Dumbest Washington Post op-ed Ever

I was browsing through Power Line earlier today and came across a post by Paul Mirengoff with the intriguing title of "Dumbest Washington Post op-ed Ever?"  The only thing I disagree with Mirengoff after after reading said op-ed was that the title of his post should have been a declarative statement.  The op-ed in question was written by Colbert King and is titled, "Mitt Romney could be the next Andrew Johnson."  That's right, the Andrew Johnson who was a virulent racist, was openly hostile to the protection of freedman's rights in the South, was against the addition of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and was impeached in office.  

King presents a litany of charges on how the U.S. would be taken back to the pre-Civil War era were Mitt Romney to win on Tuesday:

A Romney win would be worrisome, however, because of his strong embrace of states rights and his deep mistrust of the federal government — sentiments Andrew Johnson shared. 

And we know what that Johnson did once in office. 

His sympathy for Confederacy holdouts, and his distaste for Washington, led him to retreat from Reconstruction and avert his gaze as Southern states enacted Jim Crow laws, many of which lasted until the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 

There is nothing in Romney’s record to suggest that he would be any stronger than Andrew Johnson in resisting the blandishments of his most extreme supporters, especially regarding federal enforcement.

As Paul noted in his post, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison among all the other Founders in varying degrees were weary of a federal government that had too much power.  Why, even Bill Clinton declared that the "era of big government is over"  in 1996.  Was he spouting racist theories?

The only concrete piece of evidence King brings to the table to prove that Romney is the heir apparent to Johnson is the following:

Johnson stood by as Southern states enacted “black codes,” which restricted rights of freed blacks and prevented blacks from voting. 

Romney stood by last year as Republican-controlled state legislatures passed voter-identification laws, making it harder for people of color, senior citizens and people with disabilities to exercise their fundamental right to vote.

But those enacting voter ID laws are trying to prevent voter fraud and make sure that people voting are who they say they are.  Does King then have a problem with state issued drivers licenses?

King must have a big beef with the American people who overwhelmingly approve of voter ID laws with a 71% favorable rating.   He must also despise Rhode Island Democrats, who earlier this year enacted a voter ID law in their state.  They must have wanted to disenfranchise minority voters too.

King of course touches on the similarites between Presidents Obama and Lincoln:

In some quarters, the hatred of Lincoln bordered on fanaticism; similar sentiments are in evidence against Obama.

I would argue that the "hatred" of Obama is much less than what was face by former President George W. Bush.  President Reagan too faced much of the same animus that Bush faced.  Would King ever compare Presidents Bush and Reagan with Lincoln in this regard?  Doubtful.

This is a truly embarrassing piece and, with the exception of Charles Krauthammer and George Will, it says a lot about the kinds of people who work and write for the Post.