Those would be some debates, like such as for example, South Africa, and the Iraq, such as….

Well, in the short term, anyway.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2221394/posts
http://www.chinastakes.com/Article.aspx?id=1109

Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/chinainstitute/nav03.cfm?nav03=46273&nav02=43112&nav01=43092

I agree with your post, I was thinking the exact same thing yesterday. And so was Harper, I’m sure.

I beg to differ. American hospitals are used when ours overflow (neo-natal care, for instance), and for those who cannot wait 8 months for their ct scan or MRI (to get a cancer diagnosis, for instance).

When their waiting lists become as long as ours, we have nowhere to go.

If you mean that Harper is personally incapable of being an effective spokesman, then no. I think Harper is quite good at presenting himself to the American president and the American media.

I disagree with the idea the U.S. has no interest in “privileged access” to oil sands production. Obama has said he wants to end U.S. dependence on “foreign oil” (granted, he also wants to end dependence on “oil”). As U.S. and Canadian conventional supplies dwindle, their replacements will be either foreign (read: Middle Eastern/Venezualan) or unconventional reserves. Hence the contemplation of a massive proliferation of *new* pipelines from Canada to the U.S. and the cries of “drill baby drill” in regard to the U.S. offshore – industry has crunched the numbers, ascribed a dollar figure to the political risk and added it to tanker costs, and the oil sands win. Accordingly, in the face of the storm clouds on the horizon the U.S. interest is in maintaining the status quo (a Canadian energy regulator beholden to a national energy security policy that believes, as does Mr. Wells, that oil is a fungible and highly mobile global commodity and hence is an…unassuming policy, coupled with NAFTA-guaranteed access to the oil flowing in the new pipes).

I disagree with the idea that Obama “has no particular interest in bilateral deal-making with Canada when he has far more important partners to chase when it comes to regulating emissions. China, first of all. Then Europe. Then us, way behind.” If by emission regulation you’re contemplating emissions trading between jurisdictions, Canada is the first place to look, given the integrated economies and ability to mount credible emissions quantification, verification and retirement schemes (Europe might not differ greatly from Canada, but as a first stop on the way to expanding whatever sceme the U.S. starts with, it seems a no-brainer).

I agree with “Most important, it’s not clear this President can ever meaningfully regulate emissions, because that would inflict concentrated pain on powerful interests.” That’s the reason, in my view, that we have the intensity-based regime in Alberta (and as was proposed in Turning the Corner): because not only is it easier for us, it reflected a bet that it would be waaay easier for Bush, or McCain, or Clinton, to go the intensity route given the pain that negotiating cap-and-trade emissions allocations with different industry sectors is going to cause Obama.

. . . to say nothing of Slick Willy Clinton, who authorized the rendition and torture programs and Gitmo open for business as well.

Wonder if Hillary knew, pillow talk and all. Well maybe not pillow talk, because then many, many other women would have known.

Before the price of crude dropped to the point where people stopped thinking about oil, senior voices in the US Government had expressed concern about multi-billion dollar oilsands investments made by China and France. Why should the US care who Canada sells its oil to? Perhaps the US is more concerned with “privileged access” than we realize.

As opposed to, say, the primaries and the presidential campaign?

The economic reasons include the lower transportation costs of importing oil through pipelines vs. tankers, and the location of refineries. On the political side, there is the potent (yet empty) political symbolism of the US buying more oil from friendly allies, rather than unfriendly countries like Venezuela. This seemed to be a significant issue in the presidential election campaign last year. The strategic reasons include the the long-term energy security of the US. In an uncertain world, the US would prefer to have a secure “domestic” supply of oil that would help insulate them from worst-case scenarios, such as intentional supply disruptions or overseas geopolitical wrangling.