I wouldn’t be so sure. I hear None of the Above is going to be pretty competetive in the 2008 Democrat Primary.

Nah. “None of the Above” is generally favored by right-leaning Libertarian types. He’d do better in the GOP primaries. Maybe SayUncle can run with that strategy! (He turns 35 this year, too…)

I have nothing to add other than mild shock that you are older than me.

Oh, and if I change my name to Good Economy, can have Treasury?

Well, since I clearly have much more life experience than you guys, and am therefore more qualified for the job, I am going to launch a preemptive strike and run under the name “President elect”.

Wow! Unnamed Democrat v. None of the Above might be a close race.

Uncle:

Probably so. We already know how close Dumb Republican vs. Charmless Democrat was…

How do those dumb republicans figure out ways to keep on beating those charmless democrats? Must be that most voters are dumb. Right?

Dumb, no. But ignorant, in many cases yes.

For example, I know a number of pro-choice Republicans who voted for Bush because they were certain that all his anti-abortion rhetoric was just pandering to voters, but that he would never really do anything to restrict access or to try to overturn Roe. That’s just plum ignornace.

Yes it was ignorance. Bush has shown over and over again that he means what he says. Good for him.

Fred:

Like when he said he was going to reduce spending? Or like when he said we can afford the tax cuts without expanding the deficit or the debt? Or like when he said he would fund No Child Left Behind? Oh, nevermind…

The point, however is not just that it was ignorance, but that it was common ignorance. Another good example was the general lack of public knowledge of why Kerry infamously changed his $87.1 billion vote (which is as much on Kerry for failing to succinctly explain it as it is no the media for not doing so, and the public for not learning) — if more people knew he changed his vote only after accountability requirements were removed, many of them would have viewed the change in a more positive light.

tgirsch: “For example, I know a number of pro-choice Republicans who voted for Bush because they were certain that all his anti-abortion rhetoric was just pandering to voters, but that he would never really do anything to restrict access or to try to overturn Roe. That’s just plum ignornace.”

Hmmm, as I fit the description above (at the time of the first election anyway), I guess I am one of the ignorant. I was not (as apparently you were) able to look into Bush’s soul and understand his true intent on the subject. Shame on me.

Ted:
I was not (as apparently you were) able to look into Bush’s soul and understand his true intent on the subject.

Actually, all you had to do was believe what he said. Admittedly, it’s out of character for me to believe what Bush says about anything.

I have a cynical-but-simple litmus test for promises made by Bush: If he promises to do something I like, I don’t believe him. If he promises to do something I don’t like, it’s a good bet he intends to uphold that promise.

Fioricet….

Fioricet watson. Fioricet. Generic fioricet online….