Hillary, AIDS, dogwhistles and Overton Windows

I said from the first I heard of Hillary Clinton's claim on Friday that Nancy Reagan was a leader in speaking out about AIDS in the 1980s that it wasn't just the "misspeaking" she later claimed. Being stronger, or harsher, on this than Brains, because I'm at the point where I naturally take the least charitable interpretation of things like this — one of those people who dings her in general for honestly and integrity — I think it was a dogwhistle.

(And, the claim of "misspeaking"? It was itself misspeaking; Reagan vetoed stem cell research, too.)

More examples of Hillary's dishonesty? She said today she didn't know where Bernie was on health care 20 years ago. Erm, he was ... "with her"!

Per Twitter, in case you're unaware:

"I don't know where he was when I was trying to get health care in '93 and '94," a fired up @HillaryClinton says of Sanders.

— Amy Chozick (@amychozick) March 12, 2016

There he was, right with you, just as pictured below.

I mean, with this issue on top of the AIDS issue, per Jaguar in comments, yes, it's a dogwhistle.

Or (and not mutually exclusive), per other links in Brains' piece, it's the old Overton Window:

Brains himself has added links in an update; Steve Thrasher agrees that it was a dogwhistle.

So, why? Cui bono?

Hillary herself benefits, or at least she thinks she does. That's the bottom line. Of course, she is less subtle about this than Bill.

To be more specific?

I think @HillaryClinton just bought a whole shed full of Overton Windows with this. https://t.co/qZDxngBHum

— SocraticDiogenes (@SocraticGadfly) March 11, 2016

And, yes, establishmentarian pundits are trying to spin away the "misstatement" on AIDS by claiming establishment Dems thought that way in the 1980s.

No they didn't. Either that's two kiddos of the modern Inside the Beltway Brat Pack practicing something loosely related to journalism from being too young to know the 80s, or else, it's David Brock type spinmeistering. In either case, it's wrong.

Not just Ronnie, but a lot of Congressional Republicans were excoriated in the 1980s for their homophobia by Democrats. Maybe the party wasn't "gay friendly" in terms of promoting gay marriage 30 years ago, but it was gay friendly in the sense of calling out bigotry. Let's advance a decade and look at her own history, and Bill's, on DOMA, while we're at it. Democratic Underground has more.

Back to the Overton Window and dogwhistles plus today's spinmeisters.

Clinton's already adopted the strategy of trying to campaign past Sanders and campaign toward the general election, except in places like Rust Belt/Great Lakes states, where she's worried about him winning next Tuesday's primaries.

She's chasing those alleged centrist votes, espectially ones she thinks will shy away from voting Trump if the's the Republican nominee.

In other words, the same old shit that Democratic presidential nominees, and other A list national Dems, have done for 30-plus years. The reality is that most of Trump's support is from inside typical Republicans, just ones who haven't turned out to vote in past presidential primaries in some cases. Add that to repeated documentation that, at the Congressional level, Congresscritters of both parties think their constituents are even more conservative than is true, and Democrats who chase that Overton Window are on a mission as foolish as looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

But, Dear Leader also dogwhistled about his love for Ronnie eight years ago.

There they are again. So, did Hillary contract Alzheimer's from Ronnie?
Maybe Jean Houston forgot to "channel" this at Nancy's funeral?

On the health care?

As we look at another picture of Bernie quite clearly showing #ImWithHer in 1993?

Snark in the caption aside, this is no gaffe. It's a sign of desperation. It's a kitchen sink that she's now throwing herself, without benefit of, or "distancing" via, intermediaries. Such things are always dangerous politically.

Especially because of the polling that sites credibility as the No. problem people have with her.

#GayMarriage — from serious to teary to angry on #SSM

I offered several serious hot takes on the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday declaring gay marriage the law of the land.

First was my take on the actual ruling, and the clear fact that whatever faint hopes of "growth" Chief Justice John Roberts showed on Obamacare, they were clouds without water, shadows only.

Second was my wondering if Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, with a major assist from state AG Ken Paxton, is prepared to play George Wallace, shouting "Straight today, straight tomorrow, straight forever." (Initial signs say that's a yes.

Third was my observation that four dissenting justices had four incredibly vacuous arguments, so vacuous they had to write four dissents because they couldn't agree what was the primary damage legalized gay marriage caused.

And now we're here. The emotions.

Who wouldn't, if you're not a homophobe, get teary-eyed at seeing two 80-somethings, Jack Evans and George Harris, get married after waiting 55 years?



Having seen gay friends and acquaintances struggle with coming out and more, who couldn't be teary-eyed as a loving, accepting straight person?

And, who couldn't be angry at the homophobia, or the political pandering of the likes of Paxton and Abbott, or a mix of both?

Who wouldn't be angry at religious institutions and self-appointed public faces and guardians of conservative Christian family values, already exposed as hypocrites, yet doubling down on their hypocrisy?

So, I call out two sets of hypocrites with these poster comments.

The first is obvious. Of course, that's not actually what Catholic bishops across the country said.

But it's what they might as well have said, given the Church's history on child sexual abuse at the altar.

The second?

Possibly short of Ann Coulter, what female wingnut is more grating as a defender of the far right? And short of nobody at all, what female wingnut is more hypocritical, along with her chip off the old block daughter, in pretending to be a moral guardian.

A nuttier than normal week in #txlege and #txpolitics

First, my state rep (and state senator, even though this wasn't a bill on the senate side of the aisle yet!) officially declared themselves supporters of pre-emptive unconstitutionality. State Rep. Kyle Kacal, along with State Sen. Brian Birdwell, favored Rep. Cecil Bell's HB 4105, which would pre-emptively bar Texas governmental officials like county judges, justices of the peace, etc., from performing gay weddings, or county clerks, etc., from issuing gay couples marriage licenses, if the Supreme Court rules later this summer, as expected, to legitimize gay marriage across the nation.

Click that link. Besides my own hot take, it's got a link, and the nut grafs of, the Waco Tribune's professional house editorial take on their surly intransigence.

In my mind, this is nothing more than an updated version of George Wallace standing on the steps of the Alabama State Capitol and chanting his famous, or infamous "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" statement as part of his 1963 gubernatorial inaugural address.

Beyond that, it’s guaranteed to cost the state of Texas far more in legal fees — both bills and money lost in settlements — than Greg Abbott as attorney general incurred in his generally losing record suing the Obama Administration.

I don’t like every Supreme Court decision myself; “Citizens United” comes immediately to mind, as does a 35-year string of rulings before that which all equate “money” to “speech.” But, I’m not handed a constitutional menu card and told I can pick any two side items I want and discard the rest.

Disgustingly, Bell hasn't accepted this or anything else; even though his bill got chubbed by House Dems, he's still dreaming of attaching it as a rider to something else.

Next, second-term state Sen. Charles Perry got a restraining order from a stripper. While I first noted that the jokes right themselves, further research showed that Cyndi Ortiz has a full decade as a fairly serious campaign donor, and five years as a teaparty activist, leading me to wonder exactly what sort of fire is behind the smoke.

Speaking of jokes writing themselves, Charles' non-relative, former gov. Rick Perry, announced on May 15 that he would announce on June 4 his plans to run for seventh place in the GOP presidential contest. Wife Anita wondered how the whole family could "play a role." I suggested she double, or even quadruple, his back pain meds, then offer the same to other GOP candidates.

Speaking of governors, I suggested Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez as a candidate in 2018. I noted that, at a minimum, she couldn't be worse than the Dems' sacrificial offering in the last five races, and that the might actually have more appeal to groups like Valley Hispanics that don't vote than did any of those folks.

Meanwhile, quality control cheapness, or other issues, have come home to roost in Brenham. Blue Bell is canning nearly 40 percent of workers, and furloughing about the same percentage. I call out the company for letting this happen, and for why it happens. Given that Texas congresscritters are among the leaders in fighting the federal regulatory system, this definitely connects to Texas politics, too.

#Douthat: Adoptive parents not "real"

In his pathological drive to shout down calls for gay marriage, via a multi-part blog and column series, Ross Douthat keeps digging the hole deeper.

The latest in his "triptych" (interesting religious word there, Rossty) is the worst.

An hour in a nursery will remind you that the decline of the two-parent family hasn’t eliminated the basic desire of children to know their parents.

Let's repeat that last part ...

"Hasn't eliminated the basic desire of children to know their parents." So, old Rossty, then adoptive parents aren't real parents? Because it's clear that you're insinuating "The basic desire of chlidren to know their (biological) parents."

Actually, you can't be insinuating that, because, due to in vitro fertilzation, gay or lesbian couples can raise their own biological children.

So, you're really insinuating "The basic desire of children to know their (heterosexual, married biological) parents."

A: That's hugely circular reasoning.

B. By indicating those are the only "real" parents, you just keep digging this hole deeper. Especially shooting your conservative Christian self in the foot re adoptive parents.

It's clear you're a pathological homophobe, at least on the issue of marital rights.

Should this be a surprise? Douthat, like his rough coequal, Rod Dreher, could be called some sort of "Crunchy Con." Dreher's shown himself to be a huge homophobe. Guess the mask is slipping off Douthat too.

Rod Dreher: Anti-gay bigot

As someone who lived in Dallas a number of years, I semi-regularly read Dreher when he was a Dallas Morning News columnist. Like Ross Douthat at the New York Times, he reminded me of two things — the Peter Principle and the existence of a promotional network for young conservative writers. He also reminded me of Douthat directly; both in some ways being "crunchy cons," conservatives who gave off a patina of having a "moderate" take on a couple of issues, issues that weren't core ones for them.

Well, after he left the Snooze, I didn't really read him any more.

I had met him personally, once, about a year or so before he left. He certainly seemed personable enough. Of course, I didn't let on that I read him regularly, and that I, among others, contacted his boss, the editorial page editor, about him violating company policy and creating a conflict of interest by also writing for World Net Daily.

But, maybe he seemed personable for another reason.

I guess that's because as a straight man, I didn't put off some sort of "gay funk."

Because, per Alternet, the real Dreher is a flaming homophobe, one who can talk about "gay McCarthyism."

More on Dreher's background as a young conservative in general, and a highly bigoted one, here.

Why bring this up now?

Dreher has a new book out, "The Little Way of Ruthie Leming," for which he got an advance possibly as much as $1 million. It's been speculated that he may wind up on Oprah.

Well, Ms. Naive had better learn more about Dreher's background.

I'm not surprised, even if I hadn't followed details of him to know about his gay-bashing for some time.

Dreher also used to be a regular on Beliefnet. Given that it's by no means limited to fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, that website also needs to be made aware of Dreher's full background.

Hypocrisy alert, Glenn Greenwald division

Greenwald has spilled cyberink in more than one Salon column, bemoaning that he and his Brazilian boyfriend can't get married in the U.S.

Well, behind the gay rights push in that same Brazil is a rising wave of homophobia, homicidal at times. I had no idea that conservative evangelical Christianity was also on the rise there.

Now, for Greenwald to not talk about this might be more ironic than hypocritical.

But, even more hypocritical?  Noted civil libertarian and free speech advocate Greenwald has never written about Brazil's attempts to criminalize homophobic speech.

And, Greenwald can be black-and-white on civil liberties issues, even ones where there's a LOT of gray, such as deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill.

Therefore, it's not hypocritical on my part at all to say that, if Glenn's going to be black-and-white elsewhere, why can't he be on Brazil trying to criminalize hate speech?
I know the U.S. isn't perfect on gay rights, either de jure, or de facto, as a Tyler Clementi or Matthew Shepard shows. But, it sounds like we might still be ahead of Brazil overall. And, on "hate speech" issues too.

On Brazil and gay issues, I'll also venture that other factors are involved. The homophobia probably splits somewhat on class lines. And, Brazil definitely has bigger socio-economic class divides than the U.S. It probably, sweetness and light aside, still has bigger racial class gaps, too.

And, for new readers here, this isn't the first time I've "called out" Greenwald on civil liberties issues. I have a long post here about other blind spots of his, especially re the ACLU and its selective support for civil rights, board purges and more, as documented here.

That's not to say Greenwald doesn't do a lot of good stuff. His latest column, about documentary filmmakers becoming deliberate U.S. government snooping targets, allegedly as part of the War on Terror, but really as part of the War on Leaks, is great. That said, just once, I'd like to see him reference the Center on Constitutional Rights or some other group in addition to the ACLU.

It's like the environmental movement. The ACLU is the equivalent of the Sierra Club or some other "Gang Green" group. Glenn has a platform to give attention to newer, sometimes fiestier groups, such as the Center for Constitutional Rights. And he won't. I know, because I've emailed and tweeted him about it. I don't know WHY, but he won't.

And, at the same time, one should remember another thing about Greenwald. Good progressives should note that he's still an economic libertarian at heart, as his ardent love for Ron Paul shows. It's very relevant to link this year, because as I noted, Greenwald's love for Paul didn't mention Paul's strong antigay history. That his libertarianism usually trumps all, even with a weird twist like this, doesn't surprise me, from what I know of him, which is more than you see in his columns and books.

More on Fort Worth PD anti-gay thuggery

Was it just a routine check for intoxicated patrons at Fort Worth’s Rainbow Lounge last week, or was it possibly homophobic cops “ loaded for bear,” as one patron there claims?

If witness allegations that cops walked in with hands full of plastic handcuffs, well, then the latter is true.

As for Chad Gibson, still hospitalized with traumatic brain injury, patron cellphone photos show him on the floor of the bar, with a dent in the wall just above his head, while Fort Worth cops are disgusting enough to claim he fell down outside and hit his own head on the sidewalk because he was drunk.

Beyond that, if Gibson assaulted an officer or officers, why has he not been charged?

FWPD Chief Jeff Halstead now claims that patrons made advances at his officers. Right. Forty years after Stonewall, I doubt most drunken gay bar patrons, unless incredibly sloshed, would be close to that dumb.

Want to contact somebody? You can find e-mails for all Fort Worth City Council members here.

Here's what I sent to Mayor Mike Moncrief:

First, it's appalling from a PR standpoint, if nothing else, that you have yet to publicly comment on this issue. It's appalling beyond bad PR, though.

Second, why aren't officers involved with the Rainbow incident all on suspension? Chad Gibson may die as a result, and a REAL internal investigation would start by suspending officers, I would think.

Third, why are FWPD stories inconsistent with patrons, about where Gibson fell and suffered his head injury, who he fell, and more?

Fourth, if Gibson assaulted officers, why has he not been charged? (And, don't tell me police departments don't issue criminal charges against people in hospitals.)

Don't be quiet!

Metroplex version of ‘right-wing smear machine’ against Valdez?

It certainly seems that way, with Dallas Morning News editorial writer Rod Dreher moving his crunchy con schtick to just plain “con,” and apparently doing so in tag team with former Observer writer Matt Pulle, now working at the pseudo-nonpartisan online newsmag Texas Watchdog.

Dreher’s using offensive wedge politics over a sensitivity to sexual preferences survey the Sheriff’s Department used for the first time but that the Dallas PD has reportedly used for 15 years, or so Resource Center of Dallas says.

Then Pulle claims the Dallas PD says, nope, we haven’t used such a survey, according to Texas Watchdog. (Which is only “nonpartisan” in the sense that it’s not officially part of the Texas GOP; Matt’s boss used to work at a ’winger public-policy shop in Nashville.)

I don’t know what’s going on. I’d like to hear from someone higher up in the DPD than just a “spokesperson.” And, since Cece Cox of Resource Center of Dallas said it’s been handed out to DPD recruits “within the last year,” this may be something new over there, new enough for a “spokesperson” to not be familiar with any changes.

That’s my guess; it’s new, or it is in its latest version and so DPD spokesperson Janice Crowther may not be familiar with it. (It’s unlikely the entire DPD, even if the survey goes beyond new recruits, takes such a survey every year.)

That’s putting the least charitable interpretation on this. The idea that Valdez knew in advance what questions were on the survey, let alone the insinuation that she drafted it, is ridiculous.

Beyond that, the whole section of the survey is only about a dozen questions (PDF).

Also, given the right-wing public policy think-tank background of Texas Watchdog founder Trent Seibert, contra Rod Dreher, I think we have the Dallas Metroplex’s version of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” ginning up here.

The Dallas Voice has more on Matt Pulle’s background with stuff like this.

Which also makes it interesting that the Texas Watchdog PDF ONLY has the one page posted. NOT the whole survey.