I'll tell you, that was a hell of a night. I stayed up into the early morning hours, watching CNN until it became clear that the Republicans would reclaim the Senate, expand their majority in the House and win dozens of key races nationwide. As a rare Amherst Republican, and as an intern for newly reelected Florida Governor Jeb Bush this past summer, the 2002 elections seemed to be a heartening endorsement of all that we represent.

After all, the last time that a Republican administration gained House seats during its first midterm elections was in the 19th century. But before Republicans push their agenda through a still closely divided 108th Congress, they need to remember some important points.

First and foremost, it was close. Republicans now hold a bare 51 seat majority in the Senate, down significantly from numbers they enjoyed during the Clinton administration. The House is still split almost evenly, with the GOP enjoying a nine seat edge there. Democrats won several key governorships nationwide, some in solidly conservative states, proving that state Democratic organizations are still a force to be watched. And finally, the races that clinched the victory for the Republicans, Senate contests in Missouri and Minnesota, were won by the slimmest of margins. As The New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote: Tuesday's elections were "a strong vote of confidence for the Bush administration. [They were] not a mandate." Republicans need to keep this crucial fact in mind if they hope to improve their performance in 2004.

What does this mean for President Bush and the Republican Party? It means a dominating focus on the War on Terror, tax cuts and the economy. Bush's consistent, sky-high approval ratings are due to his performance on these three issues-Americans like security and cash. Voters endorsed the GOP this fall because they trust Republicans over Democrats in a time of national crisis, not because they want Roe v. Wade overturned or oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Regardless of the validity of the GOP social agenda, if the Republicans misinterpret the 2002 elections and push anti-abortion legislation or environmentally unfriendly programs, they will lose in 2004.

I mention these unpleasant facts because I know that the alternative is worse. A Democratic Congress or President, among other disagreeable things, would effectively mean the end of the War on Terror. Sure, as President, Al Gore may have invaded Afghanistan after Sept. 11, but he would almost certainly have ignored Iraq. And for reasons mentioned in my previous columns, we can't ignore Iraq. Furthermore, Democratic control would mean the repeal of the Bush tax cuts and possibly tax increases-a disaster for an economy mired in recession.

So, fellow Republicans, let's pick and choose our battles. It seems counterintuitive that we can accomplish more by doing less, but that's the reality of modern American politics. When it comes to national security, foreign policy, taxes and the economy, Americans trust Republicans. But when abortion, the environment and education dominate the headlines, however misguided he or she may be, the average American will vote Democratic.

Republicans need to play to their PR strengths and minimize their weaknesses, and that means resisting the temptation to push partisan social issues in a time of war. To his credit, President Bush (a.k.a. Karl Rove) has been gracious in victory and has avoided mention of any issue other than the War on Terror and tax cuts. But after Newt Gingrich in 1994, I can't help but hold my breath.

Fortunately, the Democrats aren't in any position to exploit GOP mistakes. They are a party without an agenda, without leadership and without vision. As David Letterman put it: "You know you're in trouble when your bright young star of the future is [New Jersey Senator-elect] Frank Lautenberg." The leaderless Democrats are stuck between a rock and a hard place: either take a hard stance against war in Iraq and the Bush tax cuts, thus positioning themselves as the defenders of Saddam and the enemies of basic economics, or agree with the Republicans-in which case, why vote Democratic? The Republicans will be hard pressed to screw this one up.

I don't doubt that it will be tough to have restraint. A 51 seat majority, on most issues, isn't much different from a 60 seat majority. The GOP, in control of the presidency, Congress and arguably the Supreme Court, can pretty much do as it pleases. But Republicans must be patient.

Once the War on Terror is won, the economy is strong and the GOP is firmly entrenched in power, we can begin to think about Roe v. Wade, school vouchers and tax reform. In the meantime, let's keep talking about the Axis of Evil.