More Roberts Ridiculousness

Here is a simply unbelievable piece. It's about John Roberts' hometown -- and the fact that there were riots and racially restrictive covenants on some of the homes there during the '60's. (As if that makes it unique!).

Here's the most ludicrous paragraph of all:

It is hard to know how much Roberts' upbringing in this northern Indiana community on the shores of Lake Michigan influenced his views. Some say the fact that there were riots and restrictions on home ownership is not relevant at all.

Yes, "some" would say that -- in fact, any normal person would say that. Because John Roberts lived in a town where there were riots and racial covenants, it follows that . . . what? After all, Bill Clinton's childhood in the segregated South was constantly trotted out as proof of his racial sensitivity, not of the opposite.

In fact, it should be noted that racially restrictive covenants -- obviously invalid -- exist in many existing deeds (they're ugly relics of earlier times that have simply not been excised). In fact, in one of the Senate campaigns I worked on, we even found one in the deed of our candidate's opponent.

But even in opposition-campaign mode, it was deemed too ridiculously far-fetched to try to draw an inference about someone's racial attitudes based on a bigoted but obviously inoperative racially restrictive covenant in the deed to the opponent's house.

How much more ridiculous is it to try to gauge someone's racial attitudes by the fact that, more than thirty years ago, he lived in a town that had race riots and houses with racially restrictive covenants? Has the press coverage really come to this?

How profoundly ridiculous.

Update: For more on the background of these reporters, check out Radioblogger.