Canada’s love affair with Barack Obama

We like him more than Americans do, with some small concerns

by Charlie Gillis on Friday, February 13, 2009 9:30am - 184 Comments

Canada’s love affair with Barack Obama

We love him, with an asterisk. The broad-band smile, the Lincolnesque bearing, the sense of the man as an avatar of multiculturalism—it all makes Barack Obama the perfect U.S. president in the eyes of Canadians. Heaven knows we’ve been waiting. When the motorcade rolls down Wellington Street next week, or pulls up to Rideau Hall, you can expect dewy-eyed kids to line barricades with paper flags, no matter how foul the Ottawa weather. Eighty-two per cent of us say we approve of Obama, the polls indicate, and the number requires a moment to digest. Never mind American politicians. Who’s the last American we can say that about?

When Angus Reid Strategies quizzed Canadians last week on behalf of Maclean’s, the lines practically glowed with excitement over a perceived new era in Canada-U.S. relations. More than half of respondents said they think Obama’s economic policies will be good for Canada—however bleak the outlook for the U.S. economy. Same went for his energy policy, while fully six out of 10 voiced support for his environmental program (remember that?), suggesting Stephen Harper got it right when he proposed a plan to coordinate the two countries’ climate change strategies.

The results spoke to the affinity Canadians have felt toward Obama since he burst onto the U.S. electoral scene, setting a fresh tone for a country a lot of us had given up trying to understand. After eight years of voicing diffidence, if not scorn toward the previous administration, 41 per cent of our respondents want greater ties with the U.S., compared to just nine per cent who think we should distance ourselves from our southern neighbours (44 per cent think we should maintain the same level). And it’s clear that Canadians are flattered by his decision to put us so near the top of his itinerary: 61 per cent of those polled say they plan to follow media coverage of the visit, which will last only half a day.

To describe this as a break with the recent past is near-sinful understatement. The last time Canadians were asked, we rated George W. Bush’s global leadership below that of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and we have consistently voiced hope to pollsters that better relations were around the corner. Even Americans aren’t as bullish as Canadians on Obama these days, giving him still-generous approval ratings between 64 and 73 per cent, depending on who’s doing the polling. In Washington, things have been downright tough: two of Obama’s key political appointees have been forced to withdraw due to tax irregularities, and his stimulus package has been subject to a wall of partisan opposition in Congress. He may be glad for five hours in a place where the honeymoon remains in full swing.

Still, we are Canadians, which means Obama will also get a taste of the old-time fatalism that runs just beneath our optimism. In recent weeks, talk of American protectionism—most notably the “buy American” requirement in the stimulus package—has stirred long-standing insecurities about Congress’s tendency to pull up the drawbridge when times get tough. Those fears were reflected in our poll results. When asked if Obama would be good for Canada on cross-border trade, or on the auto industry, the numbers dropped to 41 per cent, and 38 per cent, respectively. “Putting aside his popularity,” says Mario Canseco, Angus Reid’s vice-president of public affairs, “Democratic governments are always perceived as more protectionist.”

So the asterisk is important, more so for Canadian leaders than for Obama himself. Several old Washington hands told Maclean’s that the government is lucky for the chance to make its wishes known while the new President is still fresh in the job. “Those are the visits a leader tends to remember,” says Michael Kergin, Canada’s ambassador to Washington from 2000 until 2005. “After the first six months or a year it starts to become routine.” Given the Canadian inclination to blame our problems on our southern neighbours, Kergin adds, it is important to tackle the issues before the bloom is off the relationship: differences will almost certainly intervene, forcing both sides to put politics before friendship. Trade barriers, America’s thickening border, Arctic sovereignty, Obama’s promise to review NAFTA—these are just a few of the issues bound to test the countries’ mutual ties.

Walking that wire is a lot more difficult for prime ministers than it is for presidents. “Historically, there’s always been a price to be paid for being seen as too close to the United States,” notes Fen Hampson, director of the Norman Paterson School of International Relations at Carleton University. And while Bush’s departure reduces those risks, it also raises complications. Under Bush, a prime minister could score cheap political points by defying the White House, or boasting grandly when it extracted some small concession from the administration. That won’t work under a president Canadians happen to like, and with whom they want their government to co-operate. If you can’t strike deals with someone as constructive and diplomatic as Obama, voters might reasonably ask, what kind of negotiator are you?

The good news for Canadian leaders is that our expectations are surprisingly low. Fully 46 per cent of those polled expect the current U.S. government to be more protectionist than the last. Less than half think Washington’s stimulus package is likely to end the recession. In short, there’s nowhere to go but up. More importantly, we’ve made up our minds on what threatened to be the most divisive foreign policy question facing the country: when asked whether Canada should keep its troops in Afghanistan should Obama request it, 65 per cent said no while only 20 per cent said yes. “We paid at the office big time on Afghanistan, and this is starting to permeate the Canadian psyche,” says Kergin. “It’s not so much a question of being supportive to the Americans as whether the war should be waged. I’ll bet if you asked them, Canadians would tell you Obama shouldn’t be waging it, either.”

Bookmark and Share
  • Dieter Sprockets

    Obama is bad news for smug anti-American Canadians. Even McQuack and Hork Siddi are having problems writing vile.

  • Geoff

    Obama slyly plays the ” race card” with Blacks, while telling gullible Whites that he is “beyond race”.

    • Andrea

      You are incredibly stupid if you actually believe that!

      • sf

        You are incredibly stupid for not believing that, it was as plain as day, he threw his own grandmother under the bus to play the race card.

        • Ti-Guy

          No, you’re stupid.

          The End.

          • http://macleans.ca kc

            Stupidity has no end!

          • Ti-Guy

            Stupidity is simply the absence of intelligence; much like cold is the absence of heat. So speaking about a beginning or an end of stupidity is meaningless, since it represents nothing at all.

            Oh my God, I’m so deep! ;)

            The best we can hope for is for some people to stop talking about things for which they are completely ignorant, but that’s never going to happen.

        • Geoff

          If Obama is truly “beyond race”, why is is that he promotes himself as “one of you” when he addresses Blacks and is hailed by African-Americans as America’s savour simply because he’s Black (actually, only half-so, but his White half is consistently ignored….I wonder how his mother feels about that?), but he tells Whites that he is a ‘post-racial” President who represents all Americans equally? Based on the gullibilty of many Whites on this forum, this shell game seems to succeed abroad too.

          • J@ck M!tchell

            Out of curiosity, are you guys from David Duke’s site, or what?

  • anontanan

    Happy Valentine’s Day :)
    http://tl-school.com

  • http://Joe joe palaschuk

    I can’t believe what I’m reading. It’s like a bunch of neocons without any education. And blind and deaf as well. Obama is the best thing to come along in 50 years not only for Americans but for the whole world as well. He provides hope and willingness for people to work together( remember the 3/4 B $ he raised) except the diheart Republicans who have lost respectability form the voters. They have put their heads in the sand and hope that somehow they can gain some respect after supprting GB for 8 years even while holding their noses. I hope we had an Obama so that we could dump steve harper. Our only hope on the horizon is young Trudeau.

    • Mary

      Mr. Palaschuk, how do you square “willingness to work together” with ramming a 1073 page bill — the biggest economic change for the U.S. since the ’30s — down the GOPs throats with no time to read it? You, like so many others, have fallen for style over substance.

  • RHL

    Has anyone taken the time to read Obama’s two books from cover to cover?
    Perhaps a more intelligent assessment of the man could be made if you took the time to understand his character and where his beliefs and convictions have come from.

    • Kap

      How many people do you know write their memoirs, before they have memories.

  • Frank

    Obama will go down as the most hated President in Canadian history.Watch and see.

  • http://www.wecanadians.com Niraj Chandra

    I like Obama simply because he is a good human being. He is willing to admit his mistakes and learn from them He can -and does- say sorry on the National media which his predessor never did.

    He wants to do all the right things – preserve the environment, create green jobs, boost the economy and reduce tensions throughout the world. He is smart, articulate and persuasive. What more do we want from a world leader?

  • Pingback: Wow, Just… Wow « Red Tory v.3.0

  • karlpk56

    It’s hard to believe people can be as beef-witted as those I’ve read on this board. A man who graduated at the top of his class at Harvard not qualified? And somehow senor bunnypants and his “gentleman’s C” at the same institution are okay for governing the most powerful nation in the free world?
    A guy who let 9/11 happen on his watch. Whose war with Iraq was built on lies has left 4 and 1/2 million Iraqis refugees more than one million dead. 4,200 US kids dead. 30,000+ maimed and injured 40,000+ with PTSD – he was the guy you wanted governing next door? Created more terrorists than he tortured and he tortured plenty. Inherited a surplus left with massive debt and collapse of wall st. and him and his repugnant colleagues are who you would follow?
    Good luck with your hates and resentments. I recommend valium.

  • SoCalGuy

    I don’t know what planet Ann worked in as a journalist but the planet I’m on is virtually infested with liberal commentators. Oh get a grip, I mean “infested” in the nicest way. Since my earlier, gentle assessment of the participants on this blog, I anticipated more wonderful musings from the elite and wise of both countries, all certain that each of the other stripe is wacko Jacko. Thanks for not disappointing, especially those whose comments are surely not understood even by modern-day acid-heads… “He taught me to boogie”, “canola oil”… say what? And I am sorry – listen I am a dim bulb by any measure – but I just don’t get some of these ultra sophisticated analyses that have been surely written by academic elites and other class conscious brilliantines who look down their noses at us simpletons.
    But even us whose brain cells number in the mere hundreds, and those who have found religion in their fervor to annoint B.H.O. as the new Christ, can agree on a few humble points.
    1) The media and entertainment industry have fallen all over themselves these past two years to promote the election of a bi-racial (he ain’t black, folks) candidate with bare bones accomplishments, while giving an unmitigated PASS on scrutinizing any of the multitude of skeletons in the man’s closet. I’m sorry, but a man’s church affiliations with a pastor whose creed is “God Damn America”, whose wife was ashamed to be an American until convenient, and whose real estate dealings leave much to be investigated, is a man I’d think the media (yes, Ann, liberal, conservative or cartoon) would wish to further explore.
    2) Canada’s relationship with the U.S. is, at once, ideologically opposed (free market/socialism, security/unfettered immigration, individual responsibility/collective blame, etc.), yet intrinsically interdependent (more critical to Canda than the U.S.) in matters of commerce and continental security. Put another way, by virtue of population disparity, Canada is to the U.S. as California is to the U.S. Washington could care basically a rat’s a$$ about California, and the U.S. relies on Canada to about the same degree.
    3) Socialism, and the redistribution of wealth, as economic policy, historically has always failed. [But of course, now the lefties will call me "uncaring". Not true, I am all for looking after those who cannot look after themselves... AND (look it up; at least here in the U.S.) more Republicans donate to charity than Democrats AND - on a per capita basis - donate more in terms of percentage of income than Democrats! Take THAT myth #9428!] The point is, that Americans and – by obvious extension – Canadians, are rolling the dice on the most tenuous of economic platforms. We shall see what we shall see, because I am not a prophet, but history says that massive redistribution of capital does nothing except further consolidate power into the hands of the corrupt (that’s what we need more of, YES!) and further widen the gulf between have and have nots. It’s called the welfare state, of which Canada is becoming a world leader.

    And so if that is why Canadians are going ga ga over B.O., great. Time will tell. But I am not going to get down on my knees and – oh, never mind, someone already got one of my earlier posts torched for that – worship the new messiah until he has demonstrated something akin to “accomplishment”; and a short stint as a “community organizer”, a groomed senator (who jigged the ballot), and being a really sexy almost black dude ain’t the qualifications that do it for me.
    PS.
    I did not like Bush, but his record is not nearly as Satanic as the MEDIA has CREATED. History will be kinder to him than the likes of the Michael Moore’s, the Haroon Siddiqui’s, the CBC’s, the CNN’s and the Barbara Streisand’s of the world have been.

    • MDLM

      I agree with many of your comments especially regarding the media. What the media says about Obama and what he actually does are two completely different things. That said, just because the media has deified him, does not automatically make him a great or a poor president. Anyone would have one heck of a time living up to the hype, but I say “Give him a chance.” He is in power. We don’t actually have a choice about that.

      And, speaking as a Canadian, he really isn’t supposed to be looking out for our interests. We can hope we don’t get too damaged by his policies, but we are not his priority.

    • cwe

      *Barbara (sic) Streisand*? Wowee, a guy can get some pretty serious thinking done during all those shifts at the bottle depot.

      • J@ck M!tchell

        LOL

    • CR

      SoCalGuy: I agree with your assessment that need to reserve our judgements about Obama until he has demonstrated something akin to “accomplishment.” And while he has been a community organizer, he was also president of the Harvard Law Review, a practicing civil rights attorney in Chicago, and a teacher of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. (On the other hand, I also recognize the American disdain for the educated, and for teachers in particular — which may be reflected in the quality of the pre-college educational system.) I am waiting to see what Obama can accomplish, though I think he is capable of doing a lot. My biggest worry is that the partisan Democrats in the Congress will undermine his work and be his undoing

      I appreciate your honesty in saying I am all for looking after those who cannot look after themselves. So am I. My question to you is: “What are you doing for those 43 million Americans who cannot afford health insurance?” I ask that because the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S. is the inability to pay medical bills. This, at the same time as health insurance companies are making huge profits.

      • SoCalGuy

        While I while away a few idle moments at the “bottle depot”, I’ll be happy to offer an opinion on the American health care system, since you asked. Full disclosure: I began a variety medical profession careers in Toronto in 1977 and currently enjoy my work in EMS … somewhere in California. I have worked in EMS, was employed previously by the Ontario WCB, was a partner in a health care labor relations firm, and have also worked in the youth in crisis advocacy field. As an ex-pat Canadian, I am occasionally asked to offer an opinion about the two systems.
        The simple answer is this; There are many, many pros and cons in both the U.S. free market approach to health care, and Canada’s universal approach. I tell inquiring minds that the best thing the U.S. could do, if only the disparate stooges in their ivory towers could look beyond their special interests, would be to meld the two systems to achieve a hybrid approach. Much of what works well in Canada would work just as well here. Much of what works well in the U.S. should be adoted in Canada. See? Two way street. Oh wait; Canada already has a “secret ” two tier system called; “If you’re rich and famous, leapfrog to the head of the MRI line, or hop a plane to New York…” Sarcasm aside, much of what works in Canada’s universal system could be adopted here.
        Oooops, another qualifier; let’s put another myth to be. There is “socialized” health care here. Many jurisdictions provide various coverages, the two best known being Medicare and Medicaid. The problem is that both programs are limited in scope and funding. The real tragedy, the one of which you correctly cite, is the criminal bankrupting of those whose incomes or ages disqualify them from social subsidy, whose own private health care coverages are inadequate, or those who have been arbitrarily cut off iinsurance due to actually “using” it, or for so-called pre-existing conditions.
        The chief problem is the conflicting agendas of insurance companies. An enormous amount of money is wasted (in fact, I believe 30-40% of insrance health care dollars are wasted here) in administering insurance programs. Each year, group “subscribers” go through an election process to select health care programs. Individuals make purchase selections based on whatever the insurance programs can “sell”. The amount of money spent “marketing” health care insurance that could go to doctors and nurses and equipment, go into the pockets of insurance interests. Same with Rx… enormous amounts of dollars go into private pockets instaed of medications or research. Next; the amount of money spent on illegal immigrant health care is criminal, and each dollar spent on covering illegals’ health care is a dollar that could have been spent on … ME!
        That is just the tip of the iceberg. But if his Highness B.H.O. is going to CHANGE this ideological approach to health care – which, by the way, I would endorse – he needs to break the wills of the special interests who stand to lose… insurance companies, radio and tv advertisers, and on and on… each of whom enjoy sucking on the teat of private insurance. But, hey, remember, Queen Hil couldn’t do it, so I won’t hold my breath too hard wating for B.O. to crack that nut.
        Want me to start on the teat abusers in the Canadian public system? I could tell tales there, too.
        Point being, meld the best of both systems.
        I’m now going back to my “bottle depot”, whatever the hell that doofus meant.

        • CR

          SoCalGuy: I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response.

          The reality of course, is that we already have a “blend” in Canadian medical care. For instance, what is done in hospital or doctor’s office is covered by Medicare. But physiotherapy, podiatry, medications, and so many more things are not covered. (You can buy private insurance from for-profit companies to cover some of those.) How do you think we could better “meld” those parallel systems?

          And because Medicare is actually a collection of Provincial (i.e., State) programs, not really a national program, there are differences from Province to Province.

          When you say I believe 30-40% of insurance health care dollars are wasted here in administering insurance programs I am assuming that includes money spent on lobbying politicians. Last time I checked the cross-Canada cost of administering health care was about 13%. That’s because we don’t have huge health care providers who waste a lot of time and money lobbying government.

          I suspect American health care reform will come incrementally. You already have Medicare and Medicaid, (though they are badly under-funded, as Canadian Medicare is becoming). Obama (if I remember correctly) is concerned about better health care for children. That would be excellent!
          .

    • VB

      Well said, but probably lost on this group.

    • Ann

      SoCalGuy: The “planet” I worked on is actually apparently close to you: Southern California. For 25 years. And if pressured to, I can relate some of my own experiences with the so-called liberal media, as well as cite studies that indicate the conservatism in the media. I even gave you a sampling…the ONLY “liberal” you would be able to name would be Ted Turner. You failed to acknowledge and refute my assertation there. Research has shown that owners, boardmembers and publishers tend to be more conservative than reporters, but I have seen too many times reporters reeled in. They might slip in a little liberal message here and there, but that’s about it. But as I challenged, do your own search and you will see that the vast majority of print media in the country supported Republicans for the office of president and vice president. I am not Gary Hart; I wouldn’t taunt you to investigate if I were misrepresenting things.

      I think the media did make an about-face this past election but only because of the dire situation this country faces. And I gotta tell ya, I am a military brat, an Army brat raised with conservative values and it wasn’t until I became a reporter that I started seeing that there are many things things taking place, many other perspectives that aren’t being reported. I was not a liberal who went into the business to push my agenda; I developed my more liberal tendencies when I started seeing what was really going on out there and who was being left out of the discussion of important issues.

      But I don’t expect you or many of the other right-wingers in this discussion to appreciate or explore my perspective or open your minds up enough to see for yourself. I can only assume you are not interested in checking it out for your self my statement about the media endorsing Republicans all this time. That would confuse you, I am sure. Cause a little cognitive dissonance. As for me, I would be very interested in where you get your information about Republicans giving more in terms of percentage of income than Dems. Unlike you, I am willing to open my mind and, with evidence, accept that assertion.
      I actually liked John McCain, although his temperament would have made a troublesome choice (he is known in the beltway by both Dems and Reeps as “certifiable’). I had the privilege of interviewing him once, about 10 years ago. And I so appreciated his wife because she is involved in so many charitable causes (As I stated in an early entry, I was scared by Palin.)

      As for Bush’s place in history, a survey of presidential scholars indicate that Bush will likely go down as the worst president in the nation’s history. Of course we won’t know for sure for awhile, but I think that is likely going to be the case.

      • SoCalGuy

        Google “charitable donations as percentage of income republicans democrats”. You will find dozens of blogs and links to studies substantiating the assertion.

        You write “I think the media did make an about-face this past election but only because of the dire situation this country faces.” That is both “weasle talk” in the broadest satire of Scott Adams’ “Dilbert”, and a tad understated. “This past election”? Methinks not. Since about early 2003, in time to skew the 04 election, the media has been in full throttle “anti-Bush” mode.. at least since 03 and likely earlier although downplayed because 9/11 was still fresh in everybody’s mind. As a journalist, you know unequivocally that media can make or break politicans. The left media decided to make it its mission to destroy Bush and pimp B.O.
        Save for Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Roberts and a few other talk radio pundits that give some liberals fits, and a handful of conservative print columnists, the media is awash with liberal propoganda. Rarely do you see a right-lenaing viewpoint from the editorials of the NYT or LAT, the two major papers in America. Conservative TV? Don’t make me laugh. From Oprah to Ellen to … I could go on, but you know I’m right. How about that bastion of conservative media, San Fran?
        Listen, Ann, I am not as right wing as you think. Call me fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But if you think – as your point implies – that 97 or 98% of the print media endorses republican viewpoints… oooh oooh, except during this “about-face this past election “, then we are not on the same planet. Sorry.

        • CR

          Actually, it’s not so really the case that “the left media decided to make it its mission to destroy Bush and pimp B.O.” The real problem was the disparity between what Bush was saying and what was really happening. It got to be so bad that the media of all stripes could no longer overlook it.

          Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq? Bush knew there were none there. The “intelligence failure” regarding Iraq happened inside of Bush’s own brain.

          Saddam connected to Osama bin Laden? The CIA knew that was false in the fall of 2002, but that was a pretext for invading Iraq in 2003, to end Saddam’s “support for terrorists.”

          Some may be old enough to remember when Saddam was the “darling” and “poster boy” of the United States, because he was anti-communist and anti-Iranian. He took orders well from Washington (as did Manuel Noriega of Panama). It’s when Hussein started to think independently (like Noriega) that Saddam scared the United States. The invasion of Kuwait was seen as a threat to American power — and perhaps to America’s unfettered access to Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil. That’s when everything changed.

          The stories are out there. It’s just a matter of who picks up on them, and (more important) who ignores them.

    • Ruth Bogart

      Well said.

    • codess

      As i recall arent the republicans to blame on the condition your economy is in. Once again i recall that you needed to bail out your own banks while canada has the most stable banking system in the world right now. Just to make this clear we are not a socialist country. We dont have the same economic policies as cuba or china but at least we dont have 46 million people who dont have health insurance. Plus i think you should really reconsider your opinion on the importance of Canada, We are your biggest trading partners and you rely on are hydro electricity and are oil which the US needs so badly.

      i dont understand why you take such partisan and ideological lines in your arguments because in reality the republicans have a 31% approval rating and has become the party of Rush Limbaugh

      ps
      Give Obama a break he has only been in a month and your bringing up arguments from the campaign trail. All your doing is being counterproductive

  • Sonny

    If someone could put this to music, it would be greatly appreciated.

    No Ode to Obama

    He came to the masses from mountaintops high
    He promised advances to the hard-done by.
    Hope and change was the name of his game
    Critics, forewarned, dare not say his name.

    His rhetorical gift was his foot in the door
    To heal the planet and give aid the poor.
    He preached love and faith, not power and muscle
    From Chicago’s south side, where he learned his hustle.

    The media worship and admirers swoon
    Their legs get all tingly when he enters a room
    No vetting or challenge could hold him back
    And oh, did I mention he’s black?

    Now Illinois’ loss is Washington’s gain
    Of another president who can feel our pain.
    A new kid in town to show us the ways
    To make us all equal, if we do what he says.

    The economy’s bad, it’s capitalist’s fault
    Government’s duty is to open the vault.
    It’s urgent, folks hurtin’ like never before
    Let’s mortgage the future so they can have more.

    We built a land of freedom and wealth
    But will the messiah destroy it by stealth?
    Our Ancestors struggled to build these lands
    With courage and faith and the skill of their hands.

    Sitting here, thinking, how this all came to be
    And whether my freedom will be history.
    So think hard people what it means to be free;
    And what someone’s free ride is costing me.

    But yours and my freedom is no-one’s to take
    Especially by a phoney demagogue fake.
    So stand up, defend what our Ancestors gave
    To the land of the free and the home of the brave.

    • J@ck M!tchell

      It’s funny how quickly the home of the brave
      Has forgotten it rose on the back of a slave;
      It’s funny how closely the power of hate
      Is entwined with our neighbour America’s fate.

      Take heart, good Obama: the false poet’s curse
      Is a blessing unwillingly given in verse:
      For though it’s disgusting to stumble upon,
      The song of a racist’s the song of a swan.

      Set that to music, buddy.

      • Geoff

        At least the first guy is able to complete a full verse, “buddy”.

        • J@ck M!tchell

          Hey, mine scan.

    • Ruth Bogart

      Excellent poem… the truth in it will make many anger…just wait till they feel it in their wallet and lack of freedom…..then maybe they will get it….right now….like talking to posts

      • J@ck M!tchell

        Why, thank you.

  • EW

    I’m glad to hear Steven Harper seeking to forge a joint green energy agenda with Barack Obama. I just wish he’d think of the economy as being a joint endeavour as well – because when Canadian politicians and journalists throw around the term protectionism they end up sounding like John McCain and Fox news. And Democrats believe American conservatives are so wed to discredited ideologies they don’t understand complexities such as the need to have balanced trade to achieve a sustainable global economy. Nobody in the US is going to take us seriously if for the past decade we’ve been getting rich off of trade surpluses with the US at their expense, and then scream protectionism when they ask to renegotiate the terms. Can you blame them for wanting to let us know that that sort of trade policy has bankrupted their country? If threats of protectionism aren’t going to work anyways, isn’t it better to establish a more cooperative relationship so we can at least have some say in how we would like to see our trade relationship recalibrated?

  • http://deleted Sandi

    The greatest threat to democracy is five minutes with the average voter – Winston Churchill.

    By reading the ridiculous and uninformed responses – Churchill was right.

    ..sigh….some of these folks are frightening

  • PS

    The poll respondents presumably were the same folks who elected Conservative PM Steven Harper??

    • CR

      Probably.

  • owlgore

    Maybe he can become Prime Minister of Canada after he serves as president of US?? Or, maybe he can be a contestant on American Idol…..

  • Redheart

    PLEASE, DEWY-EYED CANDADIAN YOUTH, YOU NEED TO GROW UP JUST LIKE YOUR COUNTER-PARTS HERE IN THE U.S. YOU, WHO HAVE PROBABLY NEVER PAID A CENT OF FEDERAL TAX HAVE NO IDEA WHAT’S IN STORE FOR YOUR FUTURE PAYCHECKS. WE HAVE A SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE THAT KEEPS TALKING ABOUT 500 MILLION AMERICANS LOSING JOBS EVERY MONTH AND OUR POPULATION IS 300 MILLION. NEEDED INFORMATION WAS BURIED DURING THE CAMPAIGN, QUESTIONS STILL ABOUND BUT CAN’T BE ASKED, LET ALONE ANSWERED. MR. OBAMA’S HALF BROTHER STILL LIVES IN ABJECT POVERTY IN AFRICA, ALONG WITH AN AUNT IN BOSTON AND THE WORLD SWOONS WHEN HE SPEAKS OF HELPING THE POOR. WE’VE JUST BORROWED AN UNPRECEDENTED SUM OF MONEY, THE LENDERS ARE NOT KNOWN TO US, CAMPAIGN PROMISES ARE BEING BROKEN LEFT AND RIGHT, TAX FRAUDS ARE HOLDING THE HIGHEST OFFICES, AND SO IT GOES. MEANWHILE, OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH ARE TAKEN WITH HIS BROAD-BAND SMILE.

    • Ruth Bogart

      Don’t fret..not all of us are taken with the phony baloney socialist dope

  • Redheart

    To Ann, the media person……if you are only watching Murdock’s Fox News then you’re correct in assuming the media is run by the Right. Keep flipping through the channels and you’ll quickly learn that CNN, CBS and ABC are dominated by leftists. Read the credible research that’s done each year on the number of journalists that claim to belong to one party or one idealogy or the other and you’ll find there is a vast majority of print and TV media people that are leftists. Did you happen to hear that GE’s CEO was quietly ushered in to the Obama administration as an advisor? Have you watched sitcom’s on NBC lately? Did you watch the hours of pre-game Super Bowl coverage on NBC to hear comment after comment about left agenda items, the president, topped off with the first time in history, an actual interview w/ the president, aired just before the game to make sure the world saw it? Surely you’re aware of the far-left folks that have prime time shows on MSNBC. Starting w/ Morning Joe and running till they shut down for the day and start airing programs about prisons, MSNBC is stacked w/ lefties. Did you hear that back in the fall during the campaign, the NYT refused to run an editorial written by John McCain because it might have opened some dialogue and people might have started asking some important questions? Have you watched TV shows like The View, Ellen and Oprah in the last few years? What explanation, other than media bias, is there to have important stories about conservative issues buried on newspaper pages that hardly anybody will see? Late night talk and entertainment shows pound anybody on the Right with a vengenace. Were you a practicing journalist when the vitriol was launched against Sarah Palin, and more importantly, against her very innocent children? You don’t have to have a journalism degree or any journalistic credentials to see that there is a march toward a one-party system in the U.S., a world order, if you will (Our president does promise to change the WORLD.) You merely have to be objective when you watch various TV programming, pick up a newspaper once in awhile and simply observe the world around you; listen to what people say, knowing their opinions are formed by a mainstream media that dictates to us what we can and cannot hear and what we should and should not believe. We no longer have reporters and commentators, we have activists sitting in front of camera’s. There are lefties and there are those on the right, no debate needed there, but the percentage to the left is undeniable. As for the folks drawing parallels between Obama and LIncoln, Lincoln shut down newspapers and put people in prison that disagreed with the North’s position on the war. He was not nearly the centrist, easy-going peace maker the Obamaites are now trying to make him out to be. Once again, history is revised to suit a particular agenda.

  • sdl.9109

    I love how the majority of people commenting here seem to forget that Obama has absolutely no incentive to help Canadians or garner their approval, outside of what is in the immediate interests of the U.S.

    Also, as for those arguing that Obama should make the U.S. more like Canada, I have a question:
    Has the U.S. or Canadian system produced a more prosperous and powerful nation?

  • Annie

    I wish that Canada had to put up with this fraud. Unless the Canadians are all as stupid as the blacks in America, you would dispatch him posthaste. I think you people need to understand that Obama is not Lincoln; Obama has never had a real job in his life and he can’t handle the one he has now. He has never accomplished a thing except agitating in the streets of Chicago and that is why you see him out campaigning to hand-picked audiences now. I don’t know what is wrong with you folks, but you need to get the blinders off and look at reality. Obama is just another lying Marxist whose one goal is to destroy the United States. But, then, maybe this is what Canadians desire.

    • natick1

      Couldn’t agree more.
      Probably because Canadians only get MSM broadcasts.

      • CR

        I know about ABC, CBS, CBC — what’s this MSM?

    • Oceanturtles

      Lessee,

      You’ve insulted the majority of people who voted for the new president, especially the ones who refer to themselves as black – I gather that you must be orange. You insulted the people who work for governments or whatever that does not comply with your definition of a “real job”. Obama is not campaigning to hand-picked audiences, he is no longer campaigning at all, nor was there evidence of hand-picking of audiences during his campaigning. By contrast, George Bush the Last did speak at hand-picked audiences and responded to pre-screened questions – that was documented.

      If that is your reality, of stupid people, ideologies from elsewhere around the globe, and destruction of recent nations, then this Native person will keep my blinders open to the reality of a continent whose indigenous people opened its arms to welcome, feed and take care of visitors from other lands. Like you and your relatives.

  • Pingback: Hard Times, eh? « elpisian

  • Dieter Sprockets

    McQuack and Hork Siddiqui are chipping away at him.

    • CR

      Who are McQuack and Hork Siddiqui?

  • Jay

    I would trade you guys Obama for Harper in a heartbeat! Harper is not perfect but at least he understands free market enterprise!

  • http://giraffemarketing.blogspot.com/ ChrisM

    While I do like Obama for the change that he represents to the world, I am less than impressed by his ‘lunch-and-learn’ visit to Ottawa this week

  • Erik Larsen

    Like others, the headliner makes my eyes roll. Canada’s love affair? Really? I haven’t seen any proof of same anywhere

  • Pingback: Harper’s in deep - Canada - Macleans.ca

From Macleans