As President George W. Bush won a second term in the White House, analysts scrambled to interpret the results while others looked ahead to soothing bitter partisanship from the campaign.

Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles offered his congratulations to Bush Nov. 3 soon after Sen. John Kerry conceded.

"The partisan rhetoric of the campaign must now give way to a genuine commitment to bipartisanship and to a partnership for the common good," the cardinal said in a statement. He said all Americans must work together with the administration and Congress to strengthen the nation's moral principles, promote human dignity, nurture the stability of families and assist those who are hungry, lack health care or need jobs.

Philadelphia Cardinal Justin Rigali issued a statement congratulating Bush and expressed his best wishes to Kerry and his vice-presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, and their families.

But he also called on Americans "to come together to support the president as he leads the United States during the next four years."

"As citizens we may differ in our views but agree that we want what is truly best for each other, for our country and for the world," Cardinal Rigali said. He said he and his brother bishops "will strive to work with the president as he deals with difficult issues facing our nation."

Meanwhile, even before the final vote tallies were in, the campaigns, pollsters and social scientists were deconstructing the results for clues about why people voted the way they did.

Despite extensive attention to the role of religion in the lives of the presidential candidates this year --- particularly criticism of Kerry from within his own Catholic Church --- exit polls showed Catholics apparently voted much the same as the overall population.

Nationwide, about 51 percent of voters chose Bush, compared to 48 percent who voted for Kerry. Among all Catholics, who make up 27 percent of the electorate, Bush got 52 percent of the vote compared to 47 percent for Kerry.

An analysis by John Green, head of the Bliss Institute for Applied Politics at the University of Akron in Ohio, and Steven Waldman, founder of the online magazine Beliefnet, found that Catholics in the battleground states of Florida and Ohio turned out more strongly for Bush than for Kerry.

In Ohio, the analysis found that 65 percent of Catholics who attend church weekly voted for Bush and 35 percent of them voted for Kerry. Nationwide, 56 percent of Catholics who said they go to church weekly voted for Bush, compared to 43 percent for Kerry.

Green and Waldman said 58 percent of voters nationwide from all faiths who attend church once a week voted for Bush. Those who attend church less frequently were more likely to vote for Kerry.

Voters said moral values were the most important concern behind their choice, followed by the economy and terrorism. Bush's support came from people who cited terrorism, moral values and taxes as the issues that mattered the most.

Kerry's support came from those who said they were most worried about the economy and jobs, health care, education and Iraq.

The exit poll study also reported high turnout particularly for Bush among what they defined as white evangelical or born-again Christians. They constitute 23 percent of the electorate, and 78 percent voted for Bush while 21 percent voted for Kerry.

Protestants --- including both evangelicals and members of mainline denominations --- make up 54 percent of the electorate; 59 percent of them voted for Bush, compared to 40 percent for Kerry.

Foreign policy challenges

While U.S. voters went to the polls Nov. 2 to elect a president, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was in a French hospital bed, his delicate health symbolizing the fragile nature of Israeli-Palestinian relations.

In Sudan's war-torn Darfur region, meanwhile, Sudanese government troops were violating international law by forcibly removing from makeshift camps thousands of black Sudanese left homeless by the conflict. The removal was another indication of government complicity with Arab militias accused of genocide against black Africans.

Before President Bush could sleep on his victory in winning a second term, the rest of the world was serving notice that his foreign policy challenges go beyond the Iraqi conflict and the war against terrorism.

"The plate is full. Just read the newspapers," said Walter Mead, a specialist on the history of U.S. foreign policy at the independent Council on Foreign Relations.

Mead and other foreign policy experts said that the Iraqi situation and the war on terrorism so dominated foreign policy discussions during the campaign that there was not enough time to adequately debate other important matters.

Gerard Powers, director of policy studies at the University of Notre Dame's Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, cited the need for the United States to do more to prevent existing nuclear weapons and technology from getting into the wrong hands.

This includes keeping the pledge to help finance the decommissioning of Russia's nuclear weapons, said Powers.

Bush also needs to make good on his promises to provide adequate funding to fight the worldwide HIV/AIDS pandemic and to give special foreign aid priority to the poorest nations, he said.

Other non-Iraqi issues Bush faces include:

---Curbing nuclear proliferation, especially the ambitions of Iran and North Korea to become nuclear powers.

---Improving relations with European allies.

---Addressing border issues with Mexico and dealing with the continuing clandestine immigration from Latin America.

---Promoting religious freedom.

Issues and agendas

How well Bush handles these may well depend on his ability to parry pressures from different --- and often opposite --- directions. Foreign policy experts said that the Iraqi conflict and the war on terrorism will continue dominating U.S. foreign policy, but they predict that Bush cannot escape other issues.

"Bush won't have the luxury of picking and choosing. Things will be thrust upon him," said Timothy Shah, a specialist in religion and international affairs at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Some of the strongest pressure will come from evangelical Christian groups who strongly support Bush and have a foreign policy agenda.

Evangelicals are united with Bush, who sympathizes with their faith convictions, in the war on terrorism, Shah said. "They are more likely to favor pre-emptive actions," he said. "They like Bush's moral certitude, his military stance, his confronting of radical Islam."

Evangelical issues include support for Israel against the Palestinians, criticism of the Sudanese Islamic government and promoting religious freedom abroad, said Shah.

Carrying out this agenda will not be easy as Bush faces counterpressures, especially regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is international pressure for Bush to be more evenhanded and less pro-Israel to show that concern for Palestinians is part of U.S. policy, Shah said.

Prior to being re-elected, Bush had little chance to counterbalance his strong support for Israel because he needed the pro-Israeli votes, Shah said. "Now he has a little more wiggle room, but he still can't be seen as twisting the arm of the Israelis," he said.

Any Bush pressure on the Israelis would have to be done behind closed doors, said Shah.

Promoting religious liberty also has its drawbacks. Many of the countries listed as violators of religious freedom --- such as Saudi Arabia, China, India and Vietnam --- are countries with whom the Bush administration has good relations or with whom Bush is trying to improve relations.

"This prevents tough measures, but there will be pressure on Bush to deliver" regarding the possible imposition of sanctions on such countries, said Shah. "A lot of evangelical groups have been very concerned about atrocities in Sudan by the Islamic government."

Initially, these concerns involved efforts by the Arab-ruled government to put down a rebellion in the South by black Christians. Now it extends to the Darfur region, where persecution is more ethnic than religious as the blacks being attacked by Arab militias are also Muslim.

Shah and Mead are skeptical that the United Nations will step in to resolve the conflict, leaving the United States with the prospect of unilateral action if it wants to prevent further bloodshed.

"The international community hopes the problem goes away," said Mead. "Arab countries side with Sudan and Europe doesn't want bad relations with Arabs."

African countries, which are leading the efforts to negotiate a solution through the African Union, do not want interference from countries outside the continent because they fear that this opens the door to future intervention against them as many other African countries also have poor human rights records, said Mead.

"It's a messy, difficult problem," he said. "People don't get excited about humanitarian involvement. It's difficult to build up a consensus."

---CNS