Brit Hume has a new standard for our discourse: If you accuse someone of racism, you've cheapened the argument.
On Fox's Special Report with Bret Baier on Friday, he joined the chorus of Fox anchors decrying even the possibility that racism might be behind some of the vitriol that's been directed at President Obama.
Baier: So does this work? What does this do to debate when it's thrown out there?
Hume: Well, I think over time, it cheapens the charge. And I think in this instance, with all that we've heard and with all the instances cited in James Rosen's report, this is going to infuriate the people of good will who are resisting President Obama and not in any way because of his race but because of his policies. And my guess is, it has real backfire potential, which diminishes to some extent the consensus on race in America.
And what consensus on race is that, Brit? The Fox version?
Like the time when Glenn Beck went on Fox and Friends and accused Barack Obama of being a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people", right? (We've put together a little compare-and-contrast in the video above.)
Does that meet the Hume standard for "cheapening the charge" of racism? And you gotta wonder if Bret Baier had any concern for status of the debate when that got thrown out there, dontcha?