So, Steny Hoyer is on apology No. 1 for this comment, made at a Maryland rally for Democratic Senate candidate, Ben Cardin:
As reported by MSNBC Tuesday, Hoyer criticized Cardin's Republican opponent Michael Steele for what Hoyer called-- quote -- "a career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party."
By the official Macaca Table for Apologies for Possibly Racist Campaign Stump Moments, he's gonna need at least 6 more of those, and add one for good measure, since everyone knows that "slavishly" is possibly racist without having to Google it first.
He's also gonna require 183 more mentions in the Washington Post. No, seriously, he's 183 behind "Macaca," and there are only three weeks left in the campaign. Get on it!
Listen, this happened to me one time. I used the word "slave" totally innocently but indelicately around a black teacher of mine who took offense. I was 8 years old.
Steny Hoyer knows dang well that Steele's race has been brought up, very inappropriately at times, repeatedly throughout this campaign. When you're talking about a black candidate who has been pelted with racially suggestive dessert foods in place of political arguments, it's really best to shy away from antebellum terminology.
How is it that politicians get so dumb sometimes?
Michelle Malkin takes Stoyer to task. He's downplaying the remark, but she notes that it was part of a comedy routine. Hmm, what would make a word like "slavish" applied to a black Republican funny in front of a mostly black audience of Democrats?
Why would it be funny if not for the sneering, racist implications? Hoyer is the number two Democrat in Congress. He knew what he was doing: pandering. Hoyer now claims disingenuously that no insult was intended. Bull. In the past, Hoyer has derided Steele as a "token." Black Democrats in Maryland have no problem with smearing Steele as an "Uncle Tom." On urban radio, I've heard black leaders similarly mocking Steele.
Steele charges that the remark was racist. I'm sure the Washington Post will not feel compelled to editorialize upon it. Probably just because Tunisian racial slurs are really the paper's milieu. That's where its social concern lies. Granted, it's a limited milieu, but that's where you can make the most impact, milieu-wise. No one shall ever be called an approximation of a Tunisian slur in the state of Virginia ever again. We're all on notice, and it was the Post that put us there. Courage.
They do, however, take the time to editorialize in favor of Jim Webb over Allen. Snore.