The Washington Post doesn't want any more discussion of focus on Democrat racism in the Maryland Senatorial campaign.

Maybe that was inevitable, given the candidacy of Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, an appealing, relatively conservative black Republican. Mr. Steele, the presumptive GOP nominee, has delighted Republicans and unnerved many Democrats for precisely the same reason -- the chance that he may shave off slices of the Democrats' traditionally solid base of African Americans, who make up more than a quarter of Maryland's electorate. Like black Republican candidates elsewhere, Mr. Steele has been attacked by some black Democrats who suggest -- outrageously -- that the fact of his party membership constitutes a betrayal and an affront to African Americans. As former NAACP chief and congressman Kweise Mfume, himself a candidate for the Democratic Senate nomination, pointed out in the Washington Times, "Black bigotry can be just as cruel and evil as white bigotry."

It would be naive to think race and racism would not be a factor in the campaign. Last month a liberal black blogger in New York posted a doctored image of Mr. Steele as a minstrel, demonstrating that nauseating racial taunts are alive and well in the blogosphere. In Maryland's 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Mr. Steele attended a debate at which Oreo cookies were distributed or tossed (accounts differ) as a slur directed at him. No one has forgotten that in 2001, when Mr. Steele chaired the state Republican Party, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) referred to him as an "Uncle Tom," thereby disgracing only himself; he later apologized for the remark. Moreover, a number of current Democratic candidates -- including Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin in the Senate race and Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley and Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan in the gubernatorial race -- have, by refusing explicitly to condemn black Democrats for their poisonous comments about Mr. Steele, given the impression that racially tinged political rhetoric is within the bounds of civil debate. It is not.

Which is why, of course, the GOP is so concerned about exposing racism and eradicating it in American political life -- as has been the Party's policy, mandate, and mission since its founding inthe 1850s as a vehicle for stopping the spread of slavery and promoting the emancipation of slaves. It has been the mission of GOP to promote civil rights for African-Americans and promote their election to office, pushing through every major civil rights initiative in the nation's history and breaking ground as the only party to nominate and elect black candidates to national office for decades, until the days of FDR and beyond. It continues to be the mission of the GOP, as it cultivates and nominates highly qualified African-Americans as candidates and appointees to high office based upon their qualifications. And as they have done since the days of Jim Crow and the original nightriders of the KKK, Democrats seek to destroy any uppity Negro who dares align himself with the Republican Party and its platform of full inclusion for all Americans. Why wouldn't we expose real, tangible acts of racim and the racists who promote the ideology of hate?

Still, it would be equally naive to overlook the Republicans' evident satisfaction in keeping the debate focused on race rather than, say, party affiliation or ideological affinity, which can only hurt the GOP in a state where Democrats enjoy a 2-to-1 advantage. The Republicans have not manufactured the current furor, but they are exploiting and perpetuating it. After all, it's not the candidates vying for statewide public office in Maryland who have played the race card.

Haven't they? Or rather, haven't their supporters? And given that some candidates for the Democrat nomination refuse to denounce the racist activities and rhetoric of their own supporters, is it not right and proper for that to be made an issue in the campaign? If that is exploitation and perpetuation of the race issue, then I am all for it!

The wisest way out of the racial morass is for all the talking heads to give it a rest. Let cool heads prevail and force the candidates to talk about the most pressing issues facing Maryland and the nation. The debate about Mr. Steele, as about his rivals for the Senate, should be about his record, his beliefs, his abilities and his vision. It should not be about his race. And politicians who insist or consent in making the election about race run the risk of punishment at the polls.

So what i hear you saying, then is that issues of race and racism are not pressing ones, and therefore should not be discussed. You are trying to tell me that the use of racist rhetoric and the hurling of terms like "race traitor" and "Uncle Tom" at a candidate are not a concern to the Washington Post. That is rather striking to me.

But none of this is particularly surprising to me. The Washington Post has been little more than an in-house unit -- let's call it an outhouse unit -- of the DNC for years.

And since a continued focus on Democrat racism would be bad for the Party of Slavery and Jim Crow, discussion of racism has got to go.

UPDATE: Interestingly enough, those who are not wholly owned subsidiaries of the DNC disagree with the Post.

"I would say to Michael Steele that he should continue to use the race issue to his advantage but not to simply use it the way it has been rolled out there, but to use it in creative ways that might help him to pick up that small group of African-Americans in the state that he's going to need to win," said Ronald Walters, a professor of at the University of Maryland and director of the African-American Leadership Institute.