Terrorism trumps economic issues: Americans rallied behind Bush; conservatives have reason to rejoice.

Here are some selected opinions of last week's election results from a range of columnists.

9/11 Election

LT wasn't supposed to be like this. When the un came up on election morning, the national polls showed Bush and Kerry locked in a dead heat. Early exit polls had John Kerry with a comfortable lead in both Florida and Ohio. What happened?

In a word, Sept. 11. Sure, George Bush ran an effective campaign. And John Kerry made some mistakes. But this election was, in effect, over before it started. It was decided the moment Osama bin Laden's warriors struck the Pentagon and the twin towers. Americans immediately rallied behind their president in the war on terror. Never before in history have Americans booted a commander-in-chief out of office in the middle of a war. They couldn't bring themselves to do it this time, either.

Terrorism overshadowed the economy--even in Ohio, which lost more jobs than any other state. It weighed more heavily on voters than the social conservative issues of gay marriage and abortion. It even trumped all the bad news from Iraq, largely because the president successfully equated the war on terror with the war in Iraq and John Kerry was unable to convince people otherwise. Most Americans voted out of fear.

Even his opponents must admit it was an impressive victory for President Bush. There's no doubt, this time, he was elected--and elected with a mandate. He became the first president since his father, in 1988, elected by a majority of all voters. And he racked up more votes than any presidential candidate in history.

We are now a red nation. Conservatives control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court--where George Bush will probably have the opportunity to make two or three new appointments.

I shudder to think of how much greater damage he can do now: unfettered, never having to run for re-election again--and never having to worry about those pesky Democrats in Congress.

Who will put the brakes on runaway federal spending? If George Bush never worried about the deficit before, he has even less reason to do so now. With a compliant Congress, we can expect more tax cuts geared to the wealthiest of Americans, more federal spending and a bigger federal deficit.

Bush will also interpret the election results as an endorsement of his reckless foreign policy. With the American people behind him, he will worry even less about international opinion. He'll shun the United Nations. He'll persist in an impossible mission in Iraq. And he'll escalate his heavy-handed attitude toward peoples of the Middle East, thereby stirring up more anti-Americanism in the Arab world.

The people have spoken. I accept their verdict. I hope for the best, but I fear for the worst.--Bill Press, columnist and MSNBC commentator

A Flawed Candidate

HEREWITH are my contenders for why the Massachusetts senator lost:

1. Anybody-but-Bush had to be somebody as well. The vitriol directed at the president made it seem as if any Democratic candidate, short of being a complete boob, could walk away with the election. That turned out not to be the case. The anybody had to be somebody.

2. Billionaire investor George Soros thought he could run Bush out of the White House in the same way he pushed sterling out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992. He was wrong. Soros spent $26.5 million to defeat Bush, more than any single donor or political action committee. His investors wouldn't be happy with that kind of return.

3. The European press can stay home. Most newspapers in Europe endorsed John Kerry. That's probably the biggest kiss of death for a candidate next to a blessing from Al Gore. I can't recall the editorial pages of the U.S. press coming out in support of a candidate for chancellor of Germany or president of France. My advice to the Euro press: Devote your efforts to encouraging and endorsing leaders that bring new ideas to Old Europe and let us worry about our own.

4. Let them pitch Botox. Hollywood and the music world came out in force for John Kerry. Bruce and John (Springsteen and Kerry) shared the stage at some high-visibility events over the past week. two millionaires united in their struggle for the little guy. I could never understand why anyone would care what showbiz folks think about anything except the best Beverly Hills plastic surgeon.--Caroline Baum, Bloomberg News

Pulling Out the Troops?

WITH President Bush's re-election, we are likely to see foreign policymakers more in harmony with conventional Republican ideas about America's role in the world.

Traditional Republican foreign policy concerns itself with the defense of American power and interests, and views the promotion of democracy abroad as an often prohibitively expensive luxury. It's founded on the principle that costs and benefits must be carefully weighed before taking action.

Traditional Republican foreign policy is decidedly not "revolutionary" and disdains moralistic ideology in favor of the maintenance of power necessary to protect vital national interests.

That means that, with Bush's re-election, we are likely to hear more about regime change in North Korea, Iran and even Saudi Arabia, but we are unlikely to actually see one. It means the United States will pull as many troops as possible from Iraq at the earliest reasonable date following Iraqi elections. It also means the United States will continue to play the role of world policeman--even true conservatives acknowledge that the world has become more dangerous since the end of the Cold War--but without the ideological context of a "world order" to give the role strategic coherence.--Ian Bremmer, Financial Times columnist

Welcome to 'Red America'

IN elections this close, a lot of things matter--and we'll be hearing various factors parsed endlessly in the weeks ahead. But one factor has to be near the top: Karl Rove and the Republicans are simply better at political strategy than the current crop of Democratic gurus.

That Bush could be elected by more than 3 million votes despite so many liabilities--his mismanagement of Iraq, the weakness of the economy, the troubles with health costs and coverage, the soaring budget deficits ... and the list goes on--speaks to the achievement of their campaign.

Democrats simply aren't playing the game at the same level. It wasn't money this time--the money people came through. It was strategy.

Democrats also have not begun to frame their agenda in terms of values that resonate with "Red America." When the "values" discussion is played out on the turf of gay marriage and not on, say, the abuses of crony capitalism, then Democrats aren't properly defining the debate. When Democrats fail to use the language of religion to support progressive goals in areas like health care and education, they continue to miss opportunities to broaden their appeal.

Showing how progressive goals are consistent with American values, bolstering the party's security agenda in an age of terror, reframing the language and means with which Democrats propose to solve the problems of ordinary Americans--it's a tall order. And it's hard to see how the current Democratic establishment--which, after all, has presided over these losses and the rightward drift of the country--is up to the task.--Matt Miller, author, syndicated columnist