During the '08 campaign, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid apparently observed that Senator Barack Obama could enjoy success because he is "light-skinned" and speaks "with no Negro dialect." It seems an impolitic way of expressing what many observers said: Obama transcended race. He didn't run as a black candidate, as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton had done, but as a presidential candidate. Reid's belatedly reported faux pas strikes me as much an insult of American voters as a pack of racists as it is a demonstration of his own aloofness on racial matters. The former offense doesn't offend the PC police, so nobody's talking about that aspect of his statement. Reid's words have, predictably, drawn the ire of Republicans. GOP Chairman Michael Steele wants him to resign. His point seems to be what's good for the goose is good for the gander. When Trent Lott claimed America would have been better off if South Carolina Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948 (I think he said "47" and actually got the year wrong), Democrats feigned outrage until Lott resigned his position as Majority Leader. Steele has a point: what matters to Democrats is whose ox is being gored. But here's a better point: two wrongs don't make a right. Like Reid's remark, Lott's was stupid and revealed insensitivity. But should that be enough to eject someone from office? Here's my big problem with Michael Steele's logic. Rather than challenge the rules of political correctness as idiotic, Republicans embrace them. They legitimize ginned up charges of racism of the past by their shocked, shocked response to Reid. The Democrats are hypocrites, sure. But do we really want to live in a world where their twisted standards decide what's acceptable speech and what's beyond the pale? People who have thin skins also have soft brains.

You make an excellent point that the feigned shock of the GOP with regard to Reid's "allegedly" racist comments just feeds the beast of faux racial shock. I'm sure they think they are doing the right thing by trying to turn the tables on the Democrats and attempt to show the public what hypocrites they most certainly are. But, as we all should recognize, the party containing the most real racists will always be immune to the criticisms of being racially biased because they will always be the party of more government give-aways. These charges will ring hollow for the good guys.

Along these lines, some are trying to may hay with comments Bill Clinton made to Ted Kennedy during the primaries causing Fat Ted to support O and not Hillary. Apparently Mr. Stained Blue Dress said to Ted something like "this guy would have been getting coffee for us". I took this slight degradation more that in the grand scheme of Democrat politics, the O was an inexperienced rube. But, true to cue, most folks (including the brain addled TK) took it as some kind of racial remark.

The real question is - when do we move forward from this foolishness? As long as there is some political and/or social capital in it, I guess never.

I think it's Michael Steele.
Great point.

Wouldn't it depend how they handle it. It would seem reasonable to say to the democrats, "you demanded someone resign over a charge like this, are you the hypocrites you appear to be or do you actually have principles beyond a lust for power?".

Then let them show whether they actually have principles or not.

It's not just enough that someone says something with racial overtones. The substance of the statement is important as well.

However, perhaps that isn't a black and white enough stance for some.

Clearly, and there is no doubt, racism is actually alive and well in this day and age. Remarking that it exists is very different than saying something directly racist.

Racism has always existed in one form or another. But it has only been recently where the alleged form of racism has been allowed to be used as a political and social weapon.

To think that slavery was something new and invented by Colonial plantation owners is absurd and even more absurd to think that was the start and end of abusing folks who are different or for profit.

The ironic thing is that most racism that exists now in the United States is held by the very people of color who claim wrongs done against them.

Classic Alinsky is making people stand up to their own standard of behavior. Now, I don't want to do it because of Alinsky's deception. But it would be nice just once to see that the dems CAN stand up to their own principles instead of being the shallow Alinskyite and power-gamers that they are.

When a lib carries a gun, there's always a reason why it's not as bad as if...you know...a regular unwashed person carries a gun. And when libs say things, like Maddow calling Steele "a dancing bug" that has to be understood in the context mentioned.

But let's not get too conciliatory here. Lott was kicked out because he complemented an old guy on his birthday. There was no N-word or no near N-word around, just a chain of inferences that eventually made Lott apologize for liking Helms or states rights.

Then again, the libs always use the idea of sensitivity. Even if a conservative didn't mean it "the way it sounded" (as spun by the shill press), they argue that the sin was even not being "sensitive" to the worst possible meaning. However, in these cases, before the press inevitably pronounces them guiltless there is no hint of an investigation to count whether or not the incident was avoidable, and there will be no ana-lysis of whether or not a person on the right could have avoided their incident.

Their only resolution is who is on the side that "did the most" for the potentially offended party when viewed through a certain political narrative--which they are always happy to supply.

I think the outrage is over what unmitigated hypocrites the libs can be.

The pubs brought us the adjourn-able filibuster, because they didn't like the way they were treated by the dems in power. The dems bring us--why do we even need a filibuster??!!--let's get rid of it, because their stuff isn't passing fast enough. Either that of smuggling through bills as reconciliation.