Obama’s lack of expertise doesn’t depend on BushIn response to Christopher Ray’s letter: If only life worked like that. Yes, Bush has many failures, but failures of the past administration does not predict success for the future. In fact, what Bush did has nothing to do with Obama’s success. You can list all of Bush’s failures, but not one of those will make a difference in the success or failure of Obama. I based Obama’s probability of success strictly on his own experiences and expertise, which is zero.Since Chris referred to me as an “old thinker,” let me then point out his lack of life experience gives him only wishful thinking. I was there when Richard Nixon destroyed the Republican Party and almost the destroyed the  country. Vice President Agnew was kicked out of office for corruption and Nixon was thrown out of office for Watergate. Bush’s failures don’t even come close to that. Just as today, the country wanted change for the sake of change. Ford was appointed president in place of Nixon. Ford was a milk toast country club Republican just like McCain. Again, as today, people whole-heartedly voted for someone different and someone new who could not be worse than Nixon — Jimmy Carter. Carter was a brilliant man — a nuclear physicist and a Captain on a submarine in the Navy. And just as Obama does, he believed in re-distribution of wealth. It was Carter that came up with Windfall Profits Taxes. Oil Companies were making record profits by gouging the American public at sixty cents a gallon gas. It was Carter who was going to solve the housing crisis and recession of the mid 1970’s. Just as Obama does, Carter thought he was smarter than the markets. His solution was more government and more taxes. He insisted that we don’t need a military anymore, and he cut the military budget by 25 percent. Any of this sound familiar? I am not against Obama because of “old thinking;” I am against Obama because I have seen this before.  Christopher does not give a damn about the past; he just thinks change by one of his guys will always be good. But by the end of the Carter Administration inflation was over 10 percent, home mortgage interest was over 20 percent, unemployment was double today’s figures and his Windfall Profits Tax resulted in even higher prices and shortages. You could only buy gas based on the last number on your license, even number for even days, odd numbers for odd days. And the worse part was the military. Everything was broken, there was no ammunition, planes could not fly and ships could not sail. But he sent our best and brightest to combat anyway to die in suicide missions.This is our future. No amount of wishful thinking will change this. No amount of ” giving a chance” will change this. When you get your draft card in the mail Christopher just remember Obama will send you to war armed with a rainbow, riding a unicorn, and all the hope you can carry.Harold Daigle Jr.biological science graduate studentMonroe’s column shows holes in his reportingNate Monroe’s animus against Congressman Don Cazayoux has led him to indulge in lazy analysis and sloppy reporting. There’s no doubt that Michael Jackson ran as a spoiler in the 6th District election. Jackson could not win in a 3-way race, and the margin of votes he took was exactly what Cazayoux needed to win.If Jackson was really an “unapologetic, Obama-supporting Democrat,” it’s strange that most of his financial backing came from Republican donors. His candidacy, far from helping Obama implement his programs, resulted in the 6th District seat going to a conservative Republican who opposes Obama and his platform. How this helps Jackson’s constituents is hard to see, but that was never Jackson’s agenda. Monroe also fails to mention that Obama endorsed Cazayoux, not Jackson.Don Cazayoux is a conservative Democrat, as southern Democrats tend to be, but he supported most of the party platform, especially regarding issues involving working, middle-class families and care for veterans. He had strong union support, and was attacked by Jackson’s backers in vicious ads because of this. In the legislature, he voted with the black caucus more than Jackson did. Cazayoux did diverge from the majority party position on two issues, abortion and expanding drilling for oil on public holdings, but his positions also reflect those of the majority of voters in his district, and the Democratic Party has moved to be more inclusive in the interests of diversity on these issues.Cazayoux has been a thoughtful and dedicated representative, and his defeat is a loss for the district. Contrary to Monroe’s claims, the district was not “ready for more than just a conservative Democrat” — Jackson took 30 percent of the vote and a conservative Republican took back the seat. The only lesson here is that spoiler candidates can tip elections, and student columnists need to do their homework.J.D. DaigleProgram Coordinator—-Contact The Daily Reveille’s opinion staff at [email protected]