I'll admit it, I'm kind of an addict for schadenfreude. So as McCain's scattershot set of despicable tactics and increasingly inane talking points that he calls a campaign strategy erodes, I find myself wanting more and more to listen to the desperation in the right wing talk show hosts as they leave the denial stage phase over the death of the Republican worldview as we know it and move into the later, more interesting (at least for us liberal listeners) stages of grief. So this morning, as I left for work, my radio was tuned to AM talk radio, just for my own amusement's sake.
Now, Mike Gallagher is not a heavyweight on the level of say, Rush, Hannity, or the despicable ball of evil that calls itself Michael Savage, but he is, as he constantly feels the need to point out, the 8th most listened to talk show host, and is just as despicable as the afore-mentioned hosts. This morning, instead of commenting on the issues that are, you know, sending the country into a second Great Depression, he decided to pick on children.
http://www.youtube.com/...
These children, to be exact. Now, I will concede that this is not the best image for the Obama campaign, but these kids are obviously excited about politics (almost assuredly for the first time) and have decided on an out of the box way to express that excitement, which cannot be bad for the U.S. Mr. Gallagher, however, repeatedly uses two words in expressing his hatred toward these politically active teens: "goose-stepping" and "high-risk." Now, being a dirty liberal, my ears aren't attuned to the "whistle-words" as well as the conservatives must be, and I even think that those on our side sometimes are a little too quick to play the race card, but after Mr. Gallagher played a clip of the boys talking, it was obvious to me, a young white liberal in Texas, what he was doing: evoking racist images and attaching, as a racist would, Obama to the image of a race war, black armies rising up to take over the country.
I got through on my first call, and talking to him made me realize what we can do to fight these ridiculous smears that will only increase between now and Nov. 4th. We have to fight the subtext.
Now, fighting subtext is a difficult thing to do, because subtext can so easily be denied. (In fact, Mr. Gallagher did deny it when I used the word "black", calling me a racist and saying that he never brought race into the issue. I'm hoping someone else heard the show and can back me up that this was obviously a racist sentiment). If I had gone onto to accuse him of being a racist or at the very least classist (high-risk youth), he could easily deny it and say that wasn't what he intended. SO as politics moves from the "silly season" to the "incredibly offensive season," all we have to do to sht down this line of attack is what I finally did this morning. Ask the accuser to clarify his/her position.
I backed Mike Gallagher into a corner this morning. I point-blank asked him if he believed, with his use of the word "goose-stepping" (which has undeniable implications), that Obama was going to lead an army against the U.S. Granted, I was rather angry, so I wasn't quite that eloquent, but I'm hoping the point came across. In fact, Mr. Gallagher's response shows me it did-- he flat-out refused to answer my question, accusing me of trying to entrap him and calling my questions "dopey." (Or doofy. I'm not paying the money for a transcript). What was he going to do? If he said that he did think that there would be a race/class war, he would sound at best like a tin-foil hat wearer, at worst like he was one step from setting a cross on fire. If he said he didn't think so, then his whole argument would be shot full of holes and the silliness of focusing on some passionate teenagers instead of something that matters would be obvious.
This is how we have to fight these smears, folks. We can't fight the accusations themselves; it makes us look defensive. Nor can we assume to know what these right-wing attackers mean. But by God, we can make them clarify their points. When you hear the name Ayers, by all means tell the truth about his connections to the man, but at the same time, make the subtext evident. Ask these people straight-out if they think Obama supports domestic terrorism or hates America. Force them to answer that question. If they bring up the horribly misquoted line about Afghanistan, correct the context, but also make them take a stand on Obama's feelings toward the troops-- force them to say he hates the military. This line will move these implied attacks out of the realm of fair journalism and into the realm of the kooks, the Savages, the Coulters. This is the way to win these arguments.
Imagine, if you will, this conversation on live television:
John McCain: Now, my friends, my opponent won't even be honest with you about his associations with William Ayers, how can, my friends, we trust him, my friends, to be honest about what he will do in the White House.
President Obama: Excuse me, Mr. Brokaw, I know we aren't supposed to address each other, but I feel that I must take this opportunity to clear something up. Senator McCain, your campaign wants to say that I "pal around" with terrorists, so I want to hear it out of your mouth, because I respect you enough to let you clear this up. Do you think that I support terorrism?
Game. Set. Match.