Douchehat has been married for 5 years and has no kids.

Is he impotent? Sterile? Sticking it in the wrong hole?

Or is he making the Baby Jesus cry by using birth control?

Douchehat should come clean (oops) and tell us the truth.

We can handle the truth!

I believe that Ross and his wife had a daughter last year so he is one for one in successful procreation-only sex.

.

All-purpose shorter Douthat:

The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, “Save us!”

someday the smug liberals who have enabled them will reap this baby-momma godless sex whirlwind

Awesome! Where do I sign up?

“… Poor Mexican atheist sluts are ruining America and someday the smug liberals who have enabled them will reap this baby-momma godless sex whirlwind…”

Always euphemisms with these people! Why can’t they tell us (ahem) straight!

I believe Ross’s wife had a daughter, but if the daughter resembles Ann Coulter, then, as once suggested by someone on this site, maybe Ross got some “help.”

I love how ten minutes ago the GOP talking point was “Mexican-Americans are traditional Catholics who hate teh buttseks and abortion and will therefore vote for us in droves once Magic Man Obama stops casting charm person spells on them.”

So a few wing-nuts are waking up to the fact that they are demographically fucked, and Ross goes full nutbar and suggests that the spi-blahs are really just the greasy, lazy wetbacks he always suspected they were.

A never-ending parade of racist fail.

“(like the churches threatened by the Obama White House’s contraceptive mandate)”

Churches weren’t threatened; they were ignored.

As always, Ross provides rigorous documentation (with numerous links to peer-reviewed demographic studies)for the trends he observes among Hispanics, unmarried Americans, secularists. A lesser journalist would have simply made assertions with no facts to support them. Oh, wait…

Smug Motherfucker pissed me off this morning.

This is an inescapable aspect of democratic culture: no matter what reason tells us about the vagaries of politics, something in the American subconscious assumes that the voice of the people really is the voice of God, and that being part of a winning coalition must be a sign that you’re His chosen one as well.

The only people thinking that Russ are the same people screaming for, “the government to keep its hands of their medicare!”

This means the losing coalition must be doomed to wander east of Eden, and liberals have been having a good time with this idea of late. “Those poor, benighted Republicans!” runs the subtext of their postelection commentary. “They can’t read polls! They can’t reach Hispanics! They don’t understand women! They don’t have a team of Silicon Valley sorcerers running their turnout operations!”

They are doomed because they refuse to read polls, they call every Hispanic they meet an ‘illegal‘, they treat women like property, but you’re right about that last one. SUXORS 2BU!!1!

Back in 2011, the Obama White House earned some mild mockery for its “win the future” slogan. But now that the president has been re-elected, the liberal conventional wisdom is that the Democrats have done just that — that Republicans are now Radio Shack to their Apple store, “The Waltons” to their “Modern Family,” a mediocre Norman Rockwell to their digital-age mosaic.

Calling for a return of the 1890′s will do that to your reputation, Russ.

Maybe it’s too soon to pierce this cloud of postelection smugness. But in the spirit of friendly correction — or, O.K., maybe curmudgeonly annoyance — let me point out some slightly more unpleasant truths about the future that liberalism seems to be winning.

Liberals look at the Obama majority and see a coalition bound together by enlightened values — reason rather than superstition, tolerance rather than bigotry, equality rather than hierarchy. But it’s just as easy to see a coalition created by social disintegration and unified by economic fear.

A break down of the, what Bill O’Reilly called the, “White Christian Male Power Structure” must be scary for White Christian Males who subconsciously think of themselves as the “Chosen of God” right, Russ?

Consider the Hispanic vote. Are Democrats winning Hispanics because they put forward a more welcoming face than Republicans do — one more in keeping with America’s tradition of assimilating migrants yearning to breathe free? Yes, up to a point. But they’re also winning recent immigrants because those immigrants often aren’t assimilating successfully — or worse, are assimilating downward, thanks to rising out-of-wedlock birthrates and high dropout rates. The Democratic edge among Hispanics depends heavily on these darker trends: the weaker that families and communities are, the more necessary government support inevitably seems.

“American workers wouldn’t do that job for fifty bucks an hour” I believe is how John McCain put it, Russ?

Likewise with the growing number of unmarried Americans, especially unmarried women. Yes, social issues like abortion help explain why these voters lean Democratic. But the more important explanation is that single life is generally more insecure and chaotic than married life, and single life with children — which is now commonplace for women under 30 — is almost impossible to navigate without the support the welfare state provides.

You really don’t think it has anything to do with Republicans considering woman nothing more than “Incubators for precious fetuses”, Russ? Objects that have no value beyond being submissive and pregnant?

Or consider the secular vote, which has been growing swiftly and tilts heavily toward Democrats. The liberal image of a non-churchgoing American is probably the “spiritual but not religious” seeker, or the bright young atheist reading Richard Dawkins. But the typical unchurched American is just as often an underemployed working-class man, whose secularism is less an intellectual choice than a symptom of his disconnection from community in general.

The growth probably has more to do with a bunch sick asshole molesting children and then being protected by Holier than thou” Clergy and Op Ed writers, Russ.

But if conservatives don’t acknowledge the crisis’s economic component, liberalism often seems indifferent to its deeper social roots. The progressive bias toward the capital-F Future, the old left-wing suspicion of faith and domesticity, the fact that Democrats have benefited politically from these trends — all of this makes it easy for liberals to just celebrate the emerging America, to minimize the costs of disrupted families and hollowed-out communities, and to treat the places where Americans have traditionally found solidarity outside the state (like the churches threatened by the Obama White House’s contraceptive mandate) as irritants or threats.

Maybe if Republicans stopped using the power of the government to help ONLY 1% of the population things would change, Russ?

This is a great flaw in the liberal vision, because whatever role government plays in prosperity, transfer payments are not a sufficient foundation for middle-class success. It’s not a coincidence that the economic era that many liberals pine for — the great, egalitarian post-World War II boom — was an era that social conservatives remember fondly as well: a time of leaping church attendance, rising marriage rates and birthrates, and widespread civic renewal and engagement.

How many years must Republicans cry “Job Creators” with zero jobs created before everyone will just agree that it’s true? The answer my friends is blowing smoke up your asses, the answer is blowing it really hard.

No such renewal seems to be on the horizon. That isn’t a judgment on the Obama White House, necessarily. But it is a judgment on a certain kind of blithe liberal optimism, and the confidence with which many Democrats assume their newly emerged majority is a sign of progress rather than decline.

Yeah it fucking sucks that Democrats didn’t take the house too.

Mitt Romney: People rejected the Republicans and voted for Obama and the other Democrats only because they want government “handouts”.

Reaction: What a horrible, extreme, out-of-touch thing to say, let’s condemn him and tell him to go away.

Ross Douthat: People rejected the Republicans and voted for Obama and the other Democrats only because they want government “handouts”, and it’s not all their fault that their miserable liberal lifetstyle choices make them need the handouts.

Reaction: What a nice, moderate “thoughtful Republican” thing to say, let’s give him a job writing for the New York Flipping Times.

“Churches weren’t threatened; they were ignored.” I challenge you to propose a greater threat to churches.

Douthat also was noticed by Krugman yesterday, who was polite about it. Maybe it’s in his NYT deal, or maybe he was having a bad day. “…the winning Obama coalition did not for the most part consist of forward-looking, NPR-listening, culturally adventurous liberals; instead, the big numbers came from groups “unified by economic fear”.” Not quite sure why PK so readily buys into the “big numbers” bit; that seems to feed right into the “47% are gimmes” ploy. Election tippers, maybe, but that’s not necessarily big.

I had the same reaction to Krugthulu, a rare time he missed, for me. The Republicans put forward a sexist, anti-women’s rights, anti-immigrant, anti-minority platform and nominated a Robber Baron impersonator for President at a time when that image is about as popular as herpes, and people voted for Democrats instead.

The former is not necessarily the only reason for the latter, but it certainly played a big part.

Re the first of your quotes . . .

Ross, Larry Kudlow, Rick Santelli, and the rest of the Republican ilk *know* that the Voice of the Market is God.

But the typical unchurched American is just as often an underemployed working-class man, whose secularism is less an intellectual choice than a symptom of his disconnection from community in general.

Somehow, I am not able to imagine Ross Douhat having a conversarion with an underemployed working-class man. I wonder why that is.

Well done.
I’ll bet that ol’ Ross checks under his bed every night before turning in, to make sure there aren’t any of his scary Strawman Libruls hiding there.

That really *is* the shorter.

And Joe Scarborough was bitching about the column this morning. When you’ve lost Joe…

Alternate Shorter Ross:

Sure, Libs are winning right now, but religon is the semen that keeps the pages of society sticking together, so they will kill us all eventually. Also, an angel told me that if 2016 goes to the Democrats, San Francisco and New York will be turned into pillars of salt.

will reap this baby-momma godless sex whirlwind

I most certainly hope so and eagerly await the day.

He simply was making the point that voting in your self-interest, as the rich always do, is not only good politics, it is the only sane approach to voting. He also make the point that Republican policies actively hurt these same groups.

But the typical unchurched American is just as often an underemployed working-class man, whose secularism is less an intellectual choice than a symptom of his disconnection from community in general.

Hmmmm. I would say the typical unchurched American is most often a low-wage earner, who finds more profit in sleeping late on the one day a week he or she doesn’t have to get up for the early shift at one of his or her three jobs than he or she finds in listening to some bloviating blowhard pontificate about how Jesus would have already made him or her rich if he or she was one of the chosen and living right.

As the Constitution MANDATES they be.

What’s WRONG is, their tax-exempt status while indulging in FUNDED POLITICS

Indeed JennOfArk, indeed. I also recall a recent study of churchiness, whereby the largest growth segment was &