I was reading the latest headlines on Fark when I saw the following headline:

Karl Rove: Harold Ford jr. is an “articulate and attractive neg…..er…..color…..er……. oh you know what I mean”

Reading that, I thought Karl Rove actually came close to calling Harold Ford, Jr. a “negro.” Here’s the story are reported by the Memphis Daily News:

On Harold Ford Jr.:

“He’s a guy with a lot of intelligence and a lot of drive and ambition, and (incumbent Democratic New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is) a weak candidate. We’ll see how it plays out. He’s an aggressive campaigner.

He’s had a few missteps here at the beginning, but … (Ford) is an articulate, attractive candidate who can sway crowds. He needs to have a message that resonates with New Yorkers. New York has been accepting of candidates who’ve moved in from elsewhere.

Liberal blog Gawker starts out their post covering Rove’s comments with:

1.) How have white people still not learned to stop marveling at “articulate” black leaders?

With a commenter stating:

Or atleast, if you’re going to marvel about him being articulate, don’t use the word articulate. It’s one of those racist code words, like uppity.

Uppity? What is this, Blazing Saddles?

So we understand, “articulate” is a racist code word to remind people that a candidate is black. But “light skinned negro” is “not entirely racist.

Reid’s dumbass remark wasn’t entirely racist, it was just pretty racist, and—most offensively—assumed that we were all racists, too. But more than anything, it was just a stupid thing to say.

In fact, Reid was actually giving Obama a compliment:

It’s context we need. Clearly.

And here’s all the context necessary for liberals. If a Republican says it, it’s probably racist. If a Democrat says something far more offensive, like you can’t walk into a Dunkin Donuts without a slight Indian accent, then it’s really a compliment.

Welcome to Liberal-land. Don’t expect any logic or consistency.

Facebook Comments