It didn’t take long for liberals in the blogosphere to make backhanded and blatantly false accusations of racism against Congressman Paul Ryan, and you’re not going to believe the rationale used for leveling the accusation. Apparently, Paul Ryan is a racist because…
Here’s the scoop. Kelli Goff, the political writer for “The Root”, informs us that Ryan not only has a “black sister-in-law,” but that “his ‘college sweetheart’ was African-American” as well.
And how, in heaven’s name, do those facts make Ryan a racist? They don’t, but that didn’t stop Goff from using convoluted and almost comical ‘reasoning’ to make the clear and libelous implication.
As Goff explains it: “When someone finds himself on the ropes facing an allegation of racism, the go-to reflex defense is usually something along the lines of ‘But some of my best friends are black!’ Translation: ‘I can’t possibly be racist or racially insensitive because there are black people I like and they like me.’”
Did you catch the implication, and how Goff has now lowered the bar on accusations of racism to previously unheard of depths? If someone is actually capable of offering a legitimate behavior-based defense to false and baseless accusations of racism, then that person must be a racist.
While the accusation is only implied, my mother, when she was alive, would have called it a “backhanded accusation.” Goff is clearly leading the reader to believe that Ryan must be a racist because, assuming someone actually came right out and made an explicit accusation of racism against Ryan, he would then be inclined to say: ‘I have a Black sister-in-law and I dated an African-American girl in college’ and, as everyone knows, the fact that Ryan would be inclined to plea the “but-some-of-my-best-friends-are” defense constitutes undeniable proof of his racism prior to the fact.
If you still didn’t catch Goff’s implication, don’t waste your time thinking too hard. While her thesis is clearly ridiculous, judging by many of the comments from the Amen-Chorus on the article, it’s more than clear that Goff’s liberal readers not only clearly understood the implication but also fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
And if you’re looking for any other evidence that Goff might be relying upon, say some quirk in Ryan’s behavior or an incident in his past, to make the accusatory implication, don’t bother. You won’t find it, as the bulk of the remainder of Goff’s article is devoted to what initially appears to be a dysfunctional and tangential hashing-up of old stories about the late Senator Strom Thurmond, television commentator Lou Dobbs, and Trayvon Martin’s shooter George Zimmerman.
Later in the article, it appears that Goff only went off on the tangent as a means of working up to a broader point, as she put it, that “it is possible to have a black friend, Asian friend, Hispanic friend, or Muslim friend or wife and still exhibit prejudice toward that group.”
However, while it would be impossible to know Goff’s intentions, it is interesting that she devoted so much type to Thurmond, Dobbs, and Zimmerman. Guilt by association is a powerful weapon, and her tangential ramblings did supply the perfect ruse for her to interject an association between Ryan and Thurmond, Dobbs, and Zimmerman, people that Goff obviously assumes her liberal readers view as villains, even though no association actually exists between these men.
And so, in The ‘World According To Goff’, one should not dismiss any claims of racism against Ryan that may surface in the future because it is entirely possible that a white person can have cordial and intimate relationships with minorities and still be a racist. And should accusations be made at some future time, and Ryan refers to his personal relationships as a defense, then the statement would not only be a clear admission of guilt, but would also place him in the esteemed company of Thurmond, Dobbs, and Zimmerman.
While Goff’s implications are clear (and clumsy), they may also be telegraphing what is yet to come as the presidential campaign unfolds. At least the rather mendacious odor of a set-up is in the air.
Will false, and more emphatically stated, accusations of racism against Ryan come at a later date? And if so, will some other journalist actually reference Goff’s ‘innocent observation’ to bolster the false accusation after Ryan issues the logical response?
You can almost envision some liberal writing, at a future date ‘of course, this isn’t the first accusation of racism against Ryan….’ Would it be paranoid to suspect that there a set-up in the works?
Crystal Wright penned an excellent retort of Goff’s backhanded hit-piece for Town Hall (a highly recommended read, by the way) in which she observes: “Referencing no examples of behavior by Ryan that could be viewed racist, Goff only suggests that one day Ryan may be faced with racist allegations and use the fact that he dated a black woman in college as his defense.”
Wright isn’t necessarily implying that there’s more to come (then again, maybe she is, but let’s not put words in her mouth), but her statement does provide some reassure that suspicions, at least in this particular case, wouldn’t necessarily qualify a person for membership in the tin-foil-hat club.
At the very least, Goff’s accusation is deplorable, and her incredulous cry of innocence toward the end of the article that she’s “not calling Ryan a racist” rings hollow. Goff’s implication was clear. One only need ask: if Goff didn’t intend to throw out a false and baseless accusation that Ryan is a racist, then why did she write the article in the first place?
The answer, of course, is that Goff intended to place the question into the political dialogue. As to her purpose and whether more is to come, only time will tell.
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
Using this woman’s silly argument and the fuzziest of fuzzy logic, she shoots herself in the foot and the head. Her conclusion that by claiming the “but-some-of-my-best-friends-are” defense is in effect, racist, she makes it impossible for anyone to claim to be clean of racism. What factors and principles are used to prove the point? Where does one go to file an application for a permit to be racism free? How do you prove you have no animus against a group based on race? For that matter, how does Goff herself prove that she is not a racist? A vote for Obama proves nothing, a friend or two or a thousand is not proof of anything other than a large group of friends. The fact is no one can prove they are not racist by any means period. We take people at their word because that is all we have to go on. If I have an argument with a Filipino and I walk away angry, does that make me racist? If I get into a traffic collision with a black man and we exchange heated word, does that make me racist? Where is the line drawn? When can a person be free to hold their head up in surety that they will not be labeled a racist? Using Goff’ logic you must be a Democrat or you can never be clean of the stink of racism. If you are a Democrat you are free to disparage anyone without fear of racial implications: call a black conservative an Uncle Tom, it’s all good; call an Asian conservative a boot licker, no harm, you are just telling it like it is. But if you are a Republican you are a racist because to a Democrat, racism is a prerequisite for being a conservative or a Republican. Leave it to a liberal to posit a theory to label a person a racist, while leaving out any clarification to avoid such a label.
Kelli Goff? Isn’t that the woman who has been seen multiple times making love to giraffes?….
It is barrack the muslim obama who is a racist against Americans
Hmm, in my youth “some of my friends” were Jews – therefore, I MUST be a Nazi … BUT “some of my friends” were German – therefore I must be a Jew? OK, I guess I was a Jewish Nazi … Saaay Whaaat! This is some of the most convoluted “[il]logic” I’ve heard in quite a while – and the Libitards have come up with some DOOZIES!
Wow!!! Who does this woman work for??? Do they really let her keep speaking/writing!? Using this logic, then if I don’t want to be called racist, then I’d better stay away from my Black, Hispani, Asian and Native American friends. Otherwise, she will call me a racist. Now what do I tell my friends is my reason for ignoring them???
This is absolute insanity to accuse Ryan of being a ‘racist.’ There is no basis for the accuation. It’s an outright lie from the depths of hell!
The ones who play the race card are the biggest racists of all. They are the divisive ones because it serves their purpose to do so. Their complete lack of ethics or morals does not require them to have cause, much less proof. Their playground bully tactics would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic and sad. This Goff person didn’t even have the courage of her convictions to earn her pathetic 15 seconds of fame, but had to try to sneak an acccusation under the radar. She is already on the trashheap of forgotten wannabe’s who crave the attention they will never get.
apparently , kelli goff is racist when it comes to white people ! she shows it loudly and blatantly in her ravings !
Racism? That’s it? That’s all they’ve got? Are you kidding me? The race card is worn out, faded and useless. It amounts to adolescent name calling. It’s quite plain to everyone including lib drones and obots, that it was always a ploy, a mind game, to steer the discussion away from an intellectual exchange of ideas which the aforesaid are either incapable of doing or comprehending or their position on an issue is simply indefensible.
Consequently all they can do is interrupt the discussion, the debate, by yelling “racism” like the proverbial cry of “fire” in a crowded theater all for the purpose of getting the spotlight off them and back on their opponents who unfortunately keep taking the bait, getting hooked and reeled in. It should simply be ignored. It will in time go away when the adults come to town and move the lib drones and obots out of the way.
Charging racism against Obama is so silly because the guy is after all, half white! Notice that the charge of racism is without exception always made about a white person who disagrees with Obama. Why wouldn’t it apply to a black conservative who disagrees with Obama. Why are blacks in the congressional black caucus or some of the usual loudmouth lib/marxist/muslim blacks like Farrakhan, Jackson, Sharpton, et. al. not accused of racism when they spew forth with some of the most vile hatred toward whites?
There is no reason to be apologetic about disagreeing with anyone of a dark skin color because they possess negro genetic code if you’re white and the disagreement is on policy matters affecting the nation, period. Accordingly, I was disappointed when Romney reportedly did it recently after making the joke about his Birth Certificate. That was totally unnecessary.
The left is so bereft of ideas or intellectual arguments in defense of their positions on the issues, or their defense of Obama, that they feel compelled to engage in adolescent name calling in the hope that it will shutup their opponents. It’s really all they have. It’s time to ignore that and move on.