MAIL CALL: A VICTORY FOR GEORGE W. BUSH

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.