The "liberal media", and it's sheep are bleating up a storm about the "Bush Mandate".
As if an alledged 3% margin in the poular vote and a 4 vote squeaker in the Electoral College were some kind of land slide. I mean really, for a sitting President in "time of War" to squeak by like this would never be considered a Mandate, anywhere other than in RBC world (that would be the Rove/Bush/Cheney world of alternate reality).
The media, and many Democrats, feed that alternate reality by beating the RBC drum for them. The Dem's must now "reinvent themselves" yet again. The country has moved "center right". And so forth.
What nonsense.
What we have here, simply, is a well thought out plan, playing on the most basic values and emotions of the American people. This plan was never designed to "unite America", it was designed to carve out a minimal majority.
As many have pointed out, if there were not a "war" in progress, and the fear of Terrorism virtually rampant, George W. Bush would not have a second term.
In fact, there are some who maintain that he "lost" this election, based on the fact that the vote tally in Ohio and New Mexico are subject to some question, based on the "spoiled vote" issue. Had all the votes cast by eligible voters been counted, Kerry would have carried both States.
It is notable that exit polls in both States showed a clear majority for Kerry, yet, amazingly, the tallied results were far different. Democracy at work.
For some interesting info on this issue check these links:
Seems so. Bush claims someone who jumps to conclusions and reaches beyond the facts (referring, of course to the missing explosives at al QaQaa), is not fit to be Commander in Chief. Hmm. He seems to forget his own myriad examples of "conclusion jumping", in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.
A fitting term would be "Hoist with one's own Petard".
Bush claims the Kerry in denigrating the troops playing up the missing explosive. A curious claim, given that even the Bush butt-sniffer, former NYC mayor Gulianni, is quoted as saying, one cannot blame the President, no matter how one "twists it", but is the fault of the troops on the ground.
What hypocrisy. The troops are commanded. The troops are led. If they had been directed to secure that facility, the would have. Period. End of story.