Based on this (or dictionary.com's) definition, how are either Davis or Reid "racist"? Neither advocated dispensing/withholding privileges or punishments based on race.

I'm not yet sure what I think about this whole imbroglio, but one thing is sure, the Democrat party are complete hypocrites about the matter. That in and of itself is reason to have said something, although the Republican leadership should drop this now and move on.

Now, when the Democrats bring some specious racist charge in the future, we should totally point out Reid's hypocrisy, as well as many others on the Democrat side, in order to establish humanity and intelligence again into the debate – which I think is Laskin's point.

Davis was not a racist. He believed in racial integration. He had five children with his white wife. He did not believe in treating people differently due to race (racial discrimination) or assessing value based on race (racial prejudice). What proof do you have that he was a racist? (Please include the definition of "racist" that meets your example).

Also, I think if anyone has a brief against Sugar Ray Reid it's Michael Steele, who was the victim of a racially-tinged whispering campaign in his Maryland senate race, and who also clearly falls outside the yardstick of Reid's color-hue chart.

Having said this, though , I agree that we should not jump down into the slime-pit with the Democrats, if for no other reason than we want Reid's to be the face of Democrat arrogance and hubris right up until the November election. We don't want him going ANYWHERE until the voters of Nevada ash-can him this autumn– he is so vulnerable he makes The Little Mermaid look like George Foreman.

Republicans always loose this battle BECAUSE they engage it. OF COURSE there's a double standard; OF COURSE the press treats Republicans unfairly. OF COURSE the sky is blue. What else is new? What they ought to be doing is responding with a little Reagan and saying, “Well, there you go again. Reid's little tid-bit in this silly book isn't news. This is the way all Democrats see the world, and Reid just let it slip. So what? REPUBLICANS DON'T VIEW THE WORLD LIKE SENATOR REID DOES. We see sovereign individuals created in the image of God. Democrats like Reid see various skin tones, and hear various dialects.”

But, saying these sorts of things requires a bit of political confidence. Let's see if the Republicans can dig some up this year.

“Race-baiting” is the unfounded attribution of racist motivation, whereas “racism” involves treating people differently because of race (racial discrimination), or assessing value based on race (racial prejudice). Falsely accusing anyone of racism is itself race-baiting.

Understand, fools, that by excoriating those on you own side who seek to hold Democrats to the same standard they hold us to is NOT helping. In fact, it enables and empowers that double standard.

Jumping on Republicans and conservatives who want to make Reid pay like so many Republicans have paid enforces the idea that it's ok when Democrats make racial indiscretions–as long as their insincere apologies are backed by the media.

And since we ACTUALLY kick out the racists who arise in our midst occasionally, or reprimand insensitive remarks it appears that the only party that suffers from real racism is the Republicans.

But look closely at Reid's remark–it was aimed at Democrats, it was about Democrat voters–who will feel more comfortable with a light skinned, articulate negro than with a dark skinned, more colloquial African-American. Understand, Reid's comment SPOKE TO ATTITUDES WITHIN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY.

Think about that.

jack
in your midst

If we conservatives play the hard Left's racial purity game, we lose even with a short-run “win.” The only beneficiaries will be the radical thought police — and conservatives ironically will find themselves having less freedom than ever, with or without Harry Reid in the Senate. And his replacement may well be a zealot. At least Reid is rather soft-spoken.

As an aside, a new Town Hall poll shows “conseravtive” readers overwhelmingly think Reid should go. They apparently value the thrill of seeing an opponent suffer over developing political wisdom. They are the sorts of shallow and stupid people who practically worship Sarah Palin.

They shouldn't have let the dp take out their 'leadership' on stupid crap like that (though I was glad to see goofy lukewarm lott out of top 'leadership'), especially when they do little or nothing about real dp corruption (not to mention their own). Sure, point out dp stupidity, hypocrisy, and pettiness, whenever they say or do something asinine, which is usually several times a day, but do so with humor or ridicule (which is what the dp usually rates), and spare us the fake outrage.

Certainly the GOP should uphold minimum ethical and moral standards for their party, if they're doing things like cheating on their spouse, or breaking the laws they make, sayonara. If they can't keep their marriage vows we can't expect them to keep their oath of office. If they can't live under the laws they make, they shouldn't be making laws.

Consider … one of the Left's more asinine projects: Is the purpose of “politically correct” Newspeak to construct a language free from bias? An intriguing answer can be found in the example of feminist “thealogian” Mary Daly. Using a sometimes-specific term in a universal sense (e.g., “the pseudo-generic 'man'”) will earn an accusation of sexism, while using only universal terms (e.g., “human”) will draw an accusation of deliberately trying “to avoid confronting the specific problems of sexism.” No matter what language a person uses, the Left reserves the right to condemn it for bias — and to damn him as evil.

(And to exempt itself from any standard. After all, if not to “gender angle” the tragedy of violence, why speak of only a “rape culture”? What about other acts of violence against women — robbery, assault, murder? Has it anything to do with the fact that these, too obviously, are also crimes against males?)