I'm not sure why USA TODAY keeps giving a column to a guy who called President Obama "a racist hatemonger" -- even Fox News got rid of Glenn Beck -- but here's "Instapundit" calling everyone who favors tighter gun control bigots.

Lots of people don't like guns, but crime rates have fallen even as guns have become far more plentiful. And with even gun-ban champion Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., admitting that her assault-weapon ban wouldn't have prevented the Newtown shootings, the ostensible justification for passing new gun control, the opposition to private gun ownership looks more and more like traditional anti-gay sentiment: not a reason-based policy, but something growing out of prejudice.

First, note the little rhetorical trick at the top -- comparing generic "crime rates" to the proliferation of guns, instead of gun deaths. And both the AMA and Richard Florida took a look at the data and concluded that states with more gun regulations have fewer gun deaths. How about that for a "reasoned-based policy"?

And note how Reynolds conflates favoring sensible gun regulations with "opposition to private gun ownership." Guess that makes the 88% of Americans who favor background checks irrational, bigoted gun grabbers.

But look, preening as an oppressed minority is one of the right's favorite tricks -- and not a surprising tactic from a guy who thinks the real victims of Newtown was the NRA.

Quick quiz. On January 2011, just two days after Jared Loughner killed six people and wounded 14 -- including US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords -- with a Glock semiautomatic, Putz took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to:

a) argue for bans on semiautomatic guns
b) propose measures that would prevent mentally ill individuals from acquiring firearms
c) call for greater security for members of Congress
d) complain that Democrats were saying mean things about Sarah Palin and the GOP

If you guessed "D" -- you're right!

Well, he's at it again -- this time in USA TODAY. And in the wake of this shooting spree -- a massacre which took the lives of 20 children -- Putz is mostly outraged that "liberals" are saying mean things about the NRA.

Is Hate A Liberal Value? A 20-year-old lunatic stole some guns and killed people. Who's to blame? According to a lot of our supposedly rational and tolerant opinion leaders, it's . . . the NRA, a civil-rights organization whose only crime was to oppose laws banning guns. (Ironically, it wasn't even successful in Connecticut, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.)...Calling people murderers and wishing them to be shot sits oddly with claims to be against violence. The NRA -- like the ACLU, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers or Planned Parenthood -- exists to advocate policies its members want. It's free speech. The group-hate directed at the NRA is ugly and says ugly things about those consumed by it.

What's funnier here? Calling the NRA a "civil-rights organization" or comparing it to Planned Parenthood? I mean, one of those groups makes millions lobbying and shilling for gun companies and the other is a non-profit that provides affordable health services for women. See? Same thing!

Also hilarious: Putz writes that "Things Aren't Really That Bad" while simultaneously arguing that we need armed guards in every elementary school in the United States.

Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, who before calling the president a "racist hatemonger" used to get the occasional op-ed gig in the New York Times, now is relegated to right-wing rags like the Post.

Today, he explains why Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election.

Mitt Romney and the GOP lost, but it wasn’t for lack of money. They spent a lot; they just didn’t get enough bang for the buck.

Billionaire Sheldon Adelson alone donated $150 million. But Romney lost anyway, especially among unmarried women.

Which is why I think that rich people wanting to support the Republican Party might want to direct their money somewhere besides TV ads that copy, poorly, what Lee Atwater did decades ago.

My suggestion: Buy some women’s magazines. No, really. Or at least some women’s Web sites.

One of the groups with whom Romney did worst was female “low-information voters.” Those are women who don’t really follow politics, and vote based on a vague sense of who’s mean and who’s nice, who’s cool and who’s uncool.

You see, it wasn't that Republicans spent most of the year calling women sluts, calling rape a gift, offering strange theories about women's bodies, and putting the term "transvaginal ultrasound" in the national lexicon -- or that Romney himself said he wanted to defund Planned Parenthood.

No, it's just that lots of dumb broads who are too busy getting pedicures and facials to follow politics just have this silly idea that Republicans are "uncool" and "mean."

Since, by definition, they don’t pay much attention to political news, they get this sense from what they do read. And for many, that’s traditional women’s magazines — Redbook, Cosmopolitan, Glamour, the Ladies Home Journal, etc. — and the newer women’s sites like YourTango, The Frisky, Yahoo! Shine, and the like.

The thing is, those magazines and Web sites see themselves, pretty consciously, as a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.

Uh, really? Take a look at the latest issue of Glamour. Why, it might as well be Mother Jones!

Anyway, I'm sure Putz's idea will be a big success. What should this new GOP women's magazine be called?