Obama Best for Canada?

[bush_cheney2004]

The G&M's Lawrence Martin opines that US presidential candidate would be best for Canada by dispelling a culture of fear in the US, loosening up borders.

"Obama is the guy who goes after this whole culture of fear and says 'that has to end,'" Martin told Question Period on Sunday. "If he can instill that mentality, that culture of confidence to America, they wouldn't be so paranoid about their borders. They could open up their relationship with Canada again."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Does this guy live in the same place that hung Muher Arar out to dry, tazed a Polish immigrant to death, and wants to beef up defense of the Arctic?

[Carinthia]

Does this guy live in the same place that hung Muher Arar out to dry, tazed a Polish immigrant to death, and wants to beef up defense of the Arctic?

Obama could have a positive effect on both of our nations and possibly the world. Tighten your seat belt, BC.

[bush_cheney2004]

Obama could have a positive effect on both of our nations and possibly the world. Tighten your seat belt, BC.

So could Barry Manilow, but it doesn't mean he should be president. The Americans will vote for candidates and select a president, but it will have nothing to do with satisfying Canada's irritation over border security. In fact, any weakness demonstrated on border security is a political liability for candidates in both parties. Illegals from Canada and Mexico are a hot button.

[Rue]

I think its fair to say that Canadians identify with Democracts more then they do Republican politicians. From a practical point of view Gerarld Ford was the most helpful to us and he was a Republican. Ge hot us in the G-8.

While I think Obama would be more appealing to Canadians then any of the others, he is by no means going to be any different then anyone else, i.e., if the congress wants to give in to protectionism, he ain't gonna stop that, no US President will.

I personally believe Obama becoming the Prez would by default cause huge changes in all foreign relations and it would indirectly be good for Canada in the sense of anything at this point would be better then Bush's ignorance of the world with his foreign policy and more to the point if Obama is in it really puts pressue on Stephen Harper to steer towards the middle on certain policies.

[Michael Hardner]

Given his background, it's pretty stunning that he referred to a 'president' of Canada.

Obama may try to implement trade barriers, too.

[Carinthia]

Given his background, it's pretty stunning that he referred to a 'president' of Canada.

Obama may try to implement trade barriers, too.

If that's the only mistake he's made so far, no biggie. We Canadians are a forgiving lot.

[bush_cheney2004]

...While I think Obama would be more appealing to Canadians then any of the others, he is by no means going to be any different then anyone else, i.e., if the congress wants to give in to protectionism, he ain't gonna stop that, no US President will....

Obama may be appealing at one level, but his party's protectionism and relationship with organized labor may be quite another. Another member pointed out that Canada's economy has done quite well during President Bush's tenure, if that be any measure of appeal.

[bush_cheney2004]

Given his background, it's pretty stunning that he referred to a 'president' of Canada.

Obama may try to implement trade barriers, too.

Agreed....Senator Obama is as clueless about Canada as any typical American. For his campaign, Canada is largely irrelevant.

[BubberMiley]

Agreed....Senator Obama is as clueless about Canada as any typical American. For his campaign, Canada is largely irrelevant.

I don't think the question is which president would act with consideration for Canada's interests. If it were, the answer would be none, as a president is supposed to look out for U.S. interests exclusively. The question as I understand it is whose policies would (inadverently) benefit Canada the most. The answer to that is impossible to tell this early in the process as we haven't any detailed knowledge of their specific policies. But a closed border, which some Republicans favour, would clearly be detrimental to trade--hurting both Canada and the U.S. Democrats, however, have tended to often be more protectionist than Republicans, so it's kind of a toss-up. We really won't know if the next president's policies are beneficial to Canada until he/she's in office. But I totally agree that it's kind of an irrelevant question in the context of the election. No one's going to vote according to what Canada would like.

As for Canada favouring a democrat, that's more an individual preference and can't really be defined nation-wide. There are lots of extreme right-wingers in Canada, including many on this forum.

[bush_cheney2004]

...We really won't know if the next president's policies are beneficial to Canada until he/she's in office. But I totally agree that it's kind of an irrelevant question in the context of the election. No one's going to vote according to what Canada would like...

John Kerry learned this the hard way...any hint that his policies were favored by international interests over America cost him votes. Even multilateral Canada doesn't pander to such interests come election time, going out of its way to specifically not be seen as "poodles" for America...famously done by the Grits.

[Rue]

Given his background, it's pretty stunning that he referred to a 'president' of Canada.

Obama may try to implement trade barriers, too.

The first point reminds us how self-centered American politicians can be. The second point of course flows from the first phenomena and yes his past record (as brief as it is federally) has been leaning to the anti NAFTA side but who is kidding who any President, repub or dem is gonna put US trade interests first and challenge us on Northern soveriegnty and going to want to continue accessing our natural gas, oil and water and resources with the lowest prices possible. Such is life and allowing 80-90% of your economy to be dependent on US markets. Unless we diversify our trade any US President and US business interests will dominate trading given our dependence.

Now let us talk trash. The real prize dummy of them all has to be in my opinion that goof Mitt Romney. The guy comes right out of the Lawrence Welk show. Talk about a creepy hair sprayed pervert.

My favourite is that Law and Order former Tennessee Senator. Its like now and then during the debate Saturday he would wake up as sp,epme increased his medication and would say something right out of a Law and Order script he must have stolen, then he would go back to sleep. Got to love a man on the circuit who can hide his urine bag and and i.v. drip like that.

Mayor Guiliani looks like a rat. Its like watching movuie director Martin Scorsese in politics. I was expecting him to nibble on some cheese during the debate.

Look from a purely cosmetic point of view they are all butt ugly except Mitt Romney who looks like Bob Eubank from the Newly Wed Show and probably is all wax. I mean Hilary has a smile that is so pained and fake it would make a great add for Preperation H.I mean John Edwards has good hair but he sounds like Jimmy Carter which is a kiss of death. Obama with due respect looks like a cross between Curious George and the Joker from Batman. My favourite is Gov. Richardson. He looks like someone from the Sopranos.

John McCain looks like the football coach of a doomed team like the Miami Dolphins.

Ron Paul looks like the kind of guy that saves body parts in his fridge for dinner. He has that deranged cannibal serial killer look as far as I can tell. Someone should check his back yard.

Edited January 7, 2008 by Rue

[Moonlight Graham]

Whichever democratic candidate will install the purest universal healthcare sysetm in the U.S. (with pure, i mean less private insurance, less 2-tier care) will be best for Canada. Canada's healthcare is in a crisis because many doctors have left to work in the U.S. because they will simply make more money down there. A universal system in the U.S. will cap salaries for doctors more, thus letting us keep our best & brightest & improve Canada's healthcare.

Right now i'm not sure which major Democratic candidate (or Ron Paul?) will try to put forth the most non-private universal system, basically because they all lie through their teeth (like most politicians). Not so charged on Hillary with this issue, very skeptical she can get rid of these private insurance companies. I don't know how the U.S. can institute true universal healthcare when there are so many big insurance companies which will have to fold, which seems unlikely. Plus some of the candidates have insurance companies funding their campaigns so connect the dots.

[bush_cheney2004]

Whichever democratic candidate will install the purest universal healthcare sysetm in the U.S. (with pure, i mean less private insurance, less 2-tier care) will be best for Canada. Canada's healthcare is in a crisis because many doctors have left to work in the U.S. because they will simply make more money down there. A universal system in the U.S. will cap salaries for doctors more, thus letting us keep our best & brightest & improve Canada's healthcare.

No candidate for president can install any such thing. Doctors, already heavy in debt, should not face salary caps....that's for commies. America already has a single payer system that dwarf's anything in Canada (Medicare - act of Congress)

Right now i'm not sure which major Democratic candidate (or Ron Paul?) will try to put forth the most non-private universal system, basically because they all lie through their teeth (like most politicians). Not so charged on Hillary with this issue, very skeptical she can get rid of these private insurance companies. I don't know how the U.S. can institute true universal healthcare when there are so many big insurance companies which will have to fold, which seems unlikely. Plus some of the candidates have insurance companies funding their campaigns so connect the dots.

You're right...it ain't going to happen.

[Carinthia]

The first point reminds us how self-centered American politicians can be. The second point of course flows from the first phenomena and yes his past record (as brief as it is federally) has been leaning to the anti NAFTA side but who is kidding who any President, repub or dem is gonna put US trade interests first and challenge us on Northern soveriegnty and going to want to continue accessing our natural gas, oil and water and resources with the lowest prices possible. Such is life and allowing 80-90% of your economy to be dependent on US markets. Unless we diversify our trade any US President and US business interests will dominate trading given our dependence.

Now let us talk trash. The real prize dummy of them all has to be in my opinion that goof Mitt Romney. The guy comes right out of the Lawrence Welk show. Talk about a creepy hair sprayed pervert.

My favourite is that Law and Order former Tennessee Senator. Its like now and then during the debate Saturday he would wake up as sp,epme increased his medication and would say something right out of a Law and Order script he must have stolen, then he would go back to sleep. Got to love a man on the circuit who can hide his urine bag and and i.v. drip like that.

Mayor Guiliani looks like a rat. Its like watching movuie director Martin Scorsese in politics. I was expecting him to nibble on some cheese during the debate.

Look from a purely cosmetic point of view they are all butt ugly except Mitt Romney who looks like Bob Eubank from the Newly Wed Show and probably is all wax. I mean Hilary has a smile that is so pained and fake it would make a great add for Preperation H.I mean John Edwards has good hair but he sounds like Jimmy Carter which is a kiss of death. Obama with due respect looks like a cross between Curious George and the Joker from Batman. My favourite is Gov. Richardson. He looks like someone from the Sopranos.

John McCain looks like the football coach of a doomed team like the Miami Dolphins.

Ron Paul looks like the kind of guy that saves body parts in his fridge for dinner. He has that deranged cannibal serial killer look as far as I can tell. Someone should check his back yard.

Thanks for the best laugh I've had all week.

[james rahn]

salary caps....that's for commies. America already has a single payer system that dwarf's anything in Canada (Medicare - act of Congress)

Dollar for dollar the US Heathcare system is the most inefficient in the developed world. Sounds like the the US is putting up with substandard healthcare bacause of it's paranoia of communists.

Great Act of Congress there - and it certainly doesn't dwarf Canada's accomplishments.

Edited January 26, 2008 by james rahn

[bush_cheney2004]

Dollar for dollar the US Heathcare system is the most inefficient in the developed world. Sounds like the the US is putting up with substandard healthcare bacause of it's paranoia of communists.

Actually, Americans pay more because they get more (excess capacity for everything from coronary bypasses to boob jobs). That's why we see provinces sending patients to the States on a regular basis, and Canadians with means come on their own, eschewing patriotic mapleleaf cobwebs earned for waiting on line.

Great Act of Congress there - and it certainly doesn't dwarf Canada's accomplishments.

Canada's system is one of the smallest in the world for pure single payer, and one of the most inefficient as well according to OECD numbers. France is much better.

[Topaz]

Actually, Americans pay more because they get more (excess capacity for everything from coronary bypasses to boob jobs). That's why we see provinces sending patients to the States on a regular basis, and Canadians with means come on their own, eschewing patriotic mapleleaf cobwebs earned for waiting on line.

Canada's system is one of the smallest in the world for pure single payer, and one of the most inefficient as well according to OECD numbers. France is much better.

BC, US pays more because the HMO's demand more and your doctor doesn't alway have to right to pick the right treatment for his patient its up to the HMO and IF they want to pay for it! In Ontario, it was Conservative Mike Harris that did the healthcare in, and its taking the Liberal government to put it back together.

[Ergonomic]

There is no way to tell at this point. It could be any of them and it is more contingent on the political process inside the Beltway than anything.

We are driving our own bus.

[bush_cheney2004]

BC, US pays more because the HMO's demand more and your doctor doesn't alway have to right to pick the right treatment for his patient its up to the HMO and IF they want to pay for it! In Ontario, it was Conservative Mike Harris that did the healthcare in, and its taking the Liberal government to put it back together.

Whatever you say....I just know that a lot more Canadians come south for care on their own dime or because the provinces lack procedure capacity (e.g. wait time). I don't mind paying more to get more.

The "Liberal government" slashed your federal funding to provinces to balance the budget.

Edited February 2, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[BubberMiley]

If you're getting more, why are your infant mortality and life expectancy rates among the lowest in the western world? A dude can't even expect to crack 80 years down there!

[bush_cheney2004]

If you're getting more, why are your infant mortality and life expectancy rates among the lowest in the western world? A dude can't even expect to crack 80 years down there!

I'm getting a lot more services along the way while you wait in line, needing at least age 80 to get anything done. Those Canadians with the cash say "screw this" and go south or abroad. Think consumerism...not communism.

Canada has lower life expectancy rates than:

Andorra (in France): 83.51

Macau (near China): 82.19

San Marino (in Italy): 81.71

Singapore: 81.81

Hong Kong: 81.59

Japan: 81.25

Sweden: 80.51

Switzerland: 80.51

Australia: 80.50

My god man...what's wrong with your health care system?

Edited February 2, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

From a Canadian perspective, the key question of a US president is whether they would make our dealings with Americans easy or difficult. (In this regard and IMV, Bush Jnr has been a disaster. He has made it more difficult to cross the border and obstructed trade between Canadians and Americans. Since many English Canadian nationalists want us to diversify our trade elsewhere and want to diminish contacts with the US, I'm surprised that they don't see Bush Jnr in a good light.)

Well, English Canadian nationalists have good reason to support Obama. He's like Bush Jnr.

Q: Would you scrap NAFTA or fix it?

A: I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada to try to amend NAFTA because I think that we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now. And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street, it should also be good for Main Street.

Link

IOW, Obama is willing to obstruct trade between Americans and Canadians.

Here's John McCain:

Q: Do you support the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you support the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you support continued U.S. membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO)?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you support the trade embargo against Cuba?

A: Yes.

Q: Should trade agreements include provisions to address environmental concerns and to protect workers' rights?

A: No.

Link

More important, in my view, is that John McCain went to Iowa and said that he opposed subsidizing corn to produce ethanol. IMHO, any politician with that kind of courage deserves respect.

McCain:

Yes, many American families will suffer from the inevitable dislocations caused by the imperatives of a global economy. But the answer to their suffering cannot be the adoption of policies that will sustain one industry by tariff or subsidy. Embracing protectionism here to retaliate for it elsewhere is akin to a murder-suicide pact, and we should resist the temptation whether the product in question is bananas or sugar or steel.

In addition, McCain seems serious about protecting North America's environment and despite arbitrary borders, we all share the continent. That's in our interest too.

[BubberMiley]

My god man...what's wrong with your health care system?

It certainly isn't perfect, but infant mortality and life expectancy are the best indicators of results. Despite paying way more money than anyone else in the western world, the U.S. isn't producing competitive numbers.

[bush_cheney2004]

It certainly isn't perfect, but infant mortality and life expectancy are the best indicators of results. Despite paying way more money than anyone else in the western world, the U.S. isn't producing competitive numbers.

The US for-profit health care system has no intention of producing "competitive numbers". The products and services offered, in great quantity for those who can pay, are distant concerns from those who wait in line for an MRI, proud to know that Canada has "better numbers". Living until 80 with three years spent waiting for a hip replacement sucks.

Why do so many Canadians, often with provincial pay, come south for care?

Edited February 2, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Moxie]

Whatever you say....I just know that a lot more Canadians come south for care on their own dime or because the provinces lack procedure capacity (e.g. wait time). I don't mind paying more to get more.

The "Liberal government" slashed your federal funding to provinces to balance the budget.

LOL the Cons are still sending the truely sick to the US to get treated, dah I wonder why. Your system is so much better than the current Socialist one we have in Canada. The irony is Cuba has got on the Health Care BandWagon and offers cheap treatment in posh hotels. Yea Canada's health care system is better than the US. If you never get SICK.