Paul Krugman (NY Times) must have thought he was being brilliantly clever when he used the following question to open his argument that in 2008, Republicans are "selling” nothing more than "the pure politics of resentment.”

"Can [Mitt Romney] the super-rich former governor of Massachusetts — the son of a Fortune 500 C.E.O. who made a vast fortune in the leveraged-buyout business — really keep a straight face while denouncing ‘Eastern elites’?”

In reality, that question represents nothing more than the stupidity that flows from the liberal mind arrogantly in love with big, centralized government because being a true anti-elitist has nothing to do with the state of one’s wealth but everything to do with the state of one’s mind.

For exquisite proof of that assertion, let’s turn Krugman’s question on Thomas Jefferson:

Can the super-rich land owner of Virginia — the son who inherited, among other wealth, 5,000 acres of prime real estate — really keep a straight face while he condemns centralized government headed by elites, claiming that "the people [are] the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty”? Can this wealthy lawyer keep his face straight when he denounces elitist activist judges as a "subtle corps of sappers and miners. . . [who are] irremovable but by their own body for any depravities of conduct, and even by their own body for the imbecilities of dotage”?

Every honest person knows that Jefferson’s life demands an answer of "yes’ to that question. And if it can be "yes” for Jefferson, it can be the same for others, no matter their wealth.

What, then, prompted Krugman to open himself to being mocked as a dunce or a partisan flunky when he posed his question as a prelude to a rant against the "anger” as well as the "contrived resentment” that constitutes the sum of McCain’s entire campaign?

The answer is, of course, "projection” because it is liberals who have experienced a mighty flare-up of chronic RAD (raging anger disorder) after McCain’s choice of Governor Palin rocked American politics.

Indeed, liberals are burning particularly hot because they thought they had successfully hid the truth about their anti-Jeffersonian elitism behind the paper-maché columns of the one-night stand Parthenon they erected in Denver, only to have Americans with their minds wide open recognize those columns as a sublimation of the impulse that drives liberals to regard themselves as intellectual and moral elites who are entitled to rule their inferiors.

This insulting liberal arrogance, by the way, has a long history. Consider, for example, the following excerpt from a letter John Stuart Mill sent to a conservative MP in 1866:

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.”

That disgusting arrogance, in turn, tells us everything we need to know about the latest angry eruption of our liberal elites, including . . .

Why they greeted Sarah Palin, the common woman, conservative governor of Alaska with the sexist epithet "bimbo”

Why, upon hearing that slur, they perfectly imitated Hillary Clinton, who had taught them so well how to remain silent in the face of "nuts and sluts” attacks upon innocent but merely red-blooded women

Why members of NOW, an insidious group of political ideologues who don’t have the guts to change their name to FOWL (Federation of Women Leftists), maintain the same cowardly silence

Why Judith Warner, the New York Times’ liberal feminist-in-chief, wrote the following lines that boil with a vicious, jealous anger: "It turns out there was something more nauseating than the nomination of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate this past week. It was the tone of the acclaim that followed her acceptance speech.”

Why liberals of the media, believing that John McCain had denied them their "right” to vet Governor Palin, angrily grubbed their story lines about her from the worst tabloid garbage

Why liberals question Governor Palin’s experience but, like their European counterparts, feel a never-before-felt thrill pulsing up their legs on its way to their brains every time they listen to a speech by a candidate whose resumé boasts of his brief stint as a community organizer, his part-time service as a state legislator associated with the Chicago political machine, and his four year stint as a Senator who has never accomplished anything brave and remarkable because he has spent every minute of his time since being elected politicking for the presidency.

Yes, there has been bad blood between liberals and the rest of the nation for a long time. And for good reason, too, including the fact that every four years, a particularly obnoxious cloud of liberal locusts darkens the nation as it drones on ad nauseam about the blueness of its intellectual blood

But the most important reason for that bad blood is that liberals don’t truly oppose Jeffersonians for reasons having to do with wealth. (After all, liberals are disproportionately wealthy.)

They despise them because Jeffersonians refuse to deny their faith in the people as the nation’s ultimate rulers and safest repository of the rights enumerated in the Constitution in favor of a system in which a gang of moral and intellectual bluebloods rule from the level of government farthest removed from the revolting middle class morality and dangerous ignorance exhibited by merely red-blooded American citizens.