Well, you can read the article for yourself, but did want to comment on some of the more incongruous parts of the story: Suburban women? Soccer moms? That was a group that was said to have voted overwhelmingly for Clinton in the 1992 and 1996 elections. They are only now coming to realize that Bush is dishonest? I have never understood this voter mentality. Why on earth should trust be more important than believing that your man is doing the right thing? Using that logic, I'd wanna be pals with people like con men, because even though I don't agree with their profession or understand how they do it, I at least know they're going to rob me. On second thought, that idea hits too close to reality. Anyway. Oh my gosh, there are so many things wrong with that statement, I scarcely know where to begin. First of all, "likability" is bullcrap. To get back to my previous analogy, con men are "likable"...that's how they sucker you in. I'd sooner take a straightforward drone like Gore or Kerry than the "likable" liar who's in the White House now. And, uh, men of "character" and honesty do not lie to manipulate people, especially when those manipulations result in the deaths of U.S. soldiers. Bush is not only not honest in the things he says, he's not even a man of strong personal beliefs. He himself is a tool of co-presidents Cheney and Rove. And as far as not being afraid to show his belief in God, well...if you've ever heard Bush discuss his faith, his thoughts display all the depth of a Sunday school catechism. Bush's poll numbers may be sliding down, but it's obvious that there's still a sizeable portion of the voting public that is just effing stupid.