In any case, in recognition of the fact that it is possible to oversimplify things on Twitter, I went ahead and wrote about the racist hunting camp at Democracy in America. Punch line:
...Politicians have a normative obligation to err on the side of transparency, and as a matter of leadership, if not obligation, they should make a point of offering thoughtful commentary on sensitive issues, such as the legacies of historical trauma and ongoing patterns of discrimination or even abuse. I think it would even be fair to say that some politicians should feel a special obligation to speak to public questions about their background, even if the questions are based on generalisations and are somewhat unfair. So, for example, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman might engage with some candour on the subject of what Mormonism means to them. And Mr Perry, being a white man of a certain age from a former Confederate state, would be wise to offer more thoughts on the legacy of segregation and the civil-rights movement in the South. More to the point, if you rent a property that is locally known as "Niggerhead", you should be expected to explain that. But there's a cost to all parties when we jump to conclusions this way. Politicians should be able to shoulder a little unfairness, but our ability to recognise and condemn substantive examples of coded bigotry—not in short supply in contemporary America—is somewhat confounded by the kind of overreach we see in this article.
Feel free to let me know if you disagree, in the comments or via the contact form.