Huffing and puffing

A recent News-Press letter writer contrasts Sam Graves with Kay Barnes, saying that Graves is a “farmer” and “common citizen, just like the rest of us,” a man whose spouse is a teacher while Barnes is an outsider, a “hypocrite” and “a typical politician.” He huffs and he puffs and he blows ... innuendo.

First of all, to say that Graves is a farmer while saying nothing of Barnes’ work history leaves the impression that she is a career politician while he is not. In reality, she ran a consulting firm for more than two decades. This kind of omission is a technique learned on the first day of class in Political Deception 101.

Secondly, the writer says that Graves is like the “rest of us” but Barnes is not. So how might she be different than “us?” In the second of the infamous attack ads approved by Graves, the ones that attempt to link Barnes to a San Francisco “gay agenda,” the speaker at one point pronounces Barnes’ name as “Gay Barnes.” Meanwhile, the ad depicts a clean-cut Graves strolling together with his children but juxtaposes pictures of Barnes with those of gay revelers. This is Dirty Tricks 201, wherein one learns how to manage a whisper campaign ala Karl Rove or, more aptly, Jeff Roe. What makes this well-worn Republican ploy particularly egregious in this case is that Barnes’ husband is deceased and she has grown children, something Republicans do not mention. Rather, in their appeals to various religionists and xenophobes, Republicans abuse photographs of Barnes to show her all alone or with other women or gay people, implying the “L” word. This shows what the “family values” con men are capable of with regard to the treatment of widows.

Thirdly, the writer boasts that Graves’ spouse is a teacher. However, since Barnes is a widow, not an unmarried single woman, Graves’ having a spouse and that spouse incidentally being a teacher should not give him an advantage over Barnes among informed voters. So, when attacking Barnes, apart from the value of “his wife is a teacher” among the uninformed who might think that Barnes is an unmarried fan of the love that dares not speak its name, what value would this boast have among more informed voters? It plays a role in the Republican whisper campaign, satisfying Graves’ most conservative supporters by reminding them that Graves’ wife is employed in one of those occupations that, unlike politics, is more traditional and acceptable for women. This technique is gleaned from the advanced Republican playbook, cynically used only in cases where the Republican candidate is not female.

As for the writer’s ad hominem attack on Barnes as a hypocrite and his unsupported claim that Barnes failed as mayor, the writer’s lack of specificity merits no response. Instead, I choose to address the writer’s innuendo that appropriates elements of the ongoing whisper campaign against Barnes.

Steve Frogge

St. Joseph