Talking with some friends today, I mentioned that I voted for Bush in 2004. I was then asked a very good question that I hadn't considered before. If there were no terms limits and Bush was running in 2008, would I vote for him again? I didn't have the most articulate answer at the time, but upon further reflection, I must say that I would vote against Bush in the primary election and for him in the general election (presuming Bush won the primary). I believe that would be the best voting strategy to advance the political cause that matters to me most nowadays, smaller government.

Yes, Bush probably wouldn't face any serious primary opponents (then again, with all the Right's discontent about spending and its divisions over Iraq and immigration...), but this is all a counterfactual; the 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951.

P.S. Regarding that "nowadays," there was a period after Sept. 11 when the most important political cause to me was defeating our enemies in the Islamic world. However, the data accumulated since then has led me to believe that Sept. 11 was an exception, not a new rule. Our Islamic enemies are pathetic compared to past opponents like the Soviet Union. Still worthy, but less urgent, is the cause of exporting good parts of Western civilization like democracy, religious freedom, and free enterprise. (That list is not exhaustive!) As the urgency of worthy causes abroad have decreased for me, worthy causes at home have reasserted their old priority.