There's a certain temptation to be smug about President Bush's re-election, a tendency to gloat over his electoral and popular majority. That sort of thing is fine when you win a game of checkers or get the larger "half" of the wishbone, but there's a bigger picture here. The fact is that we're still at war with people who are literally dying to kill us, soldiers and civilians alike. Our economy, though growing strongly, could still be vulnerable to the effects of a terror attack. And Liberal Democrats, though suffering major losses in this election, are still in positions of influence, which they've repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to abuse in order to get their way. There's still an awful lot of serious work for America to do. On the other hand, watching Jon Stewart doing his ineffective best to savage a victorious President Bush on The Daily Show, I found myself laughing at Stewart, not with him. Is it childish to yell, "You lost! Boo-yah!" at the TV? Maybe so, but I did it anyway. So much for dignity and grace. After two years of enduring the most bilious, vicious, hate-driven anti-Bush rhetoric imaginable, wild, hysterical accusations and just plain childish temper tantrums from Liberals, I think just one "boo-yah" is in order.

In fact, the election of 2004 was a resounding triumph for President Bush. The way the Left (especially the "mainstream" media) was spinning things, it's a miracle he got even got votes from his parents. Evan Thomas, Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek, admitted to the media bias on Washington DC talk show "Inside Washington" in July 2004. "The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards -- I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but -- they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points." If the media was truly as unbiased as they pretend to be, President Bush might have won the popular vote with between 58% and 66%, instead of 51%.

Re-election was a vindication of Bush's first term as President and an acceptance of his policies, generally speaking. It was a recognition that we are at war, and that only a candidate deeply committed to proactively fighting this war should be standing for election only three years after 9/11. 86% of voters who cited terrorism as their main concern voted for Bush. It was a triumph for the "Bush Doctrine" of confronting the obvious enemies before they attack us, tax cuts as a spur to the economy, and much-scorned "traditional values." Moral values were cited as the number one concern by 22% of the voters, and 79% of them voted for Bush.

What drove some voters to the polls in record numbers, some who otherwise might not have voted, was the sleeper issue of gay "marriage." Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah all had measures banning same-sex marriages on the ballot. The proposals were soundly endorsed in every single state -- even socially Liberal Oregon. Bush carried nine of those states. The other big moral question at stake was abortion. Is there anyone in America who doesn't already know President Bush's stance on the issue, especially the horrific practice of partial birth abortion? It may have been moral issues alone which brought record numbers of voters to the polls in those states -- especially in Ohio. Let that be a lesson to Republicans in the future -- run on the moral issues (on which most Americans agree), not away from them.

The election was also a victory for the Second Amendment. As noted by NRO columnist Dave Kopel, the Senate gained three gun rights advocates overall, and many pro-gun state governors gained or retained seats. It's inconceivable that President Bush would allow the United Nations to force anti-gun policies on us, which they have been trying to do for years. A President Kerry (and I can't tell you how glad I am to be writing those words in purely hypothetical terms today) might have accepted them as part of what he called "rejoining the community of nations" when the UN holds its 2006 conference on small arms in NYC.

The 2004 election was also a repudiation of not only Liberal "values," but methods as well. It was as much a rejection of Michael Moore's faked-up "documentaries" and Hollywood's limousine Liberals as anything else. It was a rebuke to foreigners who think they have the right to tell us how to vote. It was a cold slap in the face to billionaires George Soros, Peter Lewis, John Sperling and others. Together they poured millions of dollars into anti-Bush groups like MoveOn.org and ACT in an attempt to control public opinion. I honestly believe that a backlash against "Operation Clark County" also drove some Ohio voters into President Bush's camp, and possibly some in other states as well. For those who missed it, the Guardian (a left-wing UK newspaper) gave the addresses of over 11,000 Clark County residents to its readers. The purpose was to let them personally inform the poor, benighted, ignorant Ohio Colonials that they should vote for Kerry. It's funny, when you think about how much the Left attacks Americans for interfering in the politics of other countries. From aging rock-and-rollers to vituperative hi-hop and rap "artists" to entertainers who think the sixties never ended, the Left relied on "star power" to bring in young voters... and it failed. They don't realise that young people (like most people) who engage in politics are far more likely to vote because they care about the issues than because Moby and Janeane Garofalo and Bruce Springsteen tell them to. If the Democratic candidate had actually stood for anything, he could have brought in votes. One would have to be truly naive not to see that beyond the bang and flash, Kerry was little more than an empty suit. Note to young voters: yes, the Democrats pandered to you that way because they thought you were naive, not to mention stupid and easily fooled. Remember that, in the future.

So where do the Democrats go from here? If they want to continue to be a political party of consequence, they'll divest themselves of the far-Left lunatic fringe instead of trying to embrace it. First the Liberals controlling the party will turn on John Kerry and John Edwards, like Komodo dragons eating their young. Then they'll attack the "old style" moderate Democrats, claiming that they're too much like Republicans to draw votes. Howard Dean, once the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, claimed that he represented "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party." The Democrats have been losing ground since the 1992 election of Bill Clinton, due to the far Left. Moderate Democrats like Joe Lieberman have been slowly shunted aside, while Conservative Democrats like Zell Miller are about as hated as Jesse Helms. The only way the most Liberal Senator even had a chance in this election was with the active backing of the media, the super-rich and the entertainment industry... and he still lost.

If the Democrats continue to drift to the Left, they'll hit the rocks of irrelevance. That would be unfortunate, since (as all capitalists know) competition is what really drives improvement. If only one party is capable of appealing to the entire country -- as opposed to primarily New York City and Los Angeles -- then the default monopoly will lead to stagnation.