Skip to comments.Who’s better for Canada? It’s Romney, hands-down
Posted on 11/06/2012 9:07:25 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
We love Barack Obama, dont we? Canadians, I mean. Yes, we surely do. Its because, as the U.S. president himself once said at one of those comedy roasts he handles so perfectly, hes just too awesome.
From a Canadian point of view, Obama is simply too fantastic not to adore. Hes charming. Hes smart. Hes funny. He has the cachet of being Americas first black president. Hes an internationalist. He would never thumb his nose at the French, or eat a freedom fry, or use bad grammar, or go to war without UN approval. Indeed Obama is as different from his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as it is possible for a human being to be. Consistently, polls show Obama winning about 80 per cent of the popular vote in Canada, if we could vote in this U.S. election, which judging by the recent radio chatter most of us wish we could.
Now, heres the truly intriguing thing about the phenomenon: A dispassionate look at the rival platforms clearly shows that an Obama win will be worse for Canada significantly worse than a Romney win. Its not even an argument. Its a slam-dunk.
For evidence I turn first to my Postmedia colleague, Lee Berthiaume, who published an excellent piece over the weekend highlighting the differences between the two contenders, from a Canadian policy perspective. You should read Lees piece. I wont go through the whole thing, other than to note a few its most salient facts.
To start, if Obama wins, U.S. military spending drops substantially as the 2nd term Democratic president assuming he keeps his promises, that is beats swords into ploughshares. Good idea? Absolutely. But any decline in U.S. defence spending from its current level of four per cent of GDP (Canada spends just over one per cent) will put pressure on our government to spend more or stop pretending we can participate in international efforts such as the Libyan campaign, Haitian earthquake relief, and the like.
Health care: Again, citing Lees article, Obamacare is projected to create a massive doctor shortage south of the border to the tune of 63,000 by 2015. Hmm, lets see: Where will lavishly generous, for-profit U.S. health care firms go to find all those excellent doctors? Well, theyll come here, to Canada. So much for reduced wait times.
Of course theres energy: Romney loves the Keystone XL pipeline, intended to ease the passage of Alberta oil to the Gulf coast. Obama may approve it post-election despite his reservations, or he may not. And that has follow-on consequences. For one thing, a speedy go-ahead for Keystone would relieve some market pressure behind Enbridges plan to push its own Gateway pipeline across B.C. to the Pacific. Gateway has already caused tension between Alberta and B.C. and the chosen route has riled environmentalists, people who live along the route, as well as aboriginal groups.
Then theres the bridge in Windsor-Detroit, as former ambassador to the U.S. Derek Burney pointed out in a splendid rant on Rex Murphys Cross-Country Checkup. How is it that Canada fronts the entire $4-billion cost of this new span, deemed integral to furthering the worlds greatest bilateral trading relationship, and has been forced to negotiate with the state of Michigan, which may in fact scuttle it Tuesday in a plebiscite, Proposal 6, attached to the presidential ballot? As Burney points out: Where is the U.S. government in all this?
And theres Obamas oft-noted yen for protectionism: Buy America and the like. Congress being Congress, there will never be an end to U.S. protectionist twitches. But Burney and others point out that, in a Romney presidency, well likely see less of them. Burney also notes that Canada was a wallflower in initial negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (though we are joining now). How does that happen when your best friend and biggest trading partner is hosting the dance?
In fact, Obama has never not a single time, that I know of appeared to care a jot about Canadas economic interests, in any way. His interests, as one might expect, are his own, and his concerns domestic. Good on him but that doesnt mean the two sets of interests, his and ours, coincide. They often havent.
Finally, theres the single dominant issue of this campaign the economy. The United States, of course, buys 70 per cent of Canadas exports. If their economy fails, so does ours. With that in mind, check out this U.S. national public debt clock widget, here. Its now 16 trillion and rising, at a rate too dizzying to watch. Divided by the U.S. population, roughly 314 million, that yields a tab of just under $52,000 for every man, woman and child in America.
Now consider: Which candidate, based purely on their personal experience, seems to have a better grasp of bottom-line, dollars-and-cents issues? Community organizer and all-round nice guy Obama, or balance-sheet warrior Romney?
Its not a conclusion many Canadians will wish to draw. I dont particularly wish to myself, because I like Obama. But if you drill into the policy differences just a bit, the result is clear: Its a good thing Canadians cant vote in this election. If we could, wed be acting overwhelmingly against our own best interests.
yeah lets let other countries decide who our president is
The only people who ‘love’ Obama are lefty arsty urban pinkos in Canada. This article makes the mistake of speaking for us all. All the conservatives I know up here can’t stand Obama, including our Prime Minister.
He'll do assassinations while violating other nation's national sovereignty, though.
(Not saying it isn't necessary, sometimes, but just pointing out what a hypocritical JA he is.)
That’s why I left that sh*thole country called Kanuckistan. Whenever I tell Americans that the Kanadian govt controls your car insurance, liquor and health care, they don’t believe me.
Canada needs a 20 year Tea Party movement to clean out the bureaucrat scum.
Oh, so the UN **approved* of the Libyan intervention? Or, like our *OWN* legislature, were they not even consulted? Mr Canadian, I fear I have to call it like I see it, and you are certifiably froot-loops...
Well, y’all come on down, eh?! Illegal Canucks voting for Romney to offset illegal Mexicans voting for Obama.
Here’s a situation to think about: when my relatives send a letter from BC to L.A., it takes 4 days tops. When I send a letter to Kanukistan, it takes 2-3 weeks.
Americans in general, can’t seem to grasp the concept that canadians deep down, resent their richer, bigger neighbor. We were already brainwashed at grade school to despise Americans..
Hey, if they vote for him, they have to keep him!
It looks like my previous comment didn’t make it through. This article is tongue-in-cheek, folks. What don’t you get about this:
“A dispassionate look at the rival platforms clearly shows that an Obama win will be worse for Canada significantly worse than a Romney win. Its not even an argument. Its a slam-dunk.”
The author is making fun at the Obamanuts up here, and well he should.
And another thing, why shouldn’t Canadians be interested in your elections? The outcomes do have an impact on us and we can certainly hope for one outcome over another.
Too late now, in any case. Good luck America. It’s been nice knowing you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.