Okay, folks. From the right. I'll guarantee a thought provoking, insightful essay, with only a smidge of intolerable cheerleading.

Let's start with my headline: ELECTION DAY WAS VERY BAD FOR THE GOP. Allow me to explain.

Go back to June, 2008. It's little remembered, but John McCain was in trouble with his base. James Dobson refused to endorse him. Barack Obama agreed to visit Rick Warren of all people -- to show conservatives he doesn't have fangs and horns. In other words, to placate them into staying home.

McCain offered a bargain: moderates get the top of the ticket, and the right gets the bottom. The right said yes. Many moderates said no.

If you asked a Republican in June '08 to write up the McCain agenda on a note card, the card would have been blank. It would not have said: "stop Obama," because no one really knew what Obama would do.

Now, fast forward to today. Again, social conservatives agreed to a bargain. "We'll vote for platform moderates in NJ and Virginia, and moderates vote for our guy in New York." Conservatives followed through; moderates did not.

But wait, but wait, says the establishment. Without Hoffman in the picture, we were still going to win, and carry the base. While dissing Beck and Palin. What's the problem?

Go back to that note card. It now has only a single line: stop Obama. That's fine, and might even carry the day in 2010, but it has three flaws. 1. Obama might bolt to the center like Clinton. 2. He might pass his agenda, and find it popular. 3. The economy might improve. If any of that happens, the GOP goes back to an empty note card.

But wait, does the party of less government need an agenda? Oh sure, conservatives love a good crusade. War on drugs, war on crime. Right now, they have nothing.

In short, the wings of the party need each other. But clearly, they didn't play nice in 2008, or 2009. Exact same result both times, when igniting the conservative flame. I see no signs of rapprochement.

Finally, what about horse race 2012? In Virginia, the new guy's acceptance speech looked like a red tie convention -- or an 80's flash back. Establishment to the core. Their dream for 2012 would be Romney atop that stage, with a red tie of his own, but polls suggest Huckabee or Palin instead.

That means the establishment might have to gulp hard and make a deal with one of them. Right now, I think it would Huckabee. Why? Because he was malleable in Arkansas, and would be tolerate as a standard bearer.

Palin is in kind of a tough spot. The template for 2010 will clearly exclude her. Yet, her career right now consists of fund raising and dispensation, vis-a-vis her PAC, as an auxillary for the GOP. Which doesn't want her. Or need her. For now.

Nonetheless, I think two things are likely. First, times will get better for Obama, and as they do, the social right's willingness to dance with moderates -- without reciprocity -- will diminish. Social cons will quickly realize that platform moderates do nothing for them. The social cons would need to be intensely P.O.'d with Obama to accept, in perpetuity, the humilitations inflicted upon them by the center.

Second, with or without an establishment overture to Huckabee, Palin is going to have more intense support, and make a stronger claim for the mantle. I read today something about a 5-part interview with Barbara Walters, after the Oprah thing. If she outmuscles Huckabee, what can the party do except fight to the death, politically speaking, or make a deal?

When Ulysses S. Grant moved west of Vicksburg, Washington nearly lost its nerve, and hope. Grant needed two things too, and got them. A link to Farragut's fleet, and the element of surprise to re-emerge with a successful siege.

Right now, Palin is west of Vicksburg.

Enjoy your bread and circuses.

No spin.

I thought it was a big defeat for Palin. She effectively put herself on the ballot and was the only prominent person last night who lost.

The more interesting coincidence to me was Hoffman's 46% figure. It's the same number as McCain/Palin.

Reports down the wire indicate that Hoffman had maybe 35% support for genuinely libertarian views. To close the gap and win, he needed to show he would protect the local military base, government jobs, etc. -- of which he knew little. Voters wisely chose a person (Owens) who knows best how to do that sort of thing.

The lesson here is that our society is tilted toward government dependence. I saw this first hand last year when I tried to persuade an older family member to vote McCain. "He's for less Medicare," I was told. "Nothing else matters to me."

In short, anything approaching genuine conservatism -- actual cutting of expenditures, actual protection of fetal life -- will lose. Fat-faced corporatist liberalism lite will, however, occasionally prevail. I was joyless over last night's GOP wins.

Where to go from here? Don't know. It's kind of hard to enjoy politics when your brand of ideas earns the same losing number two years in a row. If this is Rudy, it's deep in the winter of our rejection. If it isn't, then it's over.