Tom wrote this nonsense: a. Your understanding of the term "lame duck" is incorrect. Go look it up.

I suggest you go look it up. There are at least three meanings which are all similar to each other. The one I was using is more commonly used in England if that helps you. But, English is not a dead language thus a person can choose to make up new meaning for words. Bush is a LAME DUCK get us to hearing it.

b. Bush won a larger percentage of the vote in almost every state than he did in 2000, and this with an unpopular war, a slow-recovering economy, and four years of the most intense barrage of furious attacks from the Democratic Party, the mainstream media, the entertainment culture, and many others. A level of hostility that I have not seen since Reagan.

I will give you a clue Tom: If Bush somehow had been a Democrat we would have still hated him. It not his party it's him. McCain is Republican and most Democrats I know like him. The level of hostility towards Bush and his pals is beyond the Reagan era levels by quite a lot. We shall see if it is warranted in a short time. I think I would perfer being deranged over being right.

c. The Republicans picked up seats in both the House and Senate.

This is the equivalent to me of winning a marathon while wearing cement boots. You don't have to call it a mandate if you don't want. But despite throwing everything in the book at Bush, the Democrats still lost by over three million votes.

This just tells me you don't know much about the changing demographics of this country. It was not a profound achievement, but go ahead and think it was you folks have a major derangement going on in your own heads.

Oh, by the way, if Kerry had gotten Indiana and become President with over three million fewer popular votes than Bush, would that have made him an "illegitimate president?" Explain

As this didn't happen and the vote to say the least has not been transparent. I don't know what I would have thought or done about it. Why don't you explain the actual results!