Tancredo goes after congressional race based caucuses.

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo (R) wants to end all race based caucuses. His reason?

Tancredo told The Hill: “You should not have any organization, a caucus especially, based solely on race. I mean on issues? You bet. But on race? Why should we be separating ourselves up into these racial divisions?

“It would be anathema to me if someone wanted to create a white caucus. A race is something over which we have no control. Everything we are told is we should ignore it, that we should try to eliminate that as a distinction in our society,” he added.

Here's my official Stalin Malone Bias Alert (or SMBA if you like), I'm no fan of Tancredo. I disagree with most everything he says. But...he's in the right place on this one. I don't think there needs to be official racial caucuses. His reason above is philosophically correct, and he has an ally in me. Apparently, he'll need all the allies he can get.

Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Administration Committee, which tracks and governs caucuses, has already cast an unfavorable eye on Tancredo’s proposal. “Congressman Ney would not be supportive of such a concept,” said Brian Walsh, Ney’s spokesman. “He believes that those members of Congress who share similar interests … should be able to form a caucus.”

Since, Me and Tanny (That's what us friends call him) are on the same side, I would like to point out to Rep Ney that skin color is not an "interest." You can, however, be interested in affirmative action, for example, and Tancredo even allows that interest based caucuses are A-OK. Personally, I think its even more insulting for Rep Ney to assume that all blacks have the same interests. I mean, isn't commingling race and issue a bit...wrong? Seriously, see the man not the stereotype.

So while agree that he has a philosophical case, does he have a "legal" one? The way I see it, we have laws forbidding membership based on race/gender for public groups. Public is usually defined as taking government money. I agree. Private groups can do whatever they want. I also agree. Congress is the ultimate public group, right? Maybe. Here's the tricky part.

In 1995, the House abandoned the policy of funding caucuses with taxpayer money. Aides working on congressional caucuses now are paid from the lawmakers’ congressional accounts.

So are caucuses "public" or "private?" Great move in 1995, really like it. I assume it came way back when the GOP was about shrinking government - ahhh the good ol' days. So now that these caucuses are paid by the members, are they private? If they are, does Tancredo have a legal point? Shouldn't private groups be able to do what they want? I honestly don't have a quick answer for this as it relates to members of congress and congressional grounds. As it stands, I agree with him philosophically, but not sure I agree as a matter of process.

Anyway, while it looks like this thing has zero chance, I applaud his efforts, and the fact that he's bringing this to the public's attention.

Quick note, for those of you keeping score at home, MSNBC notes the following race based caucuses: The Dems have the Congressional Black Caucus, the Hispanic caucus with 21 members. While the Republicans have a comparable Hispanic conference with five full members and 11 "associate" members who are not Hispanic.

Funny, no mention of a Republican Black Caucus? Must be a typo.