In the topsy-turvy world of CNN, Tom Tancredo's call to end racially-exclusive congressional caucuses might make him a racist. His call for an end to segregated caucuses might make him a segregationist.
As reported here, in the wake of a Dem congressman who represents a 60% black district being excluded from the congressional Black Caucus because he's white, Tancredo today said:
"It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a colorblind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race . . . If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses."
View video here.
How can a call for "a colorblind society" and the end to race-based groups be "racist" and segregationist in a way that recalls the worst of the Jim Crow era? Don't ask me, but that's how CNN's Carol Costello spun it.
Costello first suggested that Tancredo "was picking on a non-issue" since there are "dozens of other caucuses, like the Immigration Reform Caucus, of which Tancredo is a member." Well, yes. But last time I looked, that caucus was open to all like-minded people, regardless of race.
Costello then brought in Marie Horrigan of the Congressional Quarterly who claimed Tancredo "doesn't care. His agenda is to make illegal immigration a very black and white issue in the national debate, and that's really all he cares about. Whether or not people thinks he's racist is not of import to him."
Costello then quoted an unidentified "Republican pollster" who, according to Costello, said Tancredo "is taking a cue from Senator Strom Thurmond, who in 1948 ran for president on a segregationist platform."
Let's review: calling for an end to caucuses that exclude people based on race could be "racist". Calling for an end to congressional racial segregation could be "segregationist."
The liberal world has offically entered Alice-in-Wonderland land.
Contact Mark at email@example.com