Former Bush Speechwriter Michael Gerson says that the Tea Party is toxic and that the GOP's embrace of the Tea Party will be fatal to the GOP.

Last week, Mr. Gerson warned in an op-ed column in the Washington Post that Tea Party opposition to Social Security and Medicare, opposition to Immigration, and its constant harping on guns, and hinting that armed resistance is an acceptable response to government action that they do not like, will cause America to turn away from the GOP.

Mr. Gerson stated that the Tea Party's opposition to Social Security and Medicare is "morally irresponsible and politically disastrous." If Social Security was abolished, as the Tea Party wing of the GOP advocates, "perhaps 13 million elderly Americans " would be pushed "into destitution." Mr. Gerson pointed out that some high profile Tea Party favored candidates oppose "unemployment insurance, the minimum wage, the federal highway system and the desegregation of lunch counters." He suggested that GOP opposition to these popular federal programs will weaken and doom the GOP.

Mr. Gerson warmed that many Tea Party favored candidates' opposition to immigration is race based. Tea Party candidates are on record as "depicting Hispanics and Muslims as a fifth column." Mr. Gerson pointed out that "in a nation where minorities now comprise two-fifths of children under 18, Republicans should also understand that tolerating ( racial bigotry) would bring slow political asphyxiation."

Mr. Gerson faulted the GOP for embracing candidates, like Sharron Angle, who harp on so-call Second Amendment remedies. Mr Gerson wrote, "Far from reflecting the spirit of the Founders (who knew how to deal with the Whiskey Rebellion), the implied resort to political violence is an affectation -- more foolish than frightening. But it is toxic for the GOP to be associated with the armed and juvenile."

Mr. Gerson stated that "Tea Party populism is just as clearly incompatible with some conservative and Republican beliefs. 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."