Democrat Shami could test his party's correctness.
Pretty much the entire column is ridiculous, but I think this is the money quote:
Further, some Democrats argue that they aren't the ones making a racist judgment but simply don't believe Republicans and moderates are ready to pull the lever for someone named Farouk. But isn't that sort of like racism once removed?Why, no, Scott, that's not racism once removed. That's a) racism from Democrats and b) libel, once again by Democrats (or, well, slander once removed, perhaps--after all, Stroud is putting in writing what has presumably been said to him).
Why is it that liberals are so hung up on the color of someone's skin? By now, of course, we all know that Rev. Dr. King was a Republican, and that it was Democrats, not Republicans, who attempted to block civil rights legislation.
Moreover, in this last election I saw Barack Obama's skin color touted time and again as a reason to vote for him, but the closest I saw to anyone saying he should not be voted for because of his skin color was BS quite similar to what Stroud is spewing here--false worries over whether America at large could vote for a black man. And know what? We did. And most people who did voted for him because they stupidly believed in that Hopenchange™ nonsense rather than because of his being the "right" shade of brown.
A quick look at my blogroll shows I've got quite a few Texans--mostly conservative Texans--whom I read daily. The Pistolero & BobS have both posted about Farouk Shami in recent days. Neither man so much as mentioned his ethnicity, much less cited it as a reason to not vote for him. Nor did anyone who commented on their posts. I have seen absolutely zero evidence to support this stupid theory that Democrats will decline to vote for Shami because of racist Republicans. (Somehow, I am sure it is all George Bush's fault.)
Further, I am fairly certain that there aren't a whole bunch of latent