From the annals of terrible political writing

Man, oh man. This is one for the ages. From Politico:

How come Roland Burris has had such an easy time getting to the U.S. Senate while Caroline Kennedy has had such a hard time?

Could it be that the race card trumps the gender card in U.S. politics?

Well, yes. It could be.

The author, Roger Simon, goes on to say that Burris was a lock once the race card was played. However, because sexism is a less inflammatory kind of discrimination, Kennedy's potential appointment still languishes. Read the whole thing. It's awful.

I've already written about Burris and Kennedy. I opposed them both for totally different reasons. But because Roger Simon apparently gets paid to ask stupid questions, I will make this plain.

Burris was opposed because he was appointed by a flagrantly corrupt disgrace of a governor. Admittedly, yes, the race card was played, and it probably made things more embarrassing for Reid and Company to oppose him. But as I was forced to concede, the weight of the law was on his side, and eventually he was seated because there was no legal alternative to doing so.

Kennedy is opposed because she is a blatant legacy pick whose only real claim to the job is that her last name isn't McFadden or Morgenthal or Ling or Summers. I do not oppose her because she is a woman, nor do the numerous other people who do so. I oppose her because she hasn't bothered to run for political office before. This seems to have escaped Roger Simon:

But one thing has always struck me about the Kennedy family: The women don’t get in trouble, but they also don’t get elected to higher office.

I would be more impressed by his pithy insight had Caroline Kennedy actually tried once or twice.

So, shorter Roger Simon: Burris is black and a Senator. The latter must be due to the former. Kennedy is a woman and not a Senator. The latter must also be due to the former. And there are no other facts to consider.

Even shorter Roger Simon: I am overpaid.