Say what you will about the propriety of Roland Burris accepting an appointment to the US Senate from disgraced Governor Hairdo but the tide of evasive, nonsensical wankery coming out of his camp at the moment is driving me a bit batty (see, e.g., Burris' tortured performance on Rachel Maddow yesterday).

A more recent example?

Take the new gambit being trotted out today, with Burris and his sympathizers triumphantly trying a new and improved version of the race card on for size.  

Today, Illinois Rep. Bobby Rush -- already having ham-handedly played his first race card yesterday with his oh-so-subtle entreaty that we try to avoid lynching Mr. Burris -- doubled down with his second, even more ludicrous race card by comparing Harry Reid to segregation-era race-war-mongers George Wallace and Bull Connor:

[T]he recent history of our nation has shown us that sometimes there could be individuals and there could be situations where school children -- where you have officials standing in the doorway of school children. You know, I'm talking about all of us back in 1957 in Little Rock, Arkansas. I'm talking about George Wallace, Bull Connors and I'm sure that the U.S. Senate don't want to see themselves placed in the same position.

Look, I'm no fan of Harry Reid but this whole ludicrous intra-party racism-baiting bullshit needs to get nipped in the bud (no, "nipped" is not a thinly-veiled derogatory reference to those of Asian descent).

How is intraparty racism concern-trolling helpful for anyone involved in this mess (besides Gov. Hairdo)? Are segregation references still this much of an assumed magic get-out-of-jail-free card in the grievance politics arsenal?

Question regarding your appointment to the US Senate? SEGREGATION!
Question regarding a law you sponsored? GEORGE WALLACE!
Sharp criticism on the fluffiness of your quiche? RACISM!

Do we have something like Godwin's law for knee-jerk, inappropriate references to segregation-era policies or figures like George Wallace?  If not, we need one.

[Cross-Posted at Library Grape.]

There's more...

I seriously doubt that the Wayans Brothers or the writers of MAD TV could have written a funnier spoof than yesterday's orgy of idiocy featuring Rod "Governor Soprano" Blagojevich, Roland Burris and Bobby Rush.  To borrow a phrase from the always-quotable Christopher Hitchens, this appointment is a "ludicrous embarrassment."

The presser was a comedians dream and the clumsy injection of race by Bobby Rush was sadder than it was despicable.  First, seeing how Bobby has physically suffered from throat cancer was heart breaking, but his reasons for supporting Blagojevich in his bullsh*t was even more tragic.  Poor Bobby is clearly suffering from chemo brain because Blagojevich's bi-polar antics have grown more outrageous with time, and his latest stunt is as disingenuous as it is insane.  Blagojevich is desperately trying to disprove the allegations of extortion and contract fraud against him.  It won't work. His career is over and nothing he says or does will ever change that.

Unfortunately for Rod Blagojevich, Roland Burris is not a Magic Negro capable of absolving his manifold sins although he would like him to be. (One needs to be a palatable, focus grouped, establishment Negro creation of David Axelrod capable of raising $750 million dollars to be a proper receptacle for white liberal fantasies of racial absolution.) Burris is an uninspiring and irascible functionary that has let his ego get the better of him.  

There's more...

No, calling Obama's stance on Iraq a "fairy tale" wasn't about race.

No, crying at the NH primary isn't about race.

No, calling him elitist because of his comments about guns and religion wasn't about race.

No, having an ad like the 3am ad is not about race.

No, calling Obama arrogant for making a faux Presidential seal isn't about race.

No, calling Obama presumptuous because he paraded around the world like he was already President isn't calling him uppity or about race.

No, having the victory column in the commercial isn't a fallic symbol after Britney and Paris and isn't about race.

There's more...

It seems to me that the McCain camp have borrowed the policy of
military pre-emption to political pre-emption. As I see it, in this case, this will serve two purposes.

1) It will give a freer hand later down the road for the McCain camp to play the ``race card''. And I do believe they will play it. Infact, he already played it today, talking about affirmative action.

2) Several Clinton supporters were angry/upset about accusations of Bill and Hillary being racists. This has the potential of opening up those wounds.

I think there is no easy solution for the Obama camp now. In my opinion, I think they have to risk it and smear McCain back. The defense ``we didnt play the race card'' is sounding weak and Axelrod defended it poorly this morning. I think the Obama camp has to say that McCain camp is being racist. That is the only way forward.

On a separate note, the current status of the Obama campaign is reminding me of the Lamont campaign. For the past week or so, McCain camp has been setting the agenda; be it that celebrity ad or the race card charge. If Obama has decided who is going to be the VP, it is high time to announce his choice. The VP can go on attack against McCain. In my humble opinion, ``McCain is practising old politics'' is not going to win the election for them.

There's more...

Obama is doing a pre-emtive strike on Republicans. He assumes that Republicans will create fear by playing the race card. It seems strange to me that Obama would bring up race before anyone else does. Bringing up race is what got Geraldine Ferraro into trouble isn't it?

Here's Ferraro's comment:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.

Here's Obama's comment:

"We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsN ews/idUSN2040982720080620

Regardless of whether or not Republicans go after Obama using his race, IMO, it's not wise for Obama to accuse someone in advance.  It really is nothing more than an assumption on Obama's part. I'm surprised Obama would make a pre-emptive accusation like this, especially since many have claimed Obama trancends race.

There's more...