An entire commentary of sarcasm by George Will:

Unwilling to delay until tomorrow mistakes that could be made immediately, Democrats used 2010 to begin losing 2012. Trying to preemptively drain the election of its dangerous (to Democrats) meaning, all autumn Democrats described the electorate as suffering a brain cramp, an apoplexy of fear, rage, paranoia, cupidity – something. Any explanation would suffice as long as it cast what voters were about to say as perhaps contemptible and certainly too trivial to be taken seriously by the serious.

It is amazing the ingenuity Democrats invest in concocting explanations of voter behavior that erase what voters always care about, and this year more than ever – ideas. This election was a nationwide recoil against Barack Obama’s idea of unlimited government.

The more he denounced Republicans as the party of “no,” the better Republicans did. His denunciations enabled people to support Republicans without embracing them as anything other than impediments to him.

He had defined himself as a world-class whiner even before Rahm Emanuel, a world-class flatterer, declared that Obama had dealt masterfully with “the toughest times any president has ever faced” – quite a claim, considering that before the first president from Illinois was even inaugurated, seven of the then-34 states had seceded. Today’s president from Illinois, a chronic campaigner and incontinent complainer who is uninhibited by considerations of presidential dignity, has blamed his difficulties on:

George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the Supreme Court, a Cincinnati congressman (John Boehner), Karl Rove, Americans for Prosperity and other “groups with harmless-sounding names” (Hillary Clinton’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” redux), “shadowy third-party groups” (they are as shadowy as steam calliopes), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and, finally, the American people. They have deeply disappointed him by being impervious to “facts and science and argument.”

How’s that enlightened progressive superiority thingy working out for you, Mr. President?

I haven’t blogged a single post in almost a month. Unlike the vast majority of political aficionados out there the closer to an election one gets the less I write because frankly there isn’t much to be said that hasn’t already been said. I get tired of the political advertisements especially. Besides the battle lines were drawn months ago and have since solidified.

But I’m going to leave you with one good commentary, courtesy of Kimberly Strassel, prior to the election next Tuesday:

Here’s a key fact of 2010: The biggest political spender of this cycle is, as usual, a union (the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, at $90 million). Another overlooked fact: Democrats are floating in money. A recent study by the nonpartisan Center for the Responsive Politics reports that Democrats in competitive districts have raised 47% more than Republicans and spent 66% more. They’re losing for lack of credibility, not dollars.

… Mr. Obama recently explained he was so busy passing his agenda he forgot to “advertise” its benefits. “We didn’t have time to unpack it,” echoes David Axelrod. And not only are Americans ill-informed—the president explains they are too “scared” to think straight.

One or two Americans presumably managed to avoid every one of Mr. Obama’s 344 days of public interaction his first year—including 42 press conferences, 158 interviews, 23 town halls and seven campaign rallies. The rest haven’t, and that’s the Democrats’ real problem. A recent Public Opinion Strategies poll found 89% of Americans familiar enough with “ObamaCare” to rate it on a positive/negative scale. A majority said an “acceptable” outcome of this election would be repeal. Don Draper couldn’t sell this turkey.

Exactly. When the liberal idea falls flat they blame the complexity of nuance. ‘Oh, the American public just don’t get it. It’s them, not us. ‘ But there was nothing nuanced about the way they took a highly unpopular health care bill and jammed it down the throat of the public.

Just a few weeks ago the WSJ reported that McDonald’s “may be forced to cancel its current coverage for 29,500 employees as a result of ObamaCare.” It opined additionally, “the choice is between relatively affordable coverage that isn’t as generous as Democrats think it should be and dumping coverage entirely.” Put another way, perhaps when you lose McDonald’s, and all those franchise paying small business owners, you lose America.

More importantly, there’s nothing nuanced about a persistent 10 percent unemployment rate. We’ll see how much the Democratic Party is hurt by the economy in just a few days, but if this election follows history, well, the political party in power simply does not survive double digit unemployment rates. Even the hugely popular FDR, while his party survived for the first couple of elections, could not save Democrats by 1938. That year they lost 6 Senate seats and 71 House seats, prompting FDR adviser Raymond Moley to call the Republican gains, “a comeback of astounding proportions.”

Will Tuesday be another comeback of astounding proportions?

WaPost columnist George Will covers the highlights of former Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan’s road to economic recovery. This is exactly the kind of fiscal agenda that would have ensured a victory for John McCain — already popular with moderates, he just needed to energize the Republican base. Will the moderates ever learn?

Ryan would eliminate taxes on interest, capital gains, dividends and death. The corporate income tax, the world’s second-highest, would be replaced by an 8.5 percent business consumption tax. Because this would be about half the average tax burden that other nations place on corporations, U.S. companies would instantly become more competitive — and more able and eager to hire.

Medicare and Social Security would be preserved for those currently receiving benefits or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today). Both programs would be made permanently solvent.

Universal access to affordable health care would be guaranteed by refundable tax credits ($2,300 for individuals, $5,700 for families) for purchasing portable coverage in any state. As persons younger than 55 became Medicare-eligible, they would receive payments averaging $11,000 a year, indexed to inflation and pegged to income, with low-income people receiving more support.

Ryan’s plan would fund medical savings accounts from which low-income people would pay minor out-of-pocket expenses. All Americans, regardless of income, would be allowed to establish MSAs — tax-preferred accounts for paying such expenses.

Ryan’s plan would allow workers younger than 55 the choice of investing more than one-third of their current Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts similar to the Thrift Savings Plan long available to, and immensely popular with, federal employees. This investment would be inheritable property, guaranteeing that individuals will never lose the ability to dispose of every dollar they put into these accounts.

Ryan would raise the retirement age. If, when Congress created Social Security in 1935, it had indexed the retirement age (then 65) to life expectancy, today the age would be in the mid-70s. The system was never intended to do what it is doing — subsidizing retirements that extend from one-third to one-half of retirees’ adult lives.

Compare Ryan’s lucid map to the Democrats’ impenetrable labyrinth of health-care legislation. Republicans are frequently criticized as “the party of no.” But because most new ideas are injurious, rejection is an important function in politics. It is, however, insufficient. Fortunately, Ryan, assisted by Republican Reps. Devin Nunes of California and Jeb Hensarling of Texas, has become a think tank, refuting the idea that Republicans lack ideas.

The only unrealistic portion of this plan is the second to last paragraph — raising the retirement age. While one can fully support such common sense, there is no way a candidate could ever win in Florida or Arizona proposing that to the retirees.

Not exactly a “Down goes Frazier” or “The Giants win the pennant moment” — Martha Croakley Coakley was an awful, awful candidate from the get go. One gets the impression that in any state not so Uberliberal as Taxachusetts a trained monkey could have defeated her, no disrespect to Scott Brown.  Indeed, it underscores the imperial hubris of the Democrats, that they were arrogant enough to think they could without repercussions attempt to sell this charisma-lacking lousy candidate to the people of Massachusetts.

But don’t think the Chicago political machine will go down without a fight.

Mainstream media mouthpieces for the Democratic Party have previously and unabashedly announced their true feelings about Democracy with MSNBC’s Ed Schultz digging in, saying “if I could vote 20 times, that’s what I’d do.” (Ed says his critics are “nutjobs.”) Nutjobs they may be, but they don’t promote election fraud.

I’m sure we’ll have activist groups coming out of the woodwork to attempt to recount or commit lawfare to prevent Brown’s certification too. Then again, Coakley was so bad a candidate that Brown appears at least right now to be enough ahead that such a strategy wouldn’t be feasible.

Other Democrats (John Kerry) have indicated that they’ll purposely refuse or delay any election certification. Again, what lovers of Democracy are the Democratic Party leadership!

Best guffaw of the day: Barney Frank discovers a “constitutional crisis” via the 60-vote filibuster rule, a rule which Democrats have both championed and enjoyed but which Mr. Frank now finds unconstitutional. Enjoy that crow, Barney, try not to choke on it.

What’s next? Think the Democrats might try to get a fence-sitting Republican to switch parties?