Linda Sanchez was on 'To the Contrary' this week and she actually made the case that the predicted increase in female congressfolk (projected to be 20% this year) was bad for the Republicans because women tend to be more "results-oriented."

Why is that a problem? Because "results-oriented" voters and legislators will naturally (remember, this is a conservative saying this) be more "liberal."

The result, of course, of having a more gender-balanced, results-oriented electorate is that we will implement "European style social democracy."

This will, of course, be "bad" for America. We'll become a nightmare gulag nanny state like...Sweden. What school child doesn't gaze upon the grainy footage of life in Sweden and think "There, but for the grace of God, go I?"

So what, then, is "good" for America?

Well, fewer women voting and running for office, leaving more men who will not have a bunch of silly "results" expectations in their pretty little heads. Rock-ribbed, steely-eyed men of action who will vote their "values" no matter what the so-called "actual results" are.

So there you have it. A conservative intellectual has made the conservative case: conservatives have no interest in delivering on results because results are bad for America.

Well, maybe conservative results.

Quite a thing, that Christian love, isn't it?

Again, for everyone who asks how we can be good people without such a loving moral framework as Christianity, let me ask:

Can you cite one example, one, of an atheist, agnostic or deist proclaiming that anyone, anyone, will be subjected to eternal torment simply because they voted for the wrong candidate?

Can you cite one example, one, of an unbeliever, doubter or skeptic defining such eternal torment as "perfect love?"

Charles Manson comes to mind, but short of that, I can't think of one.

Not "Sons of Style" or "Sons of Class"

The characters in this show move, act and relate like what they are: pack predators.

Having sex over a fresh kill is what pack predators do.

Um, excuse me, but what are we saying here? That the Democrats haven't been spineless enough in recent years? I'll file that one alongside "Republicans haven't been conservative enough."

In case you hadn't noticed, the Obstructicons are stepping back, licking their wounds and then sharpening their knives to do everything they can to obstruct, distract and undermine the incoming Obama administration.

You think these bastards are going to play nice just because they lost an election? Again, that's Democrats you're thinking of.

Country first? My ass. If Obama's presidency is even moderately successful, then they know that their brand of Southern strategy, 51% mandate, divide-and-conquer, kleptocratic shenanigans will be deader than Dillinger.

And they do not want that. They are on prevent-defense and they know it.

Now, who do you want calling your plays when you're surrounded by fifth-columnists who would just as soon destroy the village as save it? Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid?

Haven't we all been complaining that they lie down too much with these jackals? That they succumb, time and again, out of fear of being bullied?

We're dealing with schoolyard bullies here. You don't overcome a bully by shrugging your shoulders and repeating "elect more Democrats" over and over again.

You deal with a schoolyard bully by standing up to him and saying fuck you, fuck your friends, fuck your family, fuck your idiotic agenda, fuck everyone at your fucking birthday party and fuck you, you fucking fuckerpants.

So, yes dear readers, change has come to America. Democrats are going to start hitting back.

And as for all the "good" conservatives who want to cooperate, well, there'll be no reason to sic Rahm on THEM, now will there?

"Unless that bully is Foreign Policy, the banksters, the war profiteers, or the Israel Lobby."

Then we'll just have to hire another asshole to deal with them.

If the objection is to his politics, well, that's a different issue.

I was addressing the objection to hiring an "asshole" to run the White House.

...'Teaching Mrs. Tingle' joke in here somewhere, but I haven't got the 'nads to look for it.

How is this a problem not easily solved with a blowjob?

Executive Experience(tm).

How about this for a theory, LW:

You cheated on your spouse because you're self-centered and narcissistic.

But now you're caught so you're making a big melodrama out of your healing process in the hopes that the people in your life will continue to pour all their energy and attention onto you.

It's obvious from your letter that you're much more concerned with how your spouse and family will respond to your healing process (ie "will they buy my bullshit story?") than you are in taking responsibility for yourself?

Demons? Hah. You had money? A crutch. You want your life back? Give me a break.

Healing from a situation like this isn't a negotiation. It's not bargaining.

"Hey, honey, I went to some counseling sessions and now I know the keywords to say to make it seem like I actually give a shit that I destroyed your life. So when will you be coming back so I can have all the stuff I want?"

YOU want YOUR life back? And what about your wife? Did she ever even HAVE the life she thought she had?

Get used to this idea, LW: the jig is up. Your loved ones are onto you. You won't be getting a pat on the head and a lollipop for being such a brave soldier and fighting your demons.

"Lots of bad feeling there towards the Letter Writer. Aren't we supposed to be helping them?"

I think that's Cary's job. He's the one who gets paid.