In watching the pundits turn over Bush's victory in the presidential race, I have learned a few interesting new facts:

1) The mainstream media beat John Kerry up.

2) In order not to further divide the country, Bush needs to compromise with the Democratic party positions (which are not extreme or alienating enough to have rendered Bush's election an indicator of popular opinion).

3) In hindsight, it's very easy to see why John Kerry lost: it comes down to personality, and he's what one commentator referred to as wooden, another as cold, and a third as canned -- I prefer the terms cadaverous and waffling, myself.

Actually, I just don't buy that the media bashed Kerry any more than it did Bush. Both campaigns swung a fair number of blows, which were readily covered by the press, and those that went most often below the belt seemed to come from the Kerry camp (such as declaring Bush a deserter and a liar). Kerry's lowest blow even gained credibility through CBS news anchor Dan Rather's 60 Minutes story, which he was reluctant to retract or critique.

If anything, the anti-war sentiments of many news anchors were apparent throughout the campaign season. These subtle posturings seemed to favor Kerry, despite his saying he would hunt down terrorists and kill them wherever they were in the world. Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, but he was committed to winning it. Right. Who split the Democratic and undecided vote? Kerry. Who cost Kerry the election then? Kerry. It's so apparent, the Democrats haven't even been able to use Nader as their whipping boy for the loss, this time around.

As for Bush needing to be a compassionate conservative toward crushed-hope liberals, since Bush has received both the popular and the electoral vote, I don't see any need for him to compromise on his vision. It's what we've elected him for. By vision, I mean a political, economic, and more importantly underlying moral perspective. He can compromise on the details, but then governing politicos always do, in order to work with bipartisan legislatures. There's still plenty of pork in the barrel to satisfy the Democrats.

After all, I don't know that Kerry's loss does come down to something as superficial as personality. The man didn't convince me that he could or would run an onging military campaign effectively in Iraq and other parts of the world. I didn't believe he found an offense to be the best defense -- and that tactic is the one I favor. I'm no hawk, but I do believe President Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall through not only tough talk, but the world's belief (especially the Communist contingent's) in our readiness for tough action.

As for domestic policies, Bush wouldn't be my top pick. He's too socially conservative and seems ready to inform our social future with his own religious-based values, ones I don't share -- and many Americans reasonably question. He's led the charge to ban gay marriage. But, he's not solely responsible for the popular vote resulting in a large number of states putting the ban into place, either. That's the current will of the majority. The law will change when public opinion does to a great enough extent. I'm content to wait it out.

And, frankly, I'll be content with Bush's carrying the day there -- much as I disapprove of government reacting against the rising tide of self-determined family styles -- if he can stack the Supreme Court with justices who will interpret the Right to Privacy as having less force than the Right to Life, which should be a primary consideration in abortion law. Bush says he won't have a litmus test for justices, but he will consider those most favorably who strictly interpret the word. I'm not so sure I favor Constitutional fundamentalism -- or fundamentalism of any kind -- but I do think there needs to be a sensible weighing of rights. The privacy of one individual should not be superior, in general, to the physical welfare of another. The application of such a principle is broader than the abortion question -- and ought to be consistently applied.

Bottom line is that no one candidate is likely to entirely satisfy a thinking voter. We are the ones who compromise. But that's the price of living in a democracy.