MAIL CALL: A VICTORY FOR GEORGE W. BUSH

The country split almost evenly in its choice for president, but the majority of letters responding to our Nov. 15 post-election Special Report came from Kerry supporters disheartened by George W. Bush's triumph at the polls. "Who can look at this man's achievements (or lack thereof) over the last four years and say, 'Let's give him another four'?" asked one reader. But Bush fans, many of whom take comfort in his "moral compass," felt vindicated. "The American people have spoken loud and clear," said one. "God is alive and in the hearts of millions of Americans."

Thank you for a superb job of reporting and writing in your Nov. 15 "How He Did It" issue. The behind-the-scenes look was fascinating. I literally couldn't put the magazine down. I took it with me everywhere to read whenever I had a spare moment. Going into the campaign season, I had planned to vote for Kerry (anybody but Bush), but as time went on I waited in vain to learn what he would do about Iraq if he were elected. To paraphrase President Bush, complaining about the current administration is not a plan for the future. By the end of the long, ugly campaign, I reluctantly voted for George W. Bush. Better a known than an unknown. Another minor consideration was Teresa Heinz Kerry. I didn't want an elitist snob for a First Lady, and everything I read confirmed my opinion of her. Thank you again for your thorough coverage, not only in this issue but throughout the campaign.
Ann Shorey
Sutherlin, Ore.

Your campaign analysis was tremendously insightful about the strengths and weaknesses of the two candidates, the disciplined organization of the Bush staff compared with the turmoil and indecisiveness of Kerry and his staff. If these insights had been available to the electorate prior to the election, the Bush-win margin would undoubtedly have been even greater. This quality of reporting will prompt me to resubscribe.
Donald J. Smalter
Juno Beach, Fla.

As a proud Kerry voter, I watched the media's postmortem election coverage with deep consternation. I am most concerned about their handling of the "morality" issue. My morals don't seem to count in the view of pollsters. Let me tell you a bit about Blue State morality. I voted for Kerry, strictly on moral grounds, because I believe the Bush administration is fundamentally immoral. Starting a pre-emptive war that results in the death of thousands of soldiers, women and children is immoral and not, in my mind, supportive of Bush's so-called culture of life. Nor is executing retarded people or polluting our children's air and water or handing a huge debt to generations to come. What is morality? Morality is feeding the hungry, caring for the sick and waging peace. Morality is tolerance and love for those who might differ from us. Didn't Jesus tell us to turn the other cheek? Didn't he tell those of us without sin to cast the first stone? In the years to come, when huge debt is wreaking havoc on our economy, we are wheezing through polluted air and few of us can afford health care, I wonder if all those who voted for Bush will look at their suffering children and say to them, "Take heart, honey, at least gays can't marry!"
Eliza VanCort
Ithaca, N.Y.

I am a white, Christian male from the South, and I voted based on my moral values, not my economic interests. These values include respect, tolerance and charity. Respect for all people, even those who disagree with me or hate me, for we are all images of the divine. Tolerance of each person's choices, whether religious, political or personal, for we are all sinners. Charity for those less comfortable than I, for we are all subject to the frailties of the physical world. I am a white Christian male from the South, and I voted for John Kerry.
David S. Curcio
Houston, Texas

On Nov. 2, I not only voted for Bush but I was one of the few Georgians to vote against the same-sex-marriage ban--and I did so as a lifelong conservative and evangelical who sees this as an equal-rights issue. However, I'm somewhat amused by columns like Jonathan Alter's ("Bush Could Bring Us Together") that urge Bush to adopt a more liberal agenda and ignore the conservative base that voted overwhelmingly for him. Down South we have an expression: "Dance with the one that brung you." If we had wanted a liberal president, we would have voted for Kerry.
Bob Swygert
Atlanta, Ga.

Your Nov. 15 issue, "How He Did It," was the best single issue of political news-magazine reporting I've ever read. I read the issue from cover to cover in one three-hour sitting, riveted by what your writers found. The writing was insightful, colorful, witty and objective. It was truly a delight to read. Great job, NEWSWEEK.
Rich Kao
Vancouver, British Columbia

NEWSWEEK's excellent Nov. 15 post-election edition made crystal clear how breathtakingly close this election really was. Yet now George W. Bush proclaims a "mandate," and, sadly, much of the press repeats it, even though the actual numbers don't justify the claim. If only 70,000 or so votes in Ohio had gone the other way, we'd all be saluting President-elect John Kerry. For real mandates, see Lyndon Johnson in 1964 (61 percent of the vote) or Ronald Reagan in 1984 (58.8 percent). Even George H.W. Bush in 1988 (53 percent) got more of a mandate than W did this time (51 percent). His 286-252 victory in the Electoral College was the third narrowest in more than 100 years. His popular-vote margin was the lowest of any of the eight winning incumbents since Woodrow Wilson's re-election in 1916. The truth is that almost half of all people who went to the polls--48 percent, or a record 56 million Americans--did not vote to re-elect George W. Bush this year. Yes, Bush won--but his victory is not a mandate.
Terrie Heinrich Rizzo
Boca Raton, Fla.

As suggested by the unanimous approval of 11 state referendums banning same-sex marriage, that issue was pivotal in this election. John Kerry's Supreme Court nominees would have had to pass a pro-choice litmus test--which would have arguably made them more likely than not to view same-sex-marriage bans as unconstitutional. This country, fortunately, is not ready to accept such an outcome. Roe v. Wade has finally cost the Democrats the White House, and not a moment too soon.
Roger Laur
New Berlin, Wis.

Thank you for a mostly evenhanded insider description of the Kerry-Bush presidential campaign. Your writers, however, seem to accept with no outrage the fact that "dirty tricks" were part of the Republican campaign strategy from the beginning. I, for one, will never accept, as NEWSWEEK seems to have done, that a campaign which includes planned dirty tricks is one to be admired and called "brilliant." As long as the Republicans continue to use such tactics against honorable men like John McCain, Max Cleland and John Kerry, I will remain outraged.
Arleen Silverlieb
Swampscott, Mass.

What liberals fail to understand is that for many of us, morals and ethics have nothing to do with organized religion and/or Bible thumping. For most of us (on the right and the left), moral values are about belief in a strong family, knowing right from wrong, building good character, commitment to our beliefs and showing kindness and love toward our fellow human beings. It is not about demanding that you live your life a certain way so you can get into heaven with me--because we are all going to heaven. I firmly believe that the majority of Americans felt that Bush has a strength of character and moral center more reliable than Kerry's. Not all of Bush's policies are correct or just, but he passionately believes in them for the right and just reason. This is exactly what we teach our children--be open to compromise, but hold true to your moral center. For this we should not be laughed at or criticized. Until Democrats and liberals embrace this, they will continue to lose elections and the moral footing that they desire.
Lee Lazerson
Parkland, Fla.

I read your blow-by-blow account of both parties with a sinking feeling of futility; if all these political machinations go on (and they assuredly do), what do I matter? Why do I even bother to vote? Along with millions of others, I suffered through the Swift Boat ads, the service-record comparisons, the lies, the half-truths, the endless spin of cable news and the debates over the debates. By the time I voted, I felt so pummeled and beat up I really didn't care who won. Then I read "A President Who Listens" by Anna Quindlen. I'm 55 years old, and I've been through a few elections. After 32 years involved in union elections, I've seen more than enough. By the time I was done reading Quindlen's incredible article, I was near tears. Her masterful words brought back a longing I thought had died: a longing for Americans who can talk to each other--not across the "great divide" of Red and Blue States, but to each other as Americans, about how we can get rid of that great divide. Thank you, Anna Quindlen, for restoring a dream, even if it turns out to be pie in the sky.
Dan Praay
Durham, N.C.

For some time now I've had the Feb. 9, 2004, cover of NEWSWEEK taped to my refrigerator. The pictures on the cover include George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld. The headline reads: WE WERE ALL WRONG. And below, the question: Will Anyone Pay? We got our answer when John Kerry conceded the election: No. None of them will pay. Only we will. God help us.
Valerie Boles Wagoner
West Des Moines, Iowa

Based on the reporting in your Nov. 15 issue, I have come to three conclusions. First, the Republican Party, as embodied by Bush-Cheney '04, ran a ruthless, unprincipled, successful campaign. Second, the Democratic Party had the better man. Third, the biggest losers in this election are the American people.
Celia Sofie
Tuscaloosa, Ala.

Moral values? And here I thought the most important, universal ones were love thy neighbor, tell the truth and behave ethically. Guess who voted for Kerry in the "heartland"? My 83-year-old mother, who lovingly raised five children and is the model of kindness and generosity for friends and family alike, and my devout sister-in-law, who devoted 25 years of her life working as a nurse on a Navajo reservation. Oh, and my firefighter cousin. The list goes on. Imagine my surprise to learn they have inferior moral values, well out of the mainstream. Heaven help us, indeed.
Linda Tuyn
Binghamton, N.Y.

It's amazing that only dumb people voted for Bush. Smart people knew better, but alas, outside New York and California, there aren't any smart people, only drooling, knuckle-dragging religious zealots. Maybe next time some of the dumb people will be enlightened enough to elect a liberal agenda supported by gay activists, antiwar activists, anti-religionists, feminists, celebrities, street poets, George Soros, Michael Moore and "young people."
Michelle Elan-Tremblant
Los Angeles, Calif.

Abraham Lincoln, arguably our greatest president for keeping the republic intact while a raging Civil War threatened to tear it apart, espoused a simple philosophy during his first campaign for the nation's highest elective office, in 1860: "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. And that's my religion." If you listen very carefully--following Karl Rove's Machiavellian mix of wedge issues like gay marriage, reproductive rights and evangelical "moral values" to win the election, even if it meant capitalizing on our deepest divisions--you may hear the sound of our 16th president weeping for us.
David M. Petrou
Washington, D.C.

The places most affected by the September 11 terror attacks--New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington, D.C.--all went overwhelmingly for Kerry. I'm hurt that the Red States turned their back on America and cared more about hating gay people than about our lives.
Rajath Vikram
Bronx, N.Y.

Electing Kerry may not have stopped the next terrorist attack from occurring, but it would have sent an undeniable message to those who have not yet chosen the path of armed resistance against the United States: Americans hold their leaders accountable. I am appalled that so many on the political right cited moral values as a justification for keeping this administration in office while conveniently overlooking the war profiteering, grotesque human-rights violations and thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths that have occurred as a result of its policies. Blindly partisan Republicans can choose not to hold Bush responsible for all his wrongdoing, but our growing list of enemies most certainly will. We will all suffer as a result.
Michael J. McCormack
Manchester, N.H.

Why won't anyone state the obvious? Bush was vulnerable on many points; the Democrats were energized and organized. But in the end you vote for the man. Even voters who didn't want Bush chose him for his honesty. Kerry seemed phony, and they didn't want him even more.
Richard Thompson
Kula, Hawaii

If the moral values that Democrats are supposed to embrace in order to win elections involve denying fellow citizens equality and dignity, then Republicans can have them. I would rather have a party that loses now, but believes in the moral value of treating all citizens with respect, than a party that appeals to people's worst fears and intolerance. For all of you who consider "Massachusetts" to be a winning political insult, I encourage you to visit us. I am confident you will find strong, loving families and communities just like those I find when I travel around our great country.
Mike Koehler
Somerville, Mass.

As a bishop and leader of a denomination, I generally shy away from blaming the church for various problems. But the presidential election showed that the Christian church is failing as a teacher of the Gospel. Until Election Day we could blame George W. Bush for the atrocities in Iraq. But now we, the people of the world's supposed leader in democracy and freedom, have guilt on our hands for ratifying the least moral president we have had in years. The church's failure is shown by the fact that so many supporters of Bush cite moral values as their reason for electing him. What God do these people worship? Do they really think a country stained with the blood of 100,000 dead is a moral improvement over one stained blue dress? That sort of thinking must break God's heart. But yes, ultimately it is the church that is to blame. Rome obsesses ad nauseam about abortion. The mainline Protestants let Third World conservatives hold them back from real progress in equality out of fear of breaking up their communions. The evangelicals are more concerned about Old Testament rules than Jesus' message of love. Meanwhile, a president who attacks a country based on false assumptions, loses the respect of most of the world and strives to write discrimination into our Constitution is touted for his moral values. If Bush wants to be our moral leader, he should truly point us toward God's love and away from the culture of fear and hate that until now he has promoted.
The Most Rev. Mark S. Shirilau
Archbishop and Primate
Communion of Ecumenical Churches
Irvine, Calif.

I am absolutely fascinated by the county map in your election edition ("A Red-Letter Day"). It shows a lot of Red voters in the Blue States, but not many Blue voters in the Red States. The Democratic leadership should hang it on the wall and learn from it.
Bob Wolf
Mont Vernon, N.H.

I read NEWSWEEK's narrative of the 2004 election with morbid fascination. American political campaigns are a coldblooded board game, with winning the only acceptable reason for participation. Fair play, common decency and the ability to know right from wrong have been purged from consideration. Your reporting team skillfully exposed the underbelly of a process that has lost touch with any human reality. Our citizens, our environment and our world reputation are the big losers in this election. Ultimately, Bush's being re-elected and Kerry's being defeated are meaningless footnotes in a tragedy long in the making and certain in the consequence.
David Bagnard
Garden Valley, Idaho

This is not the first time our nation has been bitterly divided by color. In 1864 the colors were blue and gray. Then there were some fine people in the gray states, but their side, and their cause, were wrong. I believe history will prove in the not-so-distant future what Kerry supporters and world opinion already know--that in 2004, as in 1864, the Blue States had it right.
Annette Chopin Lare
Bethlehem, Pa.

The real reason for the Kerry-Edwards loss is that, in the end, their past actions spoke louder than their current words. Their campaign was not one of substance and real alternatives, but one of smoke and mirrors intended to veil a lack of qualification and a radically left-wing agenda. At the last, they lacked integrity and credibility, and Americans understood. Now Kerry and Edwards can go back to their favorite pastimes--Kerry to his newfound interests in religion and hunting, and Edwards to chasing ambulances.
Russell C. Burchard
Dawsonville, Ga.

Welcome to Bush World, and thank you for riding the World's Worst Nightmare. This ride is not for children, senior citizens, pregnant women, homosexuals, the faint of heart, the chronically or terminally ill, the uninsured, the reasonable or rational, the hopeful, the lower or middle class, nonbelievers, non-Americans and those who are not "with us." Please fasten your seat belt, secure all belongings and be sure to keep your head and arms inside the coaster at all times. Enjoy the ride, Republicans. Everyone else, hold on tight--you're on your own. (Disclaimer: Bush World accepts no responsibility for its actions or their consequences.)
Chip Balzer
Nassau, N.Y.

After reading your Nov. 15 issue, I can only conclude that it makes no difference who runs for president. The winner is determined not by who has better ideas, who tells the truth or who is a better leader, but by who is best able to "stay on message" so as not to confuse the voters. Bush is not a better president than Kerry would have been; he is merely a better puppet.
Sandy Frank
Coralville, Iowa

What this country desperately needs is a third major political party made up of moderates. Many citizens believe they voted for the lesser of two evils, yet now the results are being interpreted by the political elite as representing a mandate. Moderates among both Republicans and Democrats should leave their parties and come together to form a new centrist party. The Republican Party can continue to cater to the religious right, and the Democratic Party to the liberal left. This scenario would undoubtedly appeal to the vast majority of voters. Working within the existing political paradigm as defined by the two parties benefits only the parties and the media--not the citizens of this country.
Scott Carpenter
Portland, Ore.

The Republicans swept to victory in the Senate as well as in the White House and the House of Representatives, but what few seem to have noticed is that in the Senate races nationwide, it was the Democrats who won the popular vote, and by a considerable margin (about 4.2 percent, compared with Bush's 3 percent margin over Kerry). The Republicans were able to parlay this apparent defeat into victory in 19 of 34 races and a net gain of four seats in the Senate by exploiting a loophole the Framers of our Constitution never imagined: an enormous population imbalance among the states. The population of our largest state, California, exceeds that of the 21 smallest states combined; California has two senators, while those 21 small states have 42. The Senate is only the most obvious of the several ways in which the electoral deck is stacked to the benefit of the party in favor in small rural states.
Julian L. Hook
Bloomington, Ind.

John Kerry's concession speech brilliantly revealed his vision, philosophy and compassion in a moving, eloquent and respectful manner. He demonstrated strength, understanding, sensitivity and caring, along with a sincere desire for unity across our country and across political boundaries, in spite of party differences. Even some of my staunch Bush-supporting friends were moved by the concession speech to the point that they would have reconsidered their votes had the campaign persisted. Unfortunately, one can now only speculate how the election would have turned out had Kerry broken with traditional political rhetoric by presenting his campaign message on the same lofty and respectful level from the outset.
David M. Pepper
Malibu, Calif.

Now that the 2004 election is history, I find myself troubled by the responses on both sides. On one, people express feelings of helplessness, embarrassment and despair. They dress in black and say they feel terrified, shocked and ready to move to Canada. They demonize religious conservatives and belittle people they perceive as unintelligent. On the other, the election of George W. Bush is viewed as God's giving America one more chance to get it right. Some say God had mercy by sparing us from John Kerry. Some give the impression that God loves Republicans and hates Democrats. I know this was an important election, but we must be careful about overreaching in our responses to it. Both sides realize that there are serious issues facing our nation. And although there are significant ideological differences between the parties, we should be able to find common ground on some issues. But the process that leads us should be based on thoughtful dialogue rather than irrational bias. As we approach the national holiday of Thanksgiving, both sides of the political divide would be wise to reflect on our common reasons for giving thanks. We continue to enjoy more freedom, security and prosperity than most people on the planet. We need a holiday like Thanksgiving to remind us of our many shared blessings.
Steve Cornell, Senior Pastor
Millersville Bible Church
Millersville, Pa.

This was my first time voting in a presidential election. You probably think I am 18. Wrong. I am 43. I have worked at the same job for 20 years. Now with President Bush re-elected, I fear for my job and how I will feed my family. I work in a factory that makes laundry products, and I fear my company will move my job to Mexico. I, along with many others, have a big pit in my stomach as we worry that our factory will pull out before our next contract, in July. I pray that someone does something about the trade policies of our country. I invite Bush to come visit our factory and hear my concerns. I am sure the president probably couldn't care less now that he has been re-elected, but I am at a loss about what to do, as I need my job.
Becky Rockow
Webster City, Iowa

I was horrified to read your depiction of Teresa Heinz Kerry as a petulant, limelight-seeking woman who distracted her husband and contributed to the ruin of his campaign. I went to hear her speak in Seattle in October, both because I supported John Kerry and because I have always been impressed by her interviews. There I witnessed an intelligent, interesting, genuine woman with great charisma and a strong connection to the crowd. She wasn't a doormat or a politician's trophy wife, but someone who could talk about issues that mattered. She was also one of the most soft-spoken, articulate people I have ever heard. Sadly, most people haven't seen her in person and will most likely believe the drivel you published. On the whole I enjoy reading NEWSWEEK, but I am outraged that you had the nerve to write what you did.
Susan Warren
Kirkland, Wash.

Thank you, NEWSWEEK, for your set of post-election articles. As a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, I want to share some advice for the Democratic Party: Hillary Clinton in 2008? Forget it! It is eminently clear that this country, excepting the Blue cities on your voting map, is solidly right of center and will bristle at a Clinton candidacy. The message is clear that the Democrats are out of step with the country's views on gay marriage and religion. A presidential nomination for Senator Clinton would polarize matters further and all but guarantee another four years of Republican control of the White House. I accept Bush's victory and hope that he can unite us. Issues such as Iraq will slowly fade to insignificance; school prayer, abortion and gay marriage weigh more heavily on a predominantly conservative electorate's mind.
Michael E. Miller
Fairfield, Ohio

In "How Bush Did It," President Bush's former chief outside counsel, Ben Ginsberg, says I called him to express regret about an article I co-wrote with my colleague Kate Zernike that ultimately led to his resignation. Our story revealed that Ginsberg had been representing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth--a group that had attacked John Kerry in a commercial with unsubstantiated charges that he lied to obtain his war medals--while he was also working for Bush's campaign. "We haven't, like," Ginsberg quotes me as asking him, "screwed you over?" I asked nothing of the sort. I did not believe we had done anything of the sort. Our story was fair, appropriate, dead-on correct, and I never felt otherwise.
Jim Rutenberg, The New York Times
New York, N.Y.

Correction

In "The Vets Attack," we said that in their ads criticizing John Kerry the Swift Boat vets used a voice-over for Kerry's 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In fact, for these ads the vets used an audiotape with Kerry's real voice. NEWSWEEK regrets the error.