Xenophobia and the Right

It’s their secret weapon in the upcoming presidential election. Some candidates, like McCain and Rudy, have largely resisted irrational bully mode when it comes to illegal immigration, but talk radio has spoken — loudly — and a desperate GOP is likely to follow.

Hearing the passionate opposition, you’d assume the just-defeated "Dream Act" would’ve granted Mexicans the right to enslave whites. Not surprisingly, specifics were absent from the discussion.

Under the proposal, men and women who fulfilled several conditions —- they had to be under 30, had to have been brought into the country illegally when they were younger than 16, had to have been in the United States for at least five years and had to be graduates of U.S. high schools —- would have been given conditional legal status. If they went on to complete two years of college or two years of military service, they would have been eligible for permanent residency.

Let’s see. Here was a way to encourage a bunch of kids to go to college rather than melt into the shadows as off-the-books day laborers —- or maybe even gang members. And here was a way to boost enlistment in our overtaxed armed forces. Aren’t education and global competitiveness supposed to be vital issues? Aren’t we fighting open-ended wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Perhaps, but exploiting prejudice is a proven winner (see Nixon’s "Southern strategy"). 

   

On Saggy Pants, Obama and the Petty Queer Establishment

What’s the connection between fashion, a presidential candidate and an ineffective special interest group? I’ll do my best to navigate.

Item One: Song Links Saggy Pants to Being Gay

A new campaign by the city of Dallas targets the hip-hop style of wearing your pants low enough that your boxers are showin — and part of your posterior, too.

The campaign has a signature song, "Pull Your Pants Up," by Dooney Da’ Priest, that links so-called saggin’ with being gay. …

An accompanying billboard says it’s rude to be "walking around showin’ your behind to other dudes." The song’s refrain is "Be a real man — pull your pants up."

In an interview with a local television station, Dooney explained that saggin’ comes from jail, where he argued that showing your boxers has a very particular meaning. "You’re letting another man know that you’re available," Dooney said.

Homophobia is a major problem in the black community, one that’s largely ignored. It presents a real dilemma for the PC crowd, and for Democrats, as African-Americans and gays are among the party’s most loyal constituencies.

Item Two: A black preacher campaigning for Barack Obama believes gays can be converted.

This has caused quite an uproar among liberal bloggers, and it’s certainly an issue worth addressing. But why now, and why Obama?

Item Three: The Human Rights Campaign (which conveniently shares an acronym with its in-house candidate for president) issues ultimatum to Obama: Cancel the event with gospel singer/minister Donnie McClurkin, or else we’ll get really, really mad.

There’s not much the HRC should, or could, do. However, they’ve put Obama in an uncomfortable situation, which is fine, but why were they silent when Hillbot touted an endorsement by a homophobic preacher? (Note that Obama didn’t attend the event where McClurkin appeared.)   

"In this game, all candidates have been associated with homophobes. For instance, Hillary Clinton recently trumpeted her friendship with Harold Mayberry, of the First African Methodist Church in Oakland; her press release on the meeting/endorsement left out the fact that Mayberry believes homosexuality to be comparable to thievery."

Rest assured, the HRC is deep in HRC’s pocket. Any credibility they might’ve had is sullied; besides, no organization should claim to speak for an entire group, particularly one as feckless and conflicted as the Human Rights Campaign.   

Regardless, the gay community should ask — or, in indignation-speak, demand — why the HRC supports a candidate intimately aligned with the administration responsible for "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" and The Defense of Marriage Act. Obama’s record on gay rights is more progressive and consistent, though he shouldn’t take the HRC’s snub personally — the fix was in long before he entered the race.

If you’re fine with powerful lobbyists telling you how to vote, then by all means, choose Hillbot. Just don’t be so brainwashed to think you’re voting for change.       

Don’t ask me no questions and I won’t tell you no lies

I might border on the hysterical in opposing Hillbot, but my reasons are sound. Her perceived inevitably is particularly bothersome, as is the assumption that she’s the most experienced candidate (sorry Joe Biden, but a one-term senator who rode her husband’s cum-stained coattails to office is clearly more qualified than you). And her convenient feminism makes my skin crawl. Treat me as an equal, but if you ask me tough questions I’ll play the victim card.

But I’m most bothered by her scripted, Goebbels-esque campaign (note to new readers: I’m just as tough on The Anchorman, aka Mitt Romney). I’m aware candidates try to choreograph as much as possible, but Hillbot takes it to absurd lengths. Her administration would be like a FEMA news conference, fake and unresponsive to any reasonable challenge. Observe:

She leaned forward as her waitress Anita Esterday explained that she was a single mother and nurse who did two jobs to raise her sons and could not afford medical insurance. Mrs Clinton nodded sympathetically and told her: “I’m proud of you.”

The scene was picture perfect and the theme just right. An impromptu stop at a roadside eatery crammed full of everyday folks would help dispel the oft-levelled charge that the former First Lady is a professional politician who does not relate easily to ordinary people. Miss Esterday’s plight was just what Mrs Clinton was highlighting on her “Middle Class Express” bus as it sped from town to town past fields of corn and soybeans. Such a spontaneous interaction was the stuff of campaigning among Iowa caucus-goers, who are proud of their brand of face-to-face retail politics.

Except that virtually every detail of the casual visit had been carefully orchestrated. A team of burly Secret Service men, clad in suits and shades, had driven ahead to carry out a recce. All but two of the customers were Clinton loyalists, including union leaders flown in from New York and Washington, who had been at her previous rally and were travelling on her bus.

Mrs Clinton chatted with the supporters, some of whom grinned a little sheepishly at the blatant staging, as the photographers snapped away. Reporters, kept on a separate bus throughout the day, seemed so stunned to be suddenly beside her that the only questions asked were about what she had ordered.

Haven’t you had enough of this?

The party of Reagan?

I wonder how Bush and Cheney square this (emphasis added):

“The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiations of the Convention [Against Torture]. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.”

–Ronald Reagan, 1988

Seems to me “other inhuman treatment or punishment” = coercive interrogation techniques. If you favor such aggressive methods, at least be willing to damn the euphemism.

(via The Daily Dish)

Don’t ask me no questions and I won’t tell you no lies

I might border on the hysterical in opposing Hillbot, but my reasons are sound. Her perceived inevitably is particularly bothersome, as is the assumption that she’s the most experienced candidate (sorry Joe Biden, but a one-term senator who rode her husband’s cum-stained coattails to office is clearly more qualified than you). And her convenient feminism makes my skin crawl. Treat me as an equal, but if you ask me tough questions I’ll play the victim card.

But I’m most bothered by her scripted, Goebbels-esque campaign (note to new readers: I’m just as tough on The Anchorman, aka Mitt Romney). I’m aware candidates try to choreograph as much as possible, but Hillbot takes it to absurd lengths. Her administration would be like a FEMA news conference, fake and unresponsive to any reasonable challenge. Observe:

She leaned forward as her waitress Anita Esterday explained that she was a single mother and nurse who did two jobs to raise her sons and could not afford medical insurance. Mrs Clinton nodded sympathetically and told her: "I’m proud of you."

The scene was picture perfect and the theme just right. An impromptu stop at a roadside eatery crammed full of everyday folks would help dispel the oft-levelled charge that the former First Lady is a professional politician who does not relate easily to ordinary people. Miss Esterday’s plight was just what Mrs Clinton was highlighting on her "Middle Class Express" bus as it sped from town to town past fields of corn and soybeans. Such a spontaneous interaction was the stuff of campaigning among Iowa caucus-goers, who are proud of their brand of face-to-face retail politics.

Except that virtually every detail of the casual visit had been carefully orchestrated. A team of burly Secret Service men, clad in suits and shades, had driven ahead to carry out a recce. All but two of the customers were Clinton loyalists, including union leaders flown in from New York and Washington, who had been at her previous rally and were travelling on her bus.

Mrs Clinton chatted with the supporters, some of whom grinned a little sheepishly at the blatant staging, as the photographers snapped away. Reporters, kept on a separate bus throughout the day, seemed so stunned to be suddenly beside her that the only questions asked were about what she had ordered.

Haven’t you had enough of this?

The party of Reagan?

I wonder how Bush and Cheney square this (emphasis added):

"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiations of the Convention [Against Torture]. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today."

–Ronald Reagan, 1988

Seems to me "other inhuman treatment or punishment" = coercive interrogation techniques. If you favor such aggressive methods, at least be willing to damn the euphemism.

(via The Daily Dish)