The Hate Rally That Wasn't

The late great journalist Murray Kempton once wrote that everything is known about the Mafia except whether it exists. I feel the same way about the great wave of racism and rage detected at McCain-Palin rallies by bloggers and pundits from E. J. Dionne to Frank Rich. The passion of their denunciation of Republican rednecks is admirable. However the evidence of all this racism and rage is slender, almost non-existent.

My friend E. J. wrote: "Are we witnessing the reemergence of the far right as a power in American politics? Has John McCain, inadvertently perhaps, become the midwife of a new movement built around fear, xenophobia, racism and anger?" Maybe I can help out here with answers to these questions. The answers are "No" and "No."The founder of the current wave of far-out Republican rage is Dana Millbank of the Washington Post. Covering a Sarah Palin speech in Clearwater, Florida, Millbank informed us that "Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness."

He offered two examples of this ugliness: someone shouted "Kill him!" referring to the 60s bomber Bill Ayers, and a man shouted a racial slur at a network sound man (apparently the N-word), adding "sit down, boy."

These two shouts were clearly over the line. But do two extremist shouts from a crowd of 4,500 people establish the rally as a far-right hate fest? Not really. Florida reporters at the Palin speech did not detect a wave of racism and rage. Their coverage was routine, discovering no incipient fascism. William March of the Tampa Tribune, who was there, told me: "They booed Obama and the press, but that just makes it a normal Republican rally."

Two odd things happened at the hands of bloggers and pundits. The "Kill him!" line, directed toward Ayers was presented as a threat to assassinate Obama. And the single racist remark cited by Millbank became one of many racist remarks at the rally. A New York Times editorial made this same mistake, turning one racial comment into many. So did Daily Kos bloggers and Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mary Mitchell: "Whenever a crowd gets whipped up to a point that they turn ugly and start hurling racists insults, it is common sense that the candidate move so rein it in." Agreed. But there was one racist insult reported by one reporter. Nothing more. And we don't know whether Palin heard it. William March said he didn't hear it.

A Daily Kos blogger, filled with dread of the far right, wrote "There is a time to start feeling fear." He continued: "The event sounds like a precursor to a lynching."

A Huffington Post piece by one Jeffrey Feldman asked, "Is Palin Trying to Incite Violence against Obama?" 'Two subheads in this piece were worse: "McCain Camps Talk 'Character Assassination,'Supporters shout for real assassination" and "McCain Campaign Amplifies Violent Rhetoric. GOP Crowd Threaten Obama's life." Nothing like this happened. No crowd threatened Obama, or called for his assassination. Millbank's article, the only primary source for "ugliness" at Palin's speech did not report this, probably because these incendiary events occurred only in the minds of some liberal writers, not in the real world.

By the time the outrage on the left reached Frank Rich's Sunday column, the narrative line about two-person abusive crowd was set in cement. At Rich's hand, the one racial remark in Clearwater became "the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets." The one shout of "Kill Him!" aimed at Ayers after Palin's description of his bombing career became "raucous and insistent cried of "terrorist' and "Kill Him!" All untrue. This is a classic example of awful journalism. Adam Clymer, the former New York Times reporter and Congressman John Lewis both issued statements alleging that the Palin crowd in Clearwater reminded them of George Wallace. Lewis, who also accused McCain, pointed out that Wallace never killed anyone; he just set the stage for the Birmingham bomb that killed three black children.

All this grows out of the widespread assumption on the left that many conservatives and Republicans aren't fellow Americans who simply disagree with liberals. No, they are dangerous racists and violent crazies waiting for someone to set them off. If evidence for his can't be found in the outside world, someone will make it up in the newsroom.

Comments

[lisakaz2]

After all the invective I've dealt with from so-called Conservatives over the years (e.g., I'm a traitor since I disagree with Boooosh), I think you're wrong. Rush and others have ensured that these groups have blurred. I had a reasonably decent relationship online with a poster until I asked him a few questions that he could not answer (they weren't covered in the talking points). He decided to lace into me and continues to do so in the most imbalanced way. Supposedly, someone wanted there to be a truce but it was prefaced on both parties apologizing. I'm not apologizing; I did nothing wrong. That's that.

The point is that these outbursts are happening with frequency but moreover they are typically being tacitly supported by a silent speaker. The audience is SUPPOSED to think O'bama is a terrist or traitor, etc. They are not exactly crying out without encouragement.

[RRuin]

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/mccainpalin-supporters-let-their-rac

These cases are not isolated to two people. They're now talking to reporters, letting their racism hangout. They wave it proudly like a flag.
These are McCain and Palin's people. The ones he so proudly praised at his last debate.

[boomzilla]

The South went Republican because they are unrepentantly racist. Many if not most whites fled public schools because they didn't want their children mixing with blacks, opting to establish and send their kids to church-formed, (and in many cases) substandard segregation academies. I know because I grew up in Mississippi as this was beginning to happen nearly 40 years ago. White people in these states have a long, long history of voting against their own interests because of fears whipped up by the white establishment. Case in point: Haley Barbour, and that's just one.

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

Yeah, there were only two examples... right!?

Well, here's yet another.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/racism-at-mccain-rally-bl_n_135303.html

[Martee]

Let's not forget Rush Limbaugh's rant about the 30 year conspiracy to turn black youth into militants. It's getting ugly, boys. Strap on your seat belts! It's going to be a bumpy ride!

[hellinahandbasket415]

I can't recall where the video came from and I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment...but there was a video I saw online a couple days back where a video blogger went to Bethlehem PA and interviewed Palin rally-goers - the word terrorist came up an aweful lot and the things that the people in line were saying were just dripping with hate...that's not imagined.

Sure, some of these communities are very small and those ideas can be considered "fringe" opinions...but let's not deny it's happening.

[joshuahmcdonald]

This is denial. Plain and simple. The evidence coming from the videos of people in line outside are evidence enough of the racist and violent views of the McCain/Palin rally crowd.

NO...I am not condemning ALL of McCain's supporters. That was a logical fallacy that McCain tried to draw last night. Just because we can positively affirm that SOME of McCain's crowd are racist hate-mongers doesn't mean that ALL of them are. But McCain and Palin have an OBLIGATION to those that aren't to say something to curb the impact of those that are.

[Maezeppa]

Obviously this writer hasn't seen the monkey dolls, the pancake mixes, the wink-wink-nudge-nudge racism is just a big fat joke to Republicans.

[cnobody]

why is the writer so sure that the "kill him!" threat was aimed at Ayers? when it was reported, reporters claimed that they couldn't be sure to whom the threat was aimed, Obama or Ayers. Did the writer personally interview the person who made the threat? or rather, is the writer making an assumption to fit his argument? perhaps the writer hasn't heard that the "kill him!" threat came up again. these are not isolated incidents and poor attempts at equivocation are pathetic.

[EbonBear]

Well, not all Republicans are "dangerous racists and violent crazies" but "dangerous racists and violent crazies" do tend to be Republican (Yes, yes, Weather Underground, blah, blah. Your second example is...?)..

Don't pee on my shoe and tell me it's raining. The coded racial language McPalin have been using is obvious to anyone who isn't determined not to see it. They are running a smear campaign and it's not working this time.

[UrbanInterloper]

Mr. Leo, you are sadly and profoundly mistaken. I agree with your call for accuracy in the media, but it is you who do not have all the facts. The shouts at McCain/Palin rallies are not to be belittled. Let's also keep in mind that the Secret Service felt they were worrisome enough to investigate.

Just because you only heard of one or two incidents, doesn't mean there aren't more. And just because it's unclear who the intended target of the shout "Kill him!" was, doesn't make the suggestion to kill someone--anyone--not hateful. Let's also keep in mind that "Kill him" was shouted a second time, days later, at a different rally:

http://www.scrantontimes.com/articles/2008/10/14/news/doc48f4ba8994588930223377.txt

Here's some suggested viewing for you. It's just the tip of the iceberg:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEucdhf4Us

[dwillisno1]

The weakness in this argument is that it is not the size of the number of racists or hateful statements. The proof is in the lack of serious criticism from the McCain Campaign(not just a few weak lame comments from the candidate). Campaign surrogates have been conspicuously silent and mostly defensive on the subject. Why would McCain supporters tolerate these comments which makes all of them look bad? They tacitly agree.

[LaurenMarie984]

That "isolated incident" actually has become a trend at McCain/Palin rallies. If you paid any attention to the additional media coverage you wouldn't have missed the "Obama-bin-lyin" posters in the audience, which I believe most people would agree that qulifies as incorrect racism ("incorrect because their offensive comments come from people can't accept the fact Obama is not muslim).

There have also been repeated cries from the audience at several events such as "off with his head", "kill Obama" and "terrorist".

So, which aspect of the multiple racial, xenophobic behavior "happened only twice" in an isolated incident? Accept the fact that McCain and Palin are feeding a fire of hatred that is dangerous. It was on a few decades ago that political figures were assasinated because of hatred like this. How irresponsible to defend such behavior of a person who wants to be our president - as in lead and represent this country.

Neither McCain nor Palin have done anything to try and stop this behavior. At no time has either candidate made an example out any of the multiple actions. There was never any comment that such behavior is inappropriate, wrong or unnacceptable. If this were a responsible candidate, they would have these people removed. But McCain and Palin are not responsible.

YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF FOR DEFENDING THIS

[Skepticat]

Despite the adeptness of conservative think tank spokespersons - there are limits to spin, - sometimes the effort to defend bad behaviour just isn't worth it.
A candidate holds rallies claiming that the opponent is palling around with "terrorists" .
Said "terrorist" now a 60 something college professor respected by both repub and democrat legislators was never charged let alone convicted of anything. Opponent was 8 years old when 70's era radical allegedly did bad stuff - so we have a fairly obvious amateurish guilt by association smear again being rehashed in the hope that the gullible will be conned.
A few stirred up conned individuals scream "kill him" - and the rally speaker does NOTHING to suggest that exhortations of homicide are inappropriate. Said speaker noting the reaction apparently continues similar smears leaving only the "stupidity defence" as an alternative to deliberate intent. The fact that only a few took the bait and the crowd didn't grab torches, pitchforks and march to Chicago to lynch someone does not make the intent of the rally any less hateful.

[libbydem]

I think this false claim can be put to bed now- anyone who has heard the man-on-the-street comments by people attending McCain-Palin rallies: "He's a Muslim." "He's a terrorist." etc, etc, etc. They happily stand around the reporters- or anyone with a mike, as the long lines move towards the venues. There are examples all over the internet, including the elderly woman who said Obama was an Arab to McCain. She has a lengthy off-camera interview and offers to supply her "information" to those asking questions. She made 400 copies of whatever she found relevant - info gathered at McCain headquarters, according to her- and sent them to people she picked out from the phone book, speading the word about Obama. Racism, maybe not. Ignorance, you bet. But there's a fine line, isn't there?

[vipersdad]

I can go along with the "a few nuts" theory just so far. It's true on both sides to a certain extent that there are always people who cross the line of reason and drift in to crazy-ville. Ayers was just such a person in my Opinion, and he was not alone among the folks on the left. I am sure that there are a small number of people on the left who would join with a modern version of the Weather Underground and take up arms, just as there are Klansmen and White Supremacists out there.

The problem is this - as we have seen in many, many instances in history, "groupthink" can take over and what seems to be a patently absurd idea from outside the crowd can seem perfectly reasonable to the members of a group. So the Nuts become the instigators and the momentum carries the "non-nuts" along with it. There are endless stories of just this happening throughout history.

So I would not characterize it as a "hate rally," but I would also say that it is the responsibility of Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin to manage the crowd. They can see the nastiness and hateful rhetoric coming from within the crowd and they need to VEHEMENTLY shut it down. What I saw from McCain was tepid. Indeed, he almost seemed intimidated.