I don't usually get caught up in the bashing of various news sources. The Toronto Star gets its share of grief from folks with a variety of levels with incoherent thought - leaving the brighter stuttering when they see the error of their ways. But this column/article/piece, for me, is worth a bit of finger pointery:
He brings to Canada his message that Barack Obama's desire to unilaterally renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement damages relations between steadfast allies and he will highlight the benefits of the trilateral deal in his speech Friday at an Ottawa hotel. The Conservative government in Ottawa and the Canadian Embassy in Washington are seeking as much cover as possible from the McCain visit, but the optics hurt Prime Minister Stephen Harper and everyone around him. Having the man most Canadians would see as the embodiment of the third George W. Bush term extolling your policies is no favour for the Conservative government.Most Canadians?!? First, I would think most Canadians really have no opinion on McCain and his position on Canadian policy. Most Canadians think BBQ is a chicken wiener on a hibachi. We like to talk up how much we know about the US but most Canadians are fairly ignorant generally of our neighbour's governance and specifically who John McCain is. Second, Canadians will gush because US breakfast TV shows may be broadcasting from Canada. Nothing excites Canucks as much as being noticed by US media. Canada could be on fire from coast-to-coast but, as long as there were US camera crews up here, there would be a silver lining. Third, Canada has done very well under trade agreements - as long as we didn't have an artificially inflated dollar primed by speculators pumping up the cost of a barrel of oil to the benefit of the few.
So why do the optics hurt - why would Harper hide? - well, you know other than he seems to always hide as a first tactic. Sure his policies are a bit anti-trade, ensuring the short term gains for commodity vendors are undermining the solid economic gains made for twenty years in the 80 cent dollar world. Even if you aren't conservative don't you like your conservatives standing up for themselves proudly?
Or maybe it's because McCain was an activist for funding reform and bipartisan cooperation. Maybe it's because McCain is the sort of politician who Canadians want - engaging and fiscally conservative but a bit of a red Tory in some areas social and libertarian in others. Maybe it's because McCain knows how to smile. Maybe because side-by-side Harper does not look as good to Canadians as his putative US right-wing counterpart.
Comments
David Janes - June 17, 2008 8:05 am
Maybe the Toronto Star should just leave editorializing off the reporting pages?
Renee - June 17, 2008 9:28 am
Really??? I so don't agree. Most Canadians want Obama to win the White House... AND 24 Sussex. Also, here.
David Janes - June 17, 2008 9:37 am
That may be so, as trivial and shallow as that is, but the article isn't about Canadians wanting Sussex drive being occupied by the americans.
<blockquote>
The Conservative government in Ottawa and the Canadian Embassy in Washington <b>are seeking as much cover as possible from the McCain visit</b>, but <b>the optics hurt Prime Minister Stephen Harper and everyone around him</b>. Having the man <b>most Canadians would see as the embodiment of the third George W. Bush term</b> (break) <b>extolling your policies</b> is no favour for the Conservative government.
</blockquote>
<p>
Perhaps that's received knowledge in certain quarters.
sean liddle - June 17, 2008 9:51 am
Funny, most Canadians I know, most of whom are Liberals, seem to think that given the choice, they and I would prefer this McCain fellow over Obama. Heck we even like his terribly addictive pre-made fridge cakes with that heroin like icing..and his superfies are top notch, juice is a bit oversweet mind you.
A hero war vet that openly disagreed with Bush's Iraq fiasco is right wing yet reasonable (unlike Harper). Obama, well, pretty much all I know say that being a Liberalish Democrat gives him points (unlike Harper) and being black (unlike Harper) as well, but only because we like to see the more intolerant Americans still stuck in the 30's squirm. All in all, neither make him perfect presidential material, merely new and different. McCain, he's the red tory we'd like to see lead the Conservatives.
Chris Taylor - June 17, 2008 12:05 pm
"war rubber"
The consensus I (unfortunately) overhear at the office is that Obama is preferable. The rationale is:
1) Americans are a backward, inherently racist lot who can barely restrain themselves from shooting everything within visual range, and they will collectively lose their minds if a black man gets elected President.
2) John Who?
I don't know if I would prefer John McCain to Stephen Harper. McCain has already shot down a couple of sorely-needed defence programs in the past decade, leaving the USAF a rusted hulk. But then Harper has forgotten all about a couple important asset replacement buys that were mentioned in the election-era "Canada First" plan, so I guess that's a push.
McCain is a war hero, but then he traded in his former swimsuit model first wife after a car crash left her disfigured and unable to walk. Note that she did not trade <i>him</i> in after a few years of POW torture left him with broken teeth and severely limited arm movement.
I have to give the edge to Steve on a personal level.. policy wise they are equally bad, to me.
sean liddle - June 17, 2008 12:32 pm
Chris' first point made me giggle. The idea of the US in turmoil over something that would not make much of a ripple here (excepting Alberta) is appealing.
McCain is an action hero too :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxGV-eRUC_0
Ben (The Tiger) - June 17, 2008 9:58 pm
I say that when you've got a missile destroyer with your name on it (named after your dad and granddad), you're a badass:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPs3TwrRY2g