I found it quite amusing to hear President Bush use the phrase "I've got the will of the people at my back" when referring to implementing a "one-question rule" during his initial press conference outlining his second term.

Bush simply does not have the "will of the people," he has the will of a little more than half of the people. Making an arrogant statement like this, not only appears rude and conceited, but it foreshadows policy-making decisions in the future.

Upon Bush's initial appointment to the presidency in 2000, the American voter expected an agenda of compassionate conservatism. The American voter was soon fooled into policies of reckless spending, ruthless foreign policy, inherent environmental legislative flaws and the destruction of personal liberties. But all in all, Bush still came out the victor on Nov. 2.

When American voters were pressed about the primary reason they chose to vote for Bush, many attributed their decision to "moral values." They were clearly in favor of his pro-life stance on issues such as abortion and stem-cell research, they admired his anti-gay strategy and believed in his message to pursue a democratic-Christian policy throughout the world. Undoubtedly, the American voter was persuaded by a presidential campaign run under the guise of trepidation and bigotry.

Isn't it funny how middle America is picking what this country supposedly values. In northeastern states where the terror and 9/11 occurred and where a strong homosexual presence is felt, the voters almost uniformly chose to vote for Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). They had seen firsthand the issues of the election and decided this administration's policies were not acceptable.

With this being said, the Democrats are in a desperate need for change. But they must approach these changes gingerly and methodically. They currently are between a rock and a hard place. If they move further left, they will be alienated for not appealing to "real" issues. They will continue to be viewed as latte-drinking, New York Times-carrying, tree-hugging elitists who have absolutely no clue about the mind of the blue-collar worker. However, if they move further right, they will face criticism from third-party candidates for appearing too much like Republicans. This dilemma can only offer a few solutions.

First, as much as I hate to say it, the Democrats must appeal to the followers of organized religion. They must announce themselves as followers of Christianity, while still collectively being willing to accept the presence of other faiths.

Second, the Democrats must revive their former base. They need to develop grass roots presence to show low and middle class income earners that their policies can lead them to economic prosperity.

Third, they simply need to stop bashing Bush in middle-American political districts. When they feel the need to vent there anger at this administrations flaws, stick to doing it on the coasts. In other words, do not let Michael Moore out of his luxurious New York City apartment.

Last, the Democrats need to pick a southerner or midwesterner for their next presidential candidate. "Northeastern liberals" are simply not cutting it. Possible good candidates include Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) or New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. These candidates could announce their presence as a candidate for the people raised in the working class and educated by public schools.

While not disbanding Democratic policies, these solutions could only encourage a more moderate social policy stance, which is what the voters want.

Now with regards to four more years of Bush, let us only hope that The New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks was correct in his Nov. 2 piece "Hope and Frustration" in which he wrote, "I hope he will see his win not as vindication, but as a second chance to act effectively on the visions that inspired hope in the first place."

Cullen is a freshman in the College of Communication.

Click here to comment on this viewpoint on the Tribune Forum.