars and an economy in the crapper, but it's all his fault? Again, I don't agree with a lot of his policies, and he definitely bears some blame; there is no denying that, but your statistic misrepresents reality.

Let's not forget this graph/article that states that Bush's policies have yielded much, much higher total costs on the deficit:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas-and-bushs-effect-on-the-deficit-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein

The upcoming Presidential race is really the Republicans' to lose, and I think the Tea Party is going to do exactly that; lose the election for the GOP. The GOP is allowing the minority Tea Party to have way too much influence steering the party ship which ultimately will result in an ultra-conservative nominee that the independents will have a hard time voting for. Without the Independents you can't win. Republicans and Democrats don't decide Presidential elections, Independents do.

I am an Independent and there is no way I will vote for Perry, Bachmann, or Palin.