I must say I was pleasantly surprised with the result of the election this past week.

I was glad to see that W's approval rating was able to help Republicans get elected in so many races.

Not many people would have predicted gains in the house and a shift in power in the Senate during a midterm election.

It was historic.

Most times in the past, the president's party loses seats in midterm elections.

There were a lot of factors that entered into it, but I think the overriding factor was W's popularity.

People just like him. They trust him. He seems more populist than most politicians.

He exudes a sort of down-home, roll-up-your-sleeves persona.

Granted, when it comes to oratory, he lacks polish. Heck, sometimes he lacks grammar and diction. But you know what, I think people relate to that.

They understand it. Most people think it's really hard to get up and speak in front of people and they empathize.

So I think when people who don't like W make fun of him for his gaffs, it plays to his advantage.

It makes the detractors seem mean-spirited.

And I really don't consider W a big-time policy expert, either. I don't get the sense that he pores over volumes of statistics on the economy, social trends, demographics or foreign affairs.

Bill Clinton was a far more polished speaker and one of the greatest policy wonks of all time.

But Clinton never enjoyed the approval ratings that W has these days. And W's numbers have slipped a little from their all-time highs.

And there's a simple reason for that. W is genuine. He is the genuine article.

Clinton came across a little disingenuous at times. Even people in his own party felt betrayed once in a while.

And despite what his critics like to say, I think W does have a firm grasp and understanding of the the issues. He makes up his mind on a course of action and he pushes toward it. But you can't say you don't know where he stands and you can't say he doesn't get results.

During the election, for example, he really stuck his neck out. He campaigned hard for GOP candidates. He was in 15 states in two days leading up to the election.

I am sure somebody advised him that if the Democrats would happen to post big gains in the House and Senate races, it could hurt his mandate and ability to lead and govern.

But he would have none of it. He was an outspoken, ardent supporter of GOP candidates and conservative ideologies.

He took the risk and it paid off.

Sure, the election was a huge success for Republicans.

But with the success comes a great responsibility. There's a Republican in the White House and the Republicans have majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives.

One of my liberal friends put it this way: "If things go bad, they have no one to blame."

That is absolutely true.

They will bear the sole responsibility for the policies that are put forth over the next two years.

And this will have a huge impact on W's chances for re-election in 2004.

I hope the Republicans use this mandate from the electorate wisely.

I have always believed in conservatism as the preferred way to run government.

Less is more, so to speak.

I like the idea of tax cuts. I like the idea of smaller, more efficient government.

The idea that tax cuts help stimulate the economy has been proven time and time again.

Anytime you allow workers to keep more of their paychecks it's a good thing, in my view.

More money to spend. More products to buy. More products to manufacture. More workers needed to manufacture more products. More money to invest.

It's good for the economy.

(That's not to mention the fact that the average person now pays approximately 50 percent of their earnings to some sort of tax.)

Generally, when the economy picks up, revenue to the treasury rises. That's because incomes rise. When incomes rise, the amount of income tax revenue rises.

During the Reagan years, for example, revenue to the treasury increased every year, rising above $1 trillion for the first time in the nation's history late in his second term.

There was no problem with the revenue side of the equation.

But the spending side of the equation was another story. Congress - and President Reagan, largely because of defense - spent every dime and then some.

So what is Reagan remembered for? All the revenue generated by his tax policy?

Nope.

The Reagan deficits.

I think W faces the same dilemma. I hope he handles it better than Reagan.

I am hearing calls by Republicans for lots of new programs - homeland security, prescription drug plans, health insurance plans.

I hope W can come upÊwith a blend of taxing and spending that stimulates the economy and lowers deficits.

I hope he understands what I consider to be a simple truth of governing.

Deficits are not created by the people being taxed too little.

Deficits are created by the government spending too much. [[In-content Ad]]