Jonathan S. Tobin over at Commentary posts a brief essay that dismisses any notion of a Rick Perry/Mitt Romney “feud.” Did you know about a feud? Tobin didn’t. Neither did we. So why are we not surprised?

In obedience to the Czar’s prediction back in May, which has already proven true, the Democrats will continue to throw out stories of fictitious feuds between Republican leaders.

This is done to popularize the idea that the Republicans don’t have their act together—and really convince people the Tea Party is some oddball minority fringe group that pisses off the GOP even more than the Democrats—and that moderates really should yank the donkey’s tail, and not the elephant’s trunk.

We saw this a lot with the Palin-Bachmann feud, the Ryan-Boehner feud, the Boehner-McConnell feud, and the McCain-Hobbit feud. You can probably think up a lot more. One thing you don’t hear a lot about is the Paul-Santorum feud, which ironically had some truth…but then again, neither Ron Paul nor Rick Santorum pose as substantial a threat to Obama’s re-election (although, more ironically, either man could defeat Obama if the election were held today). Nor did we hear too much about the Pawlenty-Romney feud, quickly followed by the Pawlenty-Bachmann feud, which wound up concluding with the Pawlenty-Dismissed Campaign Advisors feud.

So now we have a Perry-Romney feud. Figures.

As Gormogon correspondant corespondent corespondant letter writer ScottO would point out, all these feuds are little more than liberal transference.

Yup. You know who has the internal feuds? Hint: not the Republicans, or any other party except the Democrats.

Where is the liberal media mention of the Obama-Union feuds? The Obama-Gay Rights feuds? The Obama-peacenik feuds? The Obama-Israeli feuds. The Obama-environmentalists feuds? Anybody see the protest signs outside the White House lately? They aren’t Tea Party signs.

No surprise that there would be feuding. Look at it this way: you have conservatives, right? And while conservatives differ on matters of this, that, or the other, overall conservatives basically believe in the same fundamental things: fiscal common sense, miniature government, state rights and responsibilities, prudence on social issues, and a reluctance to mess with the system once something seems to work halfway well.

Liberals are everybody else.

Think about that. The Democrats, being the “party of last resort,” attempt to cater to commies, GLBTs, college students, anti-drug activists, greenies, Jews, minorities, urban elitists, atheists, immigrants, the poor, New Agers, humanists, pro-drug types, academics, socialists, Palestinians, unions, so-called artistic and creative types, and probably a dozen more that leap to your imagination.

Basically, what these groups have in common is that they have little in common. In fact, you can usually pick two groups at random from that crowd and find something they detest about each other. This is why the Czar hates to generalize too much about liberals, because no statement starting with “all liberals…” will ever be perfectly accurate. Most, maybe. Some, certainly. All? Heck, some liberals detest big government.

In theory, no way can they ever hope to come to consensus on anything—and you do see major policy splits there all the time if you listen in on their conversations. In practice, of course, they are all united in hatred against—you guessed it—people like you.

Sometimes the differences are quite powerful, but take note of how deep or how substantive the conversations go. They usually become quite shallow, and stick to the easily agreed items: hence, ad hominem attacks on conservatives, generic gain saying against conservative themes, and very vague bullet point tropes against conservative topics…nothing too solid, of course, because that other liberal might, in fact, go bat-shit if you hit his favorite topic.

Lib1: Nice Obama bumpersticker.

Lib2: Thanks!

Lib1: Can you believe that Rick Perry jackass?

Lib2: He’s a total tool. He just wants to cut taxes on the rich.

Lib1: Totally. Another rich guy looking to take money from the big corporations.

Lib2: That’s so wrong.

And then an awkward pause. Change the subject fast, because this could happen:

Lib1: Plus, he’s some dumbass fundamentalist.

Lib2: Uh, what? I belong to Jews for Jesus.

Uh oh.

So if you were the Czar, you would (a) sharpen both bits on your Dayton double bit axe to two different bevels for precision slicing as well as power chopping, and (b) snicker each time the media mentions some intra-Republican Party feud.

Because they don’t want you to notice the bigger feuds happening right in their backyard.

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.