Schadenfreude.

scha·den·freu·de [shahd-n-froi-duh]

-noun

satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune.

Republicans are concerned. Very very concerned. This New York Times article is a satisfying read for everyone who's gotten way too used to its always being the Democrats who fret about the listlessness of our candidate's campaign in the final weeks.

"I think you're seeing a turning point," said Saul Anuzis, the Republican chairman in Michigan, where Mr. McCain has decided to stop campaigning. "You're starting to feel real frustration because we are running out of time. Our message, the campaign's message, isn't connecting."

Tommy Thompson, a Republican who is a former governor of Wisconsin, said it would be difficult for Mr. McCain to win in his state but not impossible, particularly if he campaigned in conservative Democratic parts of the state. Asked if he was happy with Mr. McCain's campaign, Mr. Thompson replied, "No," and he added, "I don't know who is."

In Pennsylvania, Robert A. Gleason Jr., the state Republican chairman, said he was concerned that Mr. McCain's increasingly aggressive tone was not working with moderate voters and women in the important southeastern part of a state that is at the top of Mr. McCain's must-win list.

"They're not as susceptible to attack ads," Mr. Gleason said. "I worry about the southeast. Obama is making inroads."

Several party leaders said Mr. McCain needed to settle on a single message in the final weeks of the campaign and warned that his changing day-to-day dialogue -- a welter of evolving economic proposals, mixed with on-again-off-again attacks on Mr. Obama's character -- was not breaking through and was actually helping Mr. Obama in his effort to portray Mr. McCain as erratic.

"The main thing he needs to do," said Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota, "is focus on a single message -- a single, concise or clear-cut message, and stick with that over the next 30 days, regardless of what happens.

"He's had a lot of attack lines. But it's time to choose."

John C. Danforth, a retired Republican senator from Missouri, said Mr. McCain should turn his attention mainly to drawing contrasts with Mr. Obama and "essentially go back to the basics."

"I don't think it's enough to talk about earmarks incessantly," Mr. Danforth said. "He's made that point. You've got to get beyond that and talk about the very dramatic taxes and spending in the Obama program."

You'll notice that most of these comments are couched in advice for John McCain...what he can do to turn things around. But not all Republicans are willing to pretend they think that's even possible. On the heels of David Brooks's reportedly calling the election for Obama, now Ed Rollins uses the L-word.

Former Reagan political adviser Ed Rollins likened today's landscape to that in 1980, when voters were angry at President Jimmy Carter and the Democrats and turned to Reagan in droves once they felt comfortable with the idea of him as president.

"Barack has met the threshold," Rollins said. "Once Reagan met the threshold, people wanted to get rid of Carter and they did in a landslide. This is going to turn into a landslide."

But perhaps most satisfying of all is to see one of the co-founders of RedState, Joshua Trevino, decide, in the end, that he just couldn't bring himself to vote for John McCain (h/t fogiv):

Finally, the vote for President of the United States: an academic exercise in California, where Barack Obama will surely win by a crushing margin. But good citizenship demands voting as if it matters. Do I believe in John McCain? Not as much as I used to. Do I believe in Sarah Palin? Despite my early enthusiasm for her, now not at all. Do I believe in the national Republican Party? Not in the slightest -- even though I see no meaningful alternative to it. So, my choice for President in 2008, scrawled in my ballot as an act of futile protest, is Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.

OK, that's your schadenfreude break for the day. Now, get back to work.