Right; dog whistles are counterproductive when EVERYONE hears them, because they only rile the already sensitive base at the expense of repelling everyone else. I seem to recall making that observation about an earlier GOP comment, but that may not have been Romney, because I think it was during the primaries. Of course, Obama may be undoing Romneys damage for him with conflicting statements on whether Egypt is friend, foe or "other."

This was hardly unexpected once the Muslim Brotherhood gained control in Egypt, hence I found Toms insinuated agreement with Romneys so disingenuous after his January thread demanding to know why "the Left supports dictators." Like I said, back then he condemned Obama for NOT doing what he now condemns him FOR doing. The clear message is that Obama is ALWAYS wrong, and we will only get around to the facts when deciding HOW he is wrong.


As referenced above, it sounds like Harper is just borrowing a tactic from his southern allies, for whom "moral relativism" has long been a favorite dog whistle employed to evoke religious fears of secular humanism and the erosion of "traditional family" (read: Christian, ideally Protestant) values. Not that moral relativism is not a real and pernicious thing, but academics defending cannibalism as a valid "cultural norm" is gravely different than politicians advocating homosexuality be criminalized because that was acceptable a century ago.


*sigh* Yeah, it sounds like ya'll have yourselves a Bush. You may or may not recall my citing the "PATRIOT ACT"s violation of 4/10 amendments in the Bill of Rights (some multiple times,) but that approach was similar. Republicans deride Pelosi saying we had to pass the healthcare law to find out what was in it (though context made clear she only meant the consequences, not contents, were unknowable before passage; the text was highly publicized and even available online,) but the "PATRIOT ACT" was passed in the dead of night without any Congressman having read it (even though bills are supposed to be read into the Congressional record before they can even be debated.) Its contents could not be revealed because that would endanger national security.

Under the unexamined laws terms, accused terrorists (American and otherwise) cannot be charged (5th and 6th Amendment,) publicy tried (5th and 6th Amendment) by a jury (6th Amendment,) have counsel (6th Amendment,) face witnesses against them (6th Amendment) or compel those witnesses to appear (6th Amendment.) Further, evidence (which the accused were forbidden to see) could be obtained by wiretap without warrants (4th Amendment) and even those acquitted by military tribunals (if they are granted one) need never be released (5th and 8th Amendment.)

Likewise, in the '70s we passed the FISA law in the wake of the scandalous discovery the FBI had been indiscriminately tapping everyones phone for decades, creating a special court without whose approval warrantless wiretaps were illegal. Yet the Bush administration incomprehensibly and brazenly claimed that law was actually created to CIRCUMVENT the court it established (???!).

All of that went to the Supreme Court, but the only thing they overruled was denying accused criminals counsel. Consequently, Gitmo prisoners must be allowed lawyers, but all conversations with lawyers are monitored. I really do not know what to tell you there, because I doubt even a different government can undo your horribly illegal precedents any more than it did ours. Obama campaigned against both indefinite uncharged Gitmo detention and warrantless wiretaps without the FISA courts approval—yet has continued both since the moment he was elected. The awful thing about bad precedents is they can never be reversed.


Better ya'll than the Saudis. Ya'll have yourselves a bona fide far right Republican; I would suggest he is a neo-con, but you have not said enough about his foreign policy positions for me to be sure (for that matter, many neo-cons could not care less about abortion or gay rights as long as they get to slash taxes and nuke Tehran.) Packing the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary with partisan shills on the grounds of ending "judicial activism" (i.e. enforcing parts of the Constitution conservatives do not like, even the amended sections they created in the first place) is right out of their playbook. Frankly, given Canadas proximity and close relations with the US I am surprised it took this long.

It will work for the same reason it has worked in the US since 1980: Divide et impera. Parsed finely enough, EVERYONE belongs to one minority or another. Once one realizes that it is easy to convince each of them empowering the others diminishes them. Black men earn less because of women; women earn less because of gays; gays earn less becasue of immigrants and, of course, poor white men earn less because of ALL of the others. Really, each learns less, has less rights, has less representation, has LESS, because of all the others. It may not have gotten quite to that point in Canada yet, I cannot say, but that is how it ends: With a wealthy white male elite firmly in charge of everything because the disenfranchised majority is too busy fighting each other for scraps to demand their share of the pie.

That is how Republicans convinced the richest nation in history it does not have room at the table for everyone; doing it in any less wealthy nation is childs play, particularly with a masterful wildly successful playbook ready to hand. The only way to stop is to insist civil rights are just that, and universal, then advocate for them as such. The moment it is reduced to "we must empower/end discrimination against x" everyone who is NOT x is instantly threatened, wonders what they will have to give up in taxes, earnings, rights and representation for the sake of someone else, and when they already feel overtaxed, underpaid and disenfranchised they will naturally resist that: They want theirs FIRST. So we get there together, or not at all, and that is true in any country.