So? I mean, what exactly changed all of a sudden? How is that such a shock to anybody?

That’s the Eeyore, ZOMG-we’re-doomed line being promulgated in several places out there today. I posted this comment over at Bill’s, but I think it bears repeating here: In all the Newt-style handwringing over the (supposed) absolute impossibility of conservatives ever being elected to anything, there’s one thing I have yet to see addressed by anybody. Liberals (and, usually, “moderates”) vote only for liberals, and nobody expects them to do otherwise, or even suggests that they ought to. So why is it such an outrageously outrageous outrage, an outright crime almost, for conservatives to say they’ll vote only for conservatives? Why is it always, always, ALWAYS conservatarian types who are expected to “reach across the aisle,” “work with” their opponents, and compromise their principles?

Do the handwringers really believe limited-government principles are that toxic and unpopular? Does the relentless drumbeat of the liberal media have them that cowed? Have they internalized the (admittedly ubiquitous, and therefore not always easy to resist) Leftist propaganda that completely?

Because if so, why are they bothering to even halfheartedly resist the unstoppable march toward absolute power by the Almighty State? A far better option than continuing their feeble, ineffectual resistance would be to just acquiesce, and try to grab for all the government goodies they can get their hands on while they still can — and to keep their heads down, to avoid making themselves a bigger target when the Obamareich decides it’s time to deal with the resistance once and for all.

Y’know, get with the program, jump on the team and come on in for the big win, all that.

Update! Related? You betcha:

Democratic moderates may well compel both leaders to accept more-limited variations of the public option. But even if that happens, few, if any, Republicans in either chamber are likely to support health care reform. Their unbending resistance captures the fundamental bet that Republicans are placing this year — that they can regain power by riding a public backlash against government overreach.

On every front, the chasm is widening between the parties over Washington’s proper role. In some cases, such as aid to troubled banks and automakers, President Obama has accepted new responsibilities only reluctantly. But many of his initiatives are intended to lastingly enlarge federal influence.

In the stimulus bill, Obama won massive public investment in infrastructure, education, and clean energy. He is now proposing, among other things, to limit carbon emissions, raise taxes on the wealthy, toughen financial regulation, restructure Wall Street’s pay patterns, require individuals to purchase health insurance, tax high-end “Cadillac” health plans, and create that public insurance option. And all of this is occurring as the annual federal deficit, already swelled by George W. Bush’s policies, has reached $1.4 trillion.

Both parties see public discontent with Washington.

The parties have formulated inimical assessments of what Americans want from Washington one year after the financial meltdown shattered confidence in government and business. Republicans see a wave building against Big Government like the one that elected Ronald Reagan president in 1980. They point to polling results such as Gallup’s recent finding that 57 percent of Americans believe that government is trying to do too much. “Democrats are really pushing the envelope on what the public is willing to accept,” GOP pollster Whit Ayres insists. Republican wins in next week’s New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races would cement that conviction within the GOP.

Most Democratic strategists acknowledge public anxiety about the financial bailouts, overall spending, and the deficit; it’s likely that Obama will nod toward long-term deficit reduction in next year’s State of the Union address. But Democrats believe that Republicans are missing Americans’ support for job-creating public investments and their desire for government to defend them against powerful interests.

There’s horsepucky aplenty here (“job-creating public investment,” “Obama has accepted new responsibilities only reluctantly” — yeah, right), but the gist of it is on target, I think. What this fight is about, in ways that are more direct and obvious than maybe they have been since the Civil War, is whether this country is going to re-embrace Constitutional principles — or abandon them for good. The Repubs haven’t quite figured out which side they’re on yet. They’re being forced to, kicking and screaming every step of the way. And sorry, but I just can’t see that as anything other than a good and vital thing.