I didn't read the story carefully. Is the "racist" remark we're all concerned about that Norquist termed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee "John Kerry with a tan"?

If not, then please stop reading here.

Is so, what's "racist" about that? A tan is usually considered in "white" society a fabulous thing; believe it or not, people pay money to get tanned at tanning huts! Clearly Norquist's criticism of Obama wasn't his fashionable skin color, or "tan" but that he's somehow like John Kerry. Norquist apparently thinks much of the public and media are drawn to Obama precisely because of the color of his skin, rather than because of the political leadership potential "content o...

I didn't read the story carefully. Is the "racist" remark we're all concerned about that Norquist termed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee "John Kerry with a tan"?

If not, then please stop reading here.

Is so, what's "racist" about that? A tan is usually considered in "white" society a fabulous thing; believe it or not, people pay money to get tanned at tanning huts! Clearly Norquist's criticism of Obama wasn't his fashionable skin color, or "tan" but that he's somehow like John Kerry. Norquist apparently thinks much of the public and media are drawn to Obama precisely because of the color of his skin, rather than because of the political leadership potential "content of his character." In other words, Norquist is gently chiding Obama supporters for being "racist," though he won't come right out and say that. In other words, that one comment of Norquist's is actually anti-racist, not racist.

The liberal definition of what makes a white person "racist" has expanded way beyond condemning as "racist" whites who believe in equal rights for all, even white folks. Now it seems, a non-liberal white person doesn't have to do much more than give a nonwhite a funny look, or even blink or breathe, for liberals to smear him as "racist."