This is the most significant midterm election most of us can remember.
The issues go to the heart of what kind of country we will be in the future: Will the government take-over of our health care be allowed to stand? Will many struggling citizens face a huge tax increase at a time when we can ill afford it? These are serious matters.
And what are Democrats, who may take a thumping a week from today, doing to hang onto their self-esteem?
Thinking hap-hap-happy thoughts, according to New York Times columnist David Brooks. It is the funniest column Brooks has penned in a long time:
Democrats and their media enablers have paid lavish attention to Christine O’Donnell and Carl Paladino, even though these two Republican candidates have almost no chance of winning. That’s because it feels so delicious to feel superior to opponents you consider to be feeble-minded wackos.
On the other hand, Democrats and their enablers have paid no attention to Republicans like Rob Portman, Dan Coats, John Boozman and Roy Blunt, who are likely to actually get elected. It doesn’t feel good when your opponents are experienced people who simply have different points of view. The existence of these impressive opponents introduces tension into the chi of your self-esteem.
Similarly, the Democrats and their enablers have paid lavish attention to the Tea Party this year. It’s nice to feel more sophisticated than those hordes of Middle Americans, who say silly things like “Get government off my Medicare.”
17dowd.html?_r=4″ target=”_blank”>Mean Girl Maureen Dowd can write a column portraying conservative women as “nihilistic cheerleaders” (note to Maureen: nihilists don’t cheerlead) and Melinda “Me Mean, Too” Hennenberger can follow up a few days later with a column waxing nostalgic for Elizabeth Dole, but fewer and fewer people are buying it.
Here’s my prediction: The conservatives will cut a few superfluous programs and the MSM will squawk and cavil-but it will have far less impact than in the past.