Notes on my post below - with update

Whether or not Joe Wilson is a racist is beside the point. He may be. He may not be. I'm not really quite clear what one means anymore when one says "racist". The word itself has been rendered nearly meaningless from overuse.

Nor do I care much if Joe Wilson is a bigot. I had no idea who he was until last week. I was honest here the night he yelled: It didn't bother me much because I know if the parties were reversed the Democratic partisans would be gleefully defending the screamer. Democrats voraciously booed Bush in the same room quite recently.

I also stated it would muddle the GOP response. Which it did. That was a weather report, not a judgement. Both "sides" in the health care debate are disturbing and untrustworthy. That's a judgement, not a weather report.

What we are seeing play out- and it may be unconscious on people like Carter's part - is a method of silencing critics. The House's reprimand of Wilson was about his outburst during a Presidential address. Whether or not a person should be publicly called out for such behavior is a legitimate issue. However, racist accusations have been layered on top of Wilson's action. Most specifically with inflammatory remarks by representative Hank Johnson and stupid remarks from President Carter. This technique is now a well worn path for Obama apologists. In nearly every instance of visible, vocal criticism of Obama for the past year and a half accusations of racism have been injected as a method of marginalization. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro, Sarah Palin, and conservative protesters, all have all been labeled racist with little or no evidence. In fact, evidence is usually avoided by the accusers as it tends to immediately render the accusation hollow and unfair.

Injecting race into every argument is a diversionary tactic. The best offense against this tactic is to respond to the word with a big fat whatever. A shoulder shrug. A tacit acknowledgement that the word "racist" is now a joke. It is a knee jerk reaction from people who don't want to address or think deeply about real issues. In other words, to agree with what the accusers have done to the word: neutered it. Then it is important to move back to the matters at hand. Was a strong executive a necessary part of the getting civil rights legislation passed as Hillary stated? Was a viable bi-racial candidate a novelty in American politics for some voters as Ferraro implied? Were Obama's connections to Ayres fair game in last year's election? Has Obama lied about health care? Should Americans be concerned about excessive government spending? Those are the real questions.

The race card is going to stick around. Those who use it enjoy using it.

Two last points: I have no doubt that some who are vehemently opposed to Obama harbor unsavory, racist attitudes. I won't name names but sniff around a few prominent commentators and the whiff of bigotry emanates. Yet, few have crossed the line. The irony here is that the obsession with race has come from the Left. However, the compulsive and incorrect labeling of the opponent as a means to end debate happens on both sides.

Finally, legitimate criticism of the President must never be stifled. Never. Ever. Ever.

UPDATE: Completing the circle: White House rejects racism claim.

Robert Gibbs says Obama believes criticism of him is based in policy disagreements. I applaud this. Now that Obama has rejected it- the use of the race card will be much harder to pull off.