Clearly the ruling class is in a kind of anaphylactic political shock brought on by even the slightest exposure to Newt Gingrich victory speeches. 

It's hard to remember a presidential cycle where the punditry has been so overtly hostile towards the choices primary voters make in their ballot selections. It's one of the most bizarre intellectual exercises of the commentariat in any season: if your candidate gets bludgeoned blame the voters for the way they voted. 

Anne Coulter, for example, became unbearably shrill after her candidate (Romney) was shellacked in South Carolina. She blamed the Tea Party members of the Charleston audience for their "cheers and yahoos."  That mob-like behavior might move the Tea Party but not the independents, she asserted, even though Gingrich walloped Romney convincingly in almost every demographic, every voting group and every income level--precious independents included.

Apparently, a last minute Gingrich surge can only mean for Coulter that "South Carolinians are going back to their democrat roots."

Brett Stevens thinks he has it figured out too: "Voters instinctively prefer the idea of an entertaining Newt-Obama contest...over a dreary Mitt-Obama one."

And these are conservative writers and columnists.

The opinion-makers are utterly perplexed. If Gingrich is so combustible and Romney is so inevitable why is the former gaining and the latter fading?

In their condescension and contempt for voters and their choices Coulter, Stevens and many others reflect perfectly why the Charleston crowd cheered Gingrich the night of the second Charleston debate.  They hate being treated like rabble occupying the same country but living in a parallel universe.

Claude can be reached at csandroff@gmail.com