Ever since Donald Trump broke his brain, we can’t help but be concerned about The Bulwark’s Charlie Sykes. It’s been genuinely depressing to watch him go from reasonable and pragmatic conservative to shameless liberal shill in Principled Conservative’s™ clothing.

What poor Charlie Sykes (and Bill Kristol and the rest of the #NeverTrump grifter contingent) doesn’t seem to realize is that there are people out there who understand that it’s not only possible to take issue with Donald Trump and the modern GOP while still maintaining conservative principles, but that it’s not even all that difficult to do so.

Take the Washington Examiner Magazine’s Jay Caruso, for example. He’s been quite critical of Donald Trump and the Trumpist wing of the Republican Party, but he’s managed to do that without compromising his conservative values. Crazy, right?

This morning, Sykes complained about GOP Sen. Josh Hawley’s focus on Ketanji Brown Jackson’s record with regard to sex offenders:

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin referred to a recent piece by National Review’s Andrew McCarthy to defend Jackson against Hawley’s charges, and, for what it’s worth, Caruso believes that McCarthy made valid points but nonetheless has had it with Sykes schtick.

Yeah, here’s “more context” from Sykes’ Bulwark piece:

Some nominations were more contentious. Clarence Thomas received only 52 votes; and Robert Bork was actually rejected on a 42-58 vote.

“Contentious.” Well, yes, we suppose that’s one word for what some of those nominations were, yes.

Charlie Sykes should give all of us a FB.

That’s not Caruso’s point at all, Charlie, but you go off.

But lazy assumptions have been Charlie Sykes and The Bulwark’s bread and butter for several years now.

Charlie Sykes is just lazy, period. Can’t even be bothered to answer simple questions:

Oh, snap.

***

Related:

Vox’s Ian Millhiser reminds us that Ketanji Brown Jackson — unlike Brett Kavanaugh — didn’t try to rape a woman in high school

Recommended Twitchy Video