McCain on Canada

[August1991]

Republican John McCain ramped up his criticism of his Democratic rivals' attacks on the North American Free Trade Agreement today -- arguing they are sending "the wrong message to the world" by pledging to renegotiate the treaty to protect American workers.

During a town hall meeting at the headquarters of Dell Computers in this suburb of Austin, McCain said criticism of NAFTA by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama could have "an adverse effect" on Canada's commitment to fighting alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

"We need our Canadian friends and we need their continued support in Afghanistan," McCain said during the meeting with Dell employees. "So what do we do? The two Democratic candidates for president say that they're going to unilaterally . . . abrogate the North America Free Trade Agreement. . . . Now how do you think the Canadian people are going to react to that?"

McCain said he wanted to assure Canada, Mexico and other trading partners around the world that he would negotiate and conclude free trade agreements. "I will not, after entering into solemn agreements, go and say that I will abrogate those agreements," he said.

He argued his position on the trade agreement is evidence of his judgment and experience. "This is an important issue, and I think it has a lot to do with what you know about national security, and how all of these issues are interconnected with one another," he said at Dell.

LA Times

He's entirely right and he's well advised. McCain's a professional, and Obama and Clinton look like amateurs.

[guyser]

LA Times

He's entirely right and he's well advised. McCain's a professional, and Obama and Clinton look like amateurs.

While he may be right, I strongly suspect that if Clinton or Obama got in they would not follow suit and amend the agreement.

It might play well to the electorate to gain a vote, but I just dont see it coming true. Perhaps dumbing down the message?

[Dog]

While he may be right, I strongly suspect that if Clinton or Obama got in they would not follow suit and amend the agreement.

It might play well to the electorate to gain a vote, but I just dont see it coming true. Perhaps dumbing down the message?

You mean Mr Hope and Change is really Mr Same Old Bull Shit ?

[Wilber]

While he may be right, I strongly suspect that if Clinton or Obama got in they would not follow suit and amend the agreement.

It might play well to the electorate to gain a vote, but I just dont see it coming true. Perhaps dumbing down the message?

So we take McCain at his word but not Clinton or Obama. Hmm.

[guyser]

So we take McCain at his word but not Clinton or Obama. Hmm.

You mean Mr Hope and Change is really Mr Same Old Bull Shit

No I think on the trail one can say or infer many things. Without getting into the specifics, the cost of amending NAFTA would be prohobitive to the US.

I dont think , should the Dems win, that the health care they talk about overhauling will get done either.

The Libs ran on ridding us of GST. The Tories didnt. What happened?

[August1991]

No I think on the trail one can say or infer many things. Without getting into the specifics, the cost of amending NAFTA would be prohobitive to the US.

I dont think , should the Dems win, that the health care they talk about overhauling will get done either.

The Libs ran on ridding us of GST. The Tories didnt. What happened?

Wlber's response to Bubbler still stands.

The implication is that Obama and Clinton are saying nonsense because it's a political campaign and they have to say these things. Everyone knows they won't really do what they're sayng.

And as Wilber rightly reflected out loud, "We can take McCain at his word but not Obama or Clinton." Hmmm, indeed.

----

I take several things from this.

First, McCain is running a professional campaign and he's well advised. He has said something intelligent both within the Canadian context and within the American political world. He was neither patronizing nor ignorant. His comment made sense to Canadians.

Second, in the US context, McCain scored a point. He understands international affairs and knows who are America's friends. American voters like to be liked and they want a president who is respected and liked.

Third, the whole saga of the Obama staffer's supposed call to the Canadian Consul in Chicago is humourous. God knows the truth. (I wonder if McCain and Harper have spoken on the phone. I'd be surprised if they haven't had a chat.)

However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

...

On Thursday, the Canadian embassy in Washington issued a complete denial.

"At no time has any member of a presidential campaign called the Canadian ambassador or any official at the embassy to discuss NAFTA," it said in a statement.

But on Wednesday, one of the primary sources of the story, a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy, gave CTV more details of the call. He even provided a timeline. He has since suggested it was perhaps a miscommunication.

The denial from the embassy was followed by a denial from Senator Obama.

"The Canadian government put out a statement saying that this was just not true, so I don't know who the sources were," said Obama.

Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government -- who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp -- have reconfirmed their position.

CTV

And then this:

NDP Leader Jack Layton said in question period Thursday that Canada should take advantage of any openings to renegotiate NAFTA.

"Why won't the prime minister take the lead here, exercise some sovereignty and bring about some change here that would be good for workers?" he asked.

What a joke! I figure Obama and Layton can share the anti-NAFTA vote.

Let's be honest. Obama is the NDP of the US.

Edited March 1, 2008 by August1991

[jbg]

While he may be right, I strongly suspect that if Clinton or Obama got in they would not follow suit and amend the agreement.

It might play well to the electorate to gain a vote, but I just dont see it coming true. Perhaps dumbing down the message?

Sort of like how Chretien "re-negotiated" NAFTA after the 1993 election?

[guyser]

Sort of like how Chretien "re-negotiated" NAFTA after the 1993 election?

Yes.

And like how every single politician amends/changes/ignores what they ran on.

As to previous posters , no I wouldnt take McCain on his word and not Obama/Clinton. I am just saying, as jbg has backed up, politicos say one thing, do another.

[Shady]

You mean Mr Hope and Change is really Mr Same Old Bull Shit ?

Great observation.

Also, I would absolutely take McCain's word over Obama and/or Clinton. They're both not qualified to be President. The Democrats qualified to be President either didn't run, or didn't win enough to stay in the primary race.

[Wilber]

Yes.

And like how every single politician amends/changes/ignores what they ran on.

As to previous posters , no I wouldnt take McCain on his word and not Obama/Clinton. I am just saying, as jbg has backed up, politicos say one thing, do another.

The difference being, McCain knows what NAFTA is, he knows where Canada is and he knows what Canada is doing. Not only that, he is willing to discuss it rationally during an election campaign. Most unusual.

[jbg]

The difference being, McCain knows what NAFTA is, he knows where Canada is and he knows what Canada is doing. Not only that, he is willing to discuss it rationally during an election campaign. Most unusual.

The Obama campaign in fact contacted the Canadian consulate in Chicago to assure them that his statements on NAFTA were primarily posturing.

[leonardcohen]

Does anybody here know who,

considering the shoe-in of McCain,

as the Republican candidate,

who would be his running mate?

Powell perhaps?

[Wilber]

The Obama campaign in fact contacted the Canadian consulate in Chicago to assure them that his statements on NAFTA were primarily posturing.

I believe he was asked point blank what he meant but it's nice to know he's full of it. Isn't it?

[Wilber]

Double post

Edited March 5, 2008 by Wilber

[jbg]

I believe he was asked point blank what he meant but it's nice to know he's full of it. Isn't it?

Here's an excerpt from the news story (link):

On Monday, a memorandum surfaced, obtained by The Associated Press, showing that Austan D. Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago who is Mr. Obama’s senior economic policy adviser, met officials last month at the Canadian consulate in Chicago.

According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama’s protectionist stand on the trail was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”

It also said the professor had assured the Canadians that Mr. Obama’s language “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.”

Campaign officials said the memorandum inaccurately described Professor Goolsbee’s comments, as well as Mr. Obama’s position.

[HisSelf]

We need them in Afghanistan? Damned right they do. To cover for their dumb-a$$ adventure in Mess-o-Potamia. Too bad McCain didn't hit on trade. That's where the jobs are. But then we have NAFTA for that, right?

[CanadianOak]

We need them in Afghanistan? Damned right they do. To cover for their dumb-a$$ adventure in Mess-o-Potamia. Too bad McCain didn't hit on trade. That's where the jobs are. But then we have NAFTA for that, right?

Haha very true.

All of a sudden McCain is professional? This is the same guy who was part of the Keating Five Scandal, the McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, against bush tax cuts etc. He has done what Obama just did many times now and worse... they are 100% proven.

To add to the misery, McCain will continue Bush's great conquest of finding 'Nukular' weapons everywhere else and having more wars. It doesn't sting the American seniors who are voting for McCain at all when there is a Draft in 2009 or 2010 when McCain will call for a surge in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and neighbouring states.

I like McCain being a soft-spoken guy but he's way too dangerous for Americans as he changes his opinions on things whenever he wishes. Be careful for what you wish for.

[bush_cheney2004]

To add to the misery, McCain will continue Bush's great conquest of finding 'Nukular' weapons everywhere else and having more wars. It doesn't sting the American seniors who are voting for McCain at all when there is a Draft in 2009 or 2010 when McCain will call for a surge in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and neighbouring states.

Khrist...I sure hope so! $500 to Senator McCain's campaign at once. But nothing will beat the Canuck bitching amd moaning when President Bush was re-elected in 2004.

[Wilber]

Here's an excerpt from the news story (link):

On Monday, a memorandum surfaced, obtained by The Associated Press, showing that Austan D. Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago who is Mr. Obama’s senior economic policy adviser, met officials last month at the Canadian consulate in Chicago.

According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama’s protectionist stand on the trail was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”

It also said the professor had assured the Canadians that Mr. Obama’s language “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.”

Campaign officials said the memorandum inaccurately described Professor Goolsbee’s comments, as well as Mr. Obama’s position.

And this is supposed to clarify his position? I'm not trying to be partisan here but I would really like to know what it is because right now, I don't have any idea. Same goes for Hillary.

[CanadianOak]

Khrist...I sure hope so! $500 to Senator McCain's campaign at once. But nothing will beat the Canuck bitching amd moaning when President Bush was re-elected in 2004.

What? I thought he stole the election in 2000 in Florida + having Nader to siphon the votes. Iraq war also helped him in the south where the people were completely sold by the LIE that Iraq=Al Queda, Iraq= Nukular weapons and still do.

The Repubs in US are nothing but necons who have a very liberal big-government agenda, something they are highly critical of. The same Ann Coulter, Limbaugh, Cunningham crowd who are now saying "I'll vote for Hillary instead of McCain" will change their mind come general something they are so used to. The fact that the evangelical crowd actually listen to these people for advice says the story of why American politics is messed up. They do not practice true Christian ideals.

[bush_cheney2004]

... The fact that the evangelical crowd actually listen to these people for advice says the story of why American politics is messed up. They do not practice true Christian ideals.

American politics is just fine...same as it ever was. Frankly, whatever Canadians feel about how we run this circus is irrelevant. "Christian ideals" don't mean squat except as the cover story.....see History of the United States of America.