Keith Koffler of White House Dossier explains that Barack Obama and other liberals are injecting racism into the election. According to Koffler:
Left-leaning members of the mainstream media on numerous times in recent days have made race a part of the political equation, with many raising questions about whether conservatives are racially motivated in their treatment of President Obama.
As you might imagine, for Mr. Koffler this is the fault of liberals, rather than “an accurate depiction of the political landscape.” Welcome once again to the “Blame the Victim” landscape of the conservative movement where suggesting that conservatives push racist or sexist messages and policies does not result in an apology, but rather the doubling down and blaming those who point out the transgression.
Well, let’s give Koffler the benefit of the doubt and take a look at the evidence he cites:
Following Daily Caller reporter Neil Munro’s interruption of President Obama last week in the Rose Garden, there were numerous suggestions in the media – including from veteran reporter Sam Donaldson – that Munro had been motivated by racism, without a shred of evidence indicating this might be the case.
Munro interrupted the President of the United States mid-speech, an unheard of action, to ask “Why do you favour foreigners over American workers?” This was a question he asked about a policy to allow law-abiding children to not get deported. Presumably, Koffler wants us believe that casting this policy as a “foreigner vs. American worker” only accidentally parrots the race-baiting trope employed since 1980 to drive a wedge between organized labor and recent immigrant communities. I’m incredulous.
Moreover, MUNRO IS A FOREIGNER. He’s an Irish-born journalist who works in the U.S. His question implies that there’s a qualitative difference between his status as a foreigner taking a job from an “American” writer and the child of a, presumably Latino, immigrant who wants to attend school without being arrested. That Munro sees no irony in his position is powerful evidence of racial motivations.
Then Koffler turns to attack Bill Maher (as an aside, liberals don’t proclaim Bill Maher as any more than a comedian — if conservatives treated Rush and Beck the same way, many of the overtly racist and sexist remarks hung on the conservative movement could be easily downplayed):
On Friday night, HBO host Bill Maher said conservative journalist Matt Drudge was animated by racism. Drudge’s website, The Drudge Report, frequently links to articles critical of Obama.
The funny thing is, Bill Maher didn’t accuse Drudge of purveying racism because Drudge “frequently links to articles critical of Obama.” In reality, Maher went after Drudge by highlighting 6 images comporting to the “angry black man” stereotype that Matt Drudge featured on his site over the span of a month. None of the images were particularly germane to the news of the day and the context provided for each provided flimsy excuses for posting negative images (e.g. a Mike Tyson image accompanied a story about Trayvon Martin — because everyone has been waiting for Tyson to weigh in on the story). Bill Maher has the better of this argument.
On Sunday, a panel of mostly black reporters were asked by host Roland Martin whether black leaders were doing enough to defend Attorney General Eric Holder, an assumption that race should be a factor in whether to back an attorney general accused of numerous shortcomings and potentially illegal actions
On Tuesday, in a remark that was hardly noticed – perhaps because such suggestions are now becoming commonplace – MSNBC host Christopher Matthews asked former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown whether House Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa’s treatment of Holder was “ethnic.”
Brown quickly said it was, prompting Matthews to comment that some Republican House members “talk down to the president and his friends.”
This is Koffler’s only passable example of liberals imposing a racial element upon an otherwise neutral story. Mostly because the conservative response to Fast and Furious is so “absolutely stupid” that it transcends race. Why would the Attorney General be on the hook for a local screw-up by ATF agents failing to track guns used in a sting, even if it is a tragic local screw-up?
The answer lies in Koffler’s description of the Fast and Furious matter at the end of that first paragraph — “potentially illegal actions.” What exactly is Koffler saying? He’s proposing that the Department of Justice was covering up an active effort to arm Mexican drug lords. As other conservatives have elaborated, the purpose of this effort was to motivate the populace to push for increased gun control. This is an absurd, tin-foil hat theory and I’m willing to say that conservatives are just crazy on this one instead of racist. So congrats Koffler, I’ve thrown you a bone.
In a final shrill attack, Koffler notes:
Obama himself has added an element of race to the campaign by dividing up supporters along ethnic lines, creating groups such as “African Americans for Obama” and “Latinos for Obama.”
Central to Koffler’s article is the most racist assumption of all — that African-Americans and Latinos are too stupid to evaluate politics on their own and flock to the Democrats only because conservatives are unfairly labeled racists. Democrats win the vote of African-Americans and Latinos every single election and the reason isn’t a liberal conspiracy to accuse Republicans of racism, but the fact that both groups feel marginalized by a Republican party that endorses policies to deny both groups access to education and opportunity for social advancement, and a conservative movement that relishes demeaning and vilifying both ethnicities.
So, Mr. Koffler, if you object to African-Americans and Latinos flocking to Democrats, don’t blame liberals, go out and promote policies and message that African-Americans and Latinos won’t find racist. Or just take away their right to vote…that might work too.