Few people get under the skin of the left the way Ann Coulter does. I think its because she afflicts them with the truth the way Van Helsing afflicts Dracula with the cross.

Her column this week is no exception.

But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont).

In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" -- especially in the sixth year.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" -- as MSNBC calls it -- rather than the death throes of a dying party.

That probably explains why we aren't seeing reports of mass hysteria and clinical depression among Republicans.

The Democrats say they are ready to lead--but lead where? the campaign, but their own admission (as if we couldn't see for ourselves) was based on "we are not Bush". For all the conciliatory bullshit we've been hearing yesterday, the fact is that there is no political price to be paid for obstructing a Democrat agenda. In fact, if there is any publicly-ordained agenda to be mandated, its to win in Iraq.

There is a considerable irony that the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner--essentially promising the American people that they can implement the Bush agenda better than Bush can do it.

The people in my district, overwhelmingly Republican, reelected Jim Matheson, a Democrat with 60% of the vote. Frankly there was no reason not to--Matheson has been consistently conservative and very focused on issues important in southern Utah. That's the pattern for success for Utah Democrats, but their Achilles heel has always been the national party. At some point, usually when their party is in power, they will need his vote on some issue that will be anathema to Utahns, and that will be the end of his political career.

Or not.

This is the subtle portent of Joe Lieberman's campaign--when faced with a choice between supporting your party or supporting your constituents, the latter is the better political choice.

Obviously the Democrats have a range of incentives to insure proper liberal voting behavior--committee assignments, campaign money, etc... But none of that does any good when you've brutally offended the sensibilities of the conservative constituencies in your home district--hence the value of the Joe Lieberman precedent.

Matheson is essentially a canary in the electoral coal mine. His party has been out of power since he was first elected, but now he faces an ambitious, very liberal leadership in a House configuration where his vote could make the difference on close tallies. Does he follow the Lieberman rule and defy his party, or does he cave and derail a promising political career?

I'm willing to bet its the latter, which makes Democrat control of the House (and the Senate?) highly problematic.