TPM Cafe's  M. J. Rosenberg blogged the other day that (in essence) were it not for George W. Bush, Americans might not have elected Barack Obama. Rosenberg wrote, unconvincingly, that "Would America have elected Barack Obama if white Americans had not gotten accustomed to seeing (in succession) two African-American Secretaries of State? I don't think so." I'll let you find the gratuitous and insulting mention of Tiger Woods in his original post.

Rosenberg went on to posit some Pollyanna BS about Bush: Fact is, "W" never gave any evidence of holding racist attitudes."

But in his very next sentence, Rosenberg contradicts himself, contorting more than a Chinese gymnast: "I'm not talking about his programs which, to put it mildly, did not help African-Americans unless they were in the upper tax brackets. I'm talking about old fashioned racism -- or even just the slur the occasionally slips out of the mouth of even our most liberal leaders."

But if the ridiculousness of that statement does not have you rolling on the floor busting a gut, Rosenberg adds this: "Same with Arabs and Muslims. I'm not talking about Guantanamo. That is an ugly policy, but it's policy. But Bush, after 9/11, never resorted to anti-Arab or Muslim stereotypes. He drew distinctions between terrorists and Arabs, unlike this year's GOP campaign. He was the first President to celebrate Muslim holy days, both at the White House and in a Mosque. Had he not done these things, Arabs and Muslims might have experienced not just hate crimes but pogroms."

But in all seriousness, where does one begin to refute this nonsense? First let's eliminate the notion of some distinctions between "old-fashioned" racism and the newfangled stuff being trotted out. They are one and the same. As I have said in this forum time and time again, one need not come dressed in white sheets or spout the N-word at every turn to be racist.