OK, so a majority of Georgians are politically conservative and hate Bill Clinton. Fair enough.

What about the Jan. 7 "Paulson: No easy answer to economic woes," in which Fox News Online reported the U.S. treasury secretary saying "an unprecedented wave of 1.8 million subprime mortgages are to reset to sharply higher interest rates over the next two years," and that "this raised the threat of market failure ... "?

If this happened during Clinton's tenure, the conservative majority of Georgians would've held him responsible for a bad economy. Are they holding President Bush responsible?

When Clinton left office, regular-unleaded gas was $1.30 per gallon. Today the price is $3, a more than 100-percent increase in price in only seven years -- the largest gas-price increase over seven years in history. If this happened during Clinton's presidency, conservative Georgians would've been outraged at him. Are they outraged at Bush?

Fox News Online reported Jan. 11 that fiscal year 2007 put the federal budget deficit at $247.7 billion, still the largest in U.S. history. Conservative Georgians would've voted Clinton out of office for this alone . Would they vote Bush out?

And according to the Jan. 12 Fox News Online article "Georgia : Huckabee leads GOP, Dems close," Mike Huckabee is Georgia 's conservatives' choice for president.

Since there is no difference politically or religiously between Bush and Huckabee, apart from that Huckabee hasn't been given a chance to do exactly what Bush has done, how are all the nation's problems that have come about under Bush going to get any better? By electing a man who is simply going to hold Bush's line, how are Georgia 's conservatives holding Bush responsible for the mistakes he's made, in the same way they would've held Clinton had he made them?

How is that fair enough?

Nathan Kirby, Augusta