Brainless

Here's how Jack Coleman compares Rachel Maddow and Booby Jindal:

Both are wonkish former Rhodes scholars in their mid-30s, bright and personable. Each could be perceived as a political outsider, Maddow for being openly gay, Jindal by dint of skin hue and ethnicity

Most of the rest of his article is an attack on Maddow's response to the Response; Coleman's dishonest and asinine recasting of what Jindal meant when he evoked government's failure during Katrina to suggest that government could not help the economic crisis (and decrying that Rachel didn't play the now-known-to-be-false story about Jindal and Sheriff Harry Lee), and then he ends with this:

Indeed, so-called progressives want ever more "dialogue" on Katrina, race, gender, etc. -- the more "candid" the better -- followed by liberals condemning conservatives who follow suit as racist, insensitive, pathological, etc. See how it works?

Yes, I see how it works. Jack opens his remarks with racist, sexist, homophobic remarks and then is surprised that liberals don't welcome his "dialogue." Maybe Republicans consider those who are gay or have "skin hue and ethnicity" to be "outsiders," but we don't.

By the way, Jack, if you happen to read this - do you have any further comment on the Harry Lee story?