A real head shaker of a column today from David Brooks as the U.S. campaign enters its last week: "The Upside of Opportunism." Basically, Brooks writes that Romney is more likely to get stuff done if he's elected President because Republicans in the House will go along with him. And Democrats in the Senate will work with him as well, because they'll be willing to bargain.
Meanwhile, Brooks says, if Obama is re-elected, there'll be the same old cast of characters and gridlock. Therefore, Romney gets the benefit of Brooks' thesis that there is an upside to opportunism. Romney should be rewarded with a win because the Republicans are just too intransigent to work with a Democratic president.
Brooks doesn't couch it as being wrong. He doesn't write that this may be what some voters are thinking - and they well might be - he's not pointing it out as an observation. The sum of his column is to suggest going with Romney because of the gridlocked mess the Republicans created. Who knows, maybe Brooks has looked north to us for inspiration where Harper was re-elected after having had a contempt motion moved successfully against his government. It has that same sort of stench to it.
There is no consideration from Brooks, at all, of what Republicans should properly do if Obama gets a second mandate. That is, recognize the choice of American voters and work with him. Doesn't rate a mention.
In total agreement with Kevin Drum on this who frames it as rewarding the hostage takers. What an absolute load of immoral hooey.