Mark Krikorian, who I generally think of as one of the good guys (i.e., one of the real conservatives) at National Review, argues that Republicans shouldn't call Sonia Sotomayor a "racist," despite her membership in the National Council of La Raza, her notorious remarks about the superiority of "wise latina" over "white male" life experience, her attempt to deep-six the Ricci case, etc.:
"Gingrich, Limbaugh, and Tancredo crying 'racist' isn't going to help at all. I know that's unfair, because any kind of Republican nominee, even a Hispanic woman judge, would already have been crucified based on the comments Judge Sotomayor has made, and any on the Left who deny that are simply lying. But that's the reality of the battlespace we're in."
"Don't call her...'racist'...Don't whine about the double standard when...it's just a fact that a white male can't say the kind of things she did in her 'Latina lecture' and survive (if you don't understand why, you haven't paid attention to American history)..."
...from which I gather that the Head Honcho at National Review today thinks that there's something about American history that makes "Latina" racism (not to mention sexism) more acceptable than the white male variety. So acceptable, in fact, that one mustn't call it out for what it so obviously is.
Just exactly what history is Mr. Lowry talking about, here?
I'm genuinely puzzled.