Too many on the right these days are relying on the half-argument: make a few insinuations, deny the logical implications of what you say, and hope your audience hears the dog whistle in your message. Here's a good example from Michelle Bachmann, professional know-nothing and representative from Minnesota:
"I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president Jimmy Carter. And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence."
You think it is an interesting coincidence, but you aren't blaming Obama? Then what, exactly, is interesting about it? If there is not an implication of Obama, parallelling Carter, then I fail to see any interest at all.
This is right out of John McCain's playbook when he responded to the charge that Obama called Sarah Palin a pig with "No, I but know that he chooses his words carefully". WTF does that mean except "he meant to call her a pig".
Hat tip to Ed Brayton, who notes that Bachmann can't even get her facts straight, since the swine flu outbreak she mentions happened under Ford, not Carter. I guess when you need the "R" to be a "D", you just change it, right Fox?