Gerson just won't stop...

disparaging conservatives every chance he gets, like in this Post piece.

Listen to this clown:

"And even a vast political victory does not change an iron law of politics: The quality of candidates matters. Serious, mainstream Republican Senate candidates could have won in Delaware and Nevada. But Christine O'Donnell was not serious. And Sharron Angle - warning of "Second Amendment remedies" in case of political loss - was not mainstream. Weak, poorly vetted Senate candidates were the main reason that while Republican gains in the House were historic - the largest in 72 years - gains in the Senate were not.

O'Donnell and Angle were gifts of Sen. Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin to their party. Tea Party enthusiasm and shallow ideological purity were supposed to be better than outdated, "establishment" attributes such as achievement, wisdom or qualification. This approach to politics is expected of DeMint, who has gained national prominence by accusing his Republican colleagues of compromise. Coming from Palin, however, it is a threat to the Republican future."

First off, I admit O'Donnell was absolutely nuts and stood no chance. The upside is that she defeated Mike Castle, a Democrat in GOP clothing. Castle immediately had consultations at the White House after losing the primary to O'Donnell. That's a fair measure of his conservatism, or utter lack thereof. Better to have a real Democrat that we can oppose in 2016.

Angle was a Bidenesque gaffe machine at times, butwould have made a fine Senator and is personally a very nice lady. Reid's victrory was a function of his power as Democrat leader in the Senate and his seniority, as well as some ham-fisted tactics by the gaming industry and unions. Fortunately his son got housed in his bid for the state house.

But listen to Gerson... "shallow ideological purity"... You mean ACTUALLY STANDING FOR SOMETHING, YOU DOUCHE??? Please, shut up, Gerson. As much as you try and snow people, "Roman Catholic social thought" is never going to be an impetus of conservatism. Ever. It's liberalism wrapped in a religious shroud.

Jim DeMint is currently America's finest Senator (pending the arrival of Rand Paul) and has been for several years. Gerson could learn a thing or thousand from him. But, let's move on...

"This election season called that perception into question. Palin's support for O'Donnell showed poor political judgment. But Palin went further, also endorsing Constitution Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo in Colorado, one of the most divisive figures in American politics.

Tancredo has made a career of fanning anti-immigrant resentment and lobbing ideological grenades. The people who voted Barack Obama into office, in his view, "could not even spell the word 'vote' or even say it in English." The National Council of La Raza is "a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses." Miami is a "Third World country." Pope Benedict's embrace of immigrants is all about "recruiting new members," in an attempt at "faith-based marketing." "The guy sitting in the White House," says Tancredo, is a greater threat to the Constitution than al-Qaeda. "If his wife says Kenya is his homeland, why don't we just send him back?"

It was one of the best outcomes of Election 2010 that Tancredo was exiled from any position of public trust. But it is disturbing that Palin found Tancredo to be the "right man for the job." Her endorsement raises the question of whether Palin has any standards for her support other than anti-government rhetoric. Either as a power broker or a candidate in the 2012 election, Palin's increasingly erratic political judgment should raise Republican concerns."

Guess what, Mikey? Tom Tancredo is not "divisive" (a word liberals whip out to imply racism or whatever when they're losing an argument badly) and is positively correct about all of the above. Go ahead..bring some logic, you DC loser. No? That's what I thought. I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but she made a fine choice in endorsing the Tank. My only quibble is his not seeking the GOP nomination from the start. If he had, he'd have won easily.

This election cycle is a repudiation of Gerson and all his little GOP establishment friends. I can't wait for the day when McConnell and his ilk are cleaned out of leadership, both in Congress and the GOP itself. But hey, Gerson will insist on some kind of excuse. Douchebag conservatism at its finest.

Karl Rove, establishment tool.

Here he is ripping on the victorious Christine O'Donnell.

This guy sucks in every way, shape and form. It makes me vomit that his book is subtitled "My life as a conservative in the fight" when he's spent the past 10 years tearing down conservatives and boosting moderates and neocons. Please, go away, Karl.

My favorite DC rears his head again...

...and I somehow just came across it a week and a half later.

Fear not, friends, I must and shall deliver the smackdown Gerson so richly deserves. Again. Still.

Back in the first post ever on this blog... I demolished him for his attempt to pervert conservatism into... well, whatever it is he believes it should be. The man is still at it. He even does his best impression of a race-baiting, guilt-ridden liberal with his "questions" for tea party candidates.

But hey, being the nice guy I am... Let's give Mikey the answers to his questions, shall we?

"First, do you believe that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional?"

YES. And Ronald Reagan did not "move Republicans past Alf Landon's resistance to the New Deal and Barry Goldwater's opposition to federal civil rights law, focusing instead on economic growth and national strength." He tried to eliminate whole federal departments but was prevented from doing so by Tip O'Neill's gang and Republicans like YOU, Gerson. You even seem to admit you're wrong, that a "consistent Constitutionalism" would preclude all the social tinkering rubbish you so love. But you're so lost in your own demagoguery that you brush that aside as unimportant. Do you even realize your own nihilism?

"A second question of Tea Party candidates: Do you believe that American identity is undermined by immigration?"

Look at him trying to conflate all immigration, legal or illegal. Classic open-borders racial demagoguery. Mike, just leave the party and go be the Democrat you so clearly are at heart. So let's take apart the answer. LEGAL immigration, no. But we have the absolute right as a nation to decide who gets in, who doesn't , from where, how many, anything. No one can say otherwise. ILLEGAL immigration, YES. It must be stopped. It does incredible social, economic and political damage to the republic. Not that you care.

And Mikey's third and final "question"...

"Question three: Do you believe that gun rights are relevant to the health-care debate?"

Again with the leftist demagoguery, this time used against Sharron Angle. I think the Second Amendment exists to prevent the government from having a monopoly on coercive force, and yes, to allow the people to resist said government over overreaching garbage like socialized medicine.

The tea party's ideology is NOT "incompatible with some conservative and Republican beliefs." It's at odds with your big-government douchebag conservatism. But Mikey goes on...

"It is at odds with Abraham Lincoln's inclusive tone and his conviction that government policies could empower individuals. It is inconsistent with religious teaching on government's responsibility to seek the common good and to care for the weak. It does not reflect a Burkean suspicion of radical social change."

Lincoln is NO model of conservatism in any way, shape, or form. He was a disciple of Henry Clay and an enemy of Constitutional government. And for the umpteenth time, it is NOT the responsibility of any level of government to "care for the weak." As for "radical social change"... we're just looking to undo what you and your liberal friends have done to us, Mikey. Best of luck stopping us. We're coming. Douchebag.

Lindsey Graham strikes again...

Yet more evidence of why this guy needs to go.

He's worse than John McCain.

Happy Independence Day

...a bit early, since I know many of you will be leaving to spend time with family and friends this long weekend.

A quick shout out to everyone who's ever worn the uniform. Thanks. No matter how many idiots and moonbats try to run you down, know that most Americans love you and appreciate everything you do, so we don't have to.

Much ado about nothing...

...is how I see the tempest over Patrick Murray's views on abortion. This is the 8th district people. This issue is NOT a priority for most of the voters in the 8th one way or the other. Can we please focus on more important issues, like fiscal issues and defense issues? Maybe even the competence and experience of the candidates? There is a real chance to beat Jim Moran this year, let's not waste it. Patrick is the more broadly-experienced, articulate, personable candidate by a large margin. I like Matthew Berry, but have you seen him speak in public? Seen the debates thus far? I have concenrs about how he'd handle the stage with Jim Moran. No concerns with Murray. The worst thing you can say about the Murray campaign is that they haven't updated and fact-checked their mailers. While bad, that's a common mistake.

Dick Black enters the 33rd District race...

...for keeps, it appears. That makes it apparent he's challenging his friend Patricia Phillips, as well as Michael "Spike" Williams (pending what the Dems do with Hunter Mill in redistricting, of course.)

He's been to multiple events promoting his candidacy now, and given his reputation there's no going back.

As discussed at Too Conservative and Renaissance Ruminations, Dick Black CANNOT win a general election. He allowed himself to be vastly outspent in his 2005 reelection campaign, even when it was clear it wasn't good year for Republicans, got beat, tried to carpetbag his way down into the 1st Congressional seat in 2007 (and then ended up advising Bob Berry NOT to be a "perennial candidate" before he jumped into the U.S. Senate contest!) and now, plastic fetuses in tow, he's going to try and bump off Patricia, a much better candidate, for the sake of his own ego. No, thank you, Dick. Please, do the smart thing, stay on the sidelines, help Patricia raise money, and relax.

Patricia Phillips for Senate. Still.