[Overpaid Slacker]

OK, there are more voters, but it's still a staggering idea -- if for the efficacy of GOP voter turnout than anything else.

Also, however, Bush's 51% of the popular vote is far better than Clinton did in 1992 (43% -- which was hailed at the time by our hack partisan media as an "overwhelming mandate for change") and in 1996 (49%).

I believe one of Bush's strengths vis-a-vis Kerry was that even if you disagreed with Bush, you pretty much knew where he stood on an issue. Americans are, by and large, a people of principled disagreement, and just holding a contrary opinion on a few issues is not necessarily toxic. Holding a few contrary opinions on the same issue is not going to fool many for long; even with a complicit media not making much of the matter.

ATEOTD, the Dems ran a campaign for which they could've substituted a stuffed sock for Kerry. It was not about him (how could it be, really?) it was about Not-Bush. "Plans to be named later" do not convince voters, nor do they back up hollow rhetoric.

The DNC needs to steer away from the Michael Moore fringe of the party and cultivate some ideas and ideals, or it will be a minority party for the foreseeable future.

On a personal note, as happy as I am about a Bush victory, I'm at least that happy about that *****bag Daschle getting the boot. "Disappointed" now, beeyatch?

JP