The Respectfully Republican Conversation

pinoideae

Make no mistake, what happens in the U.S. does affect Canada.  Canada is never immune to what happens in the U.S. and the same the other way around.

Take a look at the similarities and differences between Canada and the U.S. you decide.  This is information compiled as of January 2007.

http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/simdiff.htm

Bren-2007

Rocktober,

Palin's rating in AK is 60%.  Which is still phenomonal!

Summer, I asked how it affects you, as a citizen of Canada. Will your gas prices go up, heating fuel, taxes, border crosssing, cost of goods, etc., depending on which candidate is elected?

Edited to add:  I read the chart you posted.  It really didn't answer my question.  What it did show is that the U.S. has a higher population with about the same land mass, lower unemployment, lower taxes, 23% higher birthrate, 1% fewer male population (maybe due to the wars we're involved in ... who knows).  There were more comparisons, but I won't list them all. Thanks for the link.

pinoideae

Did your gas prices shoot up as a result of refineries closed in Texas due to a hurricane, well ours did too.

pinoideae

Did you read the paragraph about the differences in the military.

Bren-2007

Yes, I did.  The U.S. has 3.7 times the military and spending on such that Canada does.  Canada also has 8.2% times the debt the U.S. has with less population.  The U.S. dollar is also valued at 11.8% greater than the CAD. 

Yep ... the gas prices here in So. Virigina shot up about 50 cents a gallon overnight!!!  But, I still think locally at just over $4 a gallon we're lower than lots of other areas.  Can't afford heating fuel this winter and looking into alternatives. Perhaps a pipeline from AK through Canada to the lower 48 would benefit BOTH countries.

FEB

Bin, There is a difference between Federal funding and "pork" or earmarks. Every state gets federal funds for things that benefit us all, and unpopulated states cannot pay for with local taxes. Most of this is infrastructure, such as roads, levees, bridges, and national security. A state like Alaska needs these funds particularly because of the vast distances of roads that need to be built between cities and to access the pipelines, which are vital to the lower 48. Cities like Chicago and NYC get more appropriations for national security because they would be more likely to be attacked. Federal funds also go towards Federal mandates such as no child left behind, which as a teacher, even I, a Bush supporter, think is a crock, and of course there are funds for things that are unique to each state, such as national parks. This is usually worthwhile funding, that benefits everyone in the country, even though it goes to specific things in specific states. Earmarks or 'pork" are a whole different matter. These are pet projects that congress will slip into a bill at the last minute to make themselves look good to their constituents. They usually add these to a bill that they know will pass. McCain has never asked for any earmarks for Arizona. In fact, he regularly votes down bills because of all the pork added. When he is criticized for not funding the troops, it is usually because he voted down a bill loaded with pork. The dems do this on purpose to use it against him. No one wants more for vets than McCain, he just does not want to have to put up with pork in the process. He has been trying to give the president power of a line item veto so that the president can take out the pork in an important bill. He has vowed to continue this quest as president, and publish all the pork on line so that we can all see where all the waste is going. An example of pork is Hillary asking for a million dollars for a Woodstock museum or  all the buildings around the country that have a congressman's name on it. Dems or Repubs, they are all guilty of this. It is a major source of government waste and McCain wants to get rid of it. It is the best way to balance the budget. Palin had a line item veto in Ak and she used it constantly. As for the bridge to nowhere. It was a pet project of her predesessors, which she at first supported until she realized that it was such a waste, then she turned it down.

The McCains were great on the View. JM answered some very controversial questions without blinking and talking around the issue the way Obama does. He is not afraid to tell exactly what his stance is, even when he is in hostile territory, like on the View with a bunch of liberal women, answering their questions on Roe v Wade. And the more  we see Cindy McCain, the more I think she will be one hellofa first lady. She is so gracious, and she has been involved in humanitarian projects all her life. She is not one of those wealthy women living in an ivory tower. She is a doer, and will show the world what humanitarians Americans are. Meanwhile, Michele sits on the hospital board, that she is paid handsomely for, and she acquired because of nepotism. She and BO talk about helping Africa and they still have not put one brick on the school they promised to build in Kenya, 3 years ago.(maybe he is just waiting till he gets hold of our tax dollars). They are all talk, talk talk. The McCains have a lot to show for their hard work, while the BO's are still just talking about it.

pinoideae

We do have pipelines from Canada going to the U.S. as well.  We have more water resources...I think we need each other.  We sell electricity to the U.S. as well.

FEB

One of the things I heard tossed around was a united US/Canda/Mexican joining similar to the EU. I am not sure I like it. While it might have great economic advantages, sharing of resources, I worry that it could mean an end to sovergnty and more bureaucracy, like in Europe. The EU has made a bunch of countries more significant, but they have given up a lot of self rule. Also, the ease of moving between countries has made them very vulnerable to terrorism. As I have said in the past here, I know the French farmers are not happy with the EU, because they have to follow so many rules that they cannot prosper. What is the Canadian take on this?

Anonymous

Summer:  If you live in Canada why do you refer to "our president?"  You may have no doubt who is most qualitifed, but then - thats your opinion and I do respect everyones opinions as I learn alot from all of these political discussions, but since you wont be casting a vote I dont see how what you are saying will affect my vote. 

Nicki

saluki

Nicki-- Summer is directly quoting Senator Lieberman.  She is not referring to "her" president.  She was quoting Senator Lieberman's speech word for word from the Republican Convention.................

It was a fine speech and worth repeating............

Our Canadian friends bring healthy insights to the conversation and I welcome it.

SherriM

 Thoughts and prayers to all in the wake of Ike...hope you're all safe and  sound!!

Summer --  "The Obama approach is about Hope and Change. The McCain approach is about concrete action to bring about that hope and change."  Couldn't have said it better!!!

Linda--thanks for pointing out the differences between federal funding and pork barrel spending.  I knew there was something fishy about those accusations against Gov. Palin.  

Rocktobermom--I'm surprised the campaign isn't paying for the family to join her...are you sure the state of AK is?

I'm not too fond of Sean Hannity, but I'm looking forward to watching Gov. Palin in a more friendly interview where we can maybe get to know her a little better without all the "gotcha" questions and hostililty and condescension.

Also saw that Todd Palin will be on Greta Monday and Tuesday...that ought to be interesting!!!  

Blessings,

Sherri

Anonymous

Bin- Her approval is in the 80's not 60's.  It's all over the news.  And in 2007 it was in the 90's. 

"You’ve all heard that Sarah Palin has an 80% approval rating in Alaska. That is unheard of. Here’s a stat you didn’t know, her approval among Alaskan Democrats is 75%!!! Those approval ratings do not happen by accident."

saluki

By the way regarding the latest obnoxious Obama commercial............

lame and insulting

A little enlightenment why McCain doesn't email or use a blackberry.........

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/12/why-cant-mccain-email/

Bren-2007

Hi Rocktober,

 Let me clarify ... I quoted Charles Gibson on 20/20 last night when he said Palins approval rating was 60%. He made this statement while interviewing her.  I agree with her regarding her position on guns and energy.  That's about it. 

 Did anyone watch the interview?

Ads for both campaigns are misleading and obnoxious.

I am absolutely against an EU type of system for Mexico, Canada and U.S. 

abbadoodles

Does anyone here watch The McLaughlin Group on PBS?   If not, you are missing a great political program, always entertaining.  The people are so feisty and they will say what they think.  They have both liberals and conservatives.  All smart.

Try it.  You'll like it.  The programs are available online after about one week so right now you can watch up to Friday, Sept. 5's program in several modes including streaming video.

http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/library.htm

saluki

Abbadoodles-- I've been watching Mclaughlin for decades but lately I've had to Tivo it so I can fast forward through Eleanor Clift----The condescension shown toward Palin by her has been even more objectionable than Sally Quinn.......

Need to watch the blood pressure! But I agree with you.....Lively is an understatement..........

Bren-2007

We import more oil from Canada than any other country, thanks to NAFTA.  And as a result of NAFTA, Canada must import oil to meet her demands.  The FTA between Canada and the U.S. stipulates exactly how much oil must be exported to the U.S. Most of that oil is sent directly by pipleline to the midwest of the U.S.  When Mexico signed NAFTA as well, they did not sign any stipulations regarding the specific amounts of oil that had to exported to the U.S.

The link shows which countries the U.S. gets their oil from. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

I brought up NAFTA as an example of why I don't believe in a EU system for for Canada, Mexico and the U.S.  I believe the U.S. should be as self-sufficient as possible.  It also appears, at least from what I've read, that most of eastern Canada is pro McCain.

I believe Palin can hold her own.  She seems pretty fiesty to me. 

Beesie

Summer, interesting info comparing Canada and the U.S..

BinVA, the numbers on debt seem off.  The Canadian government currently has a significant budget surplus, enough that they've been able to reduce the GST (Goods & Service Tax - a national sales tax that's plopped on top of just about everything) by 2 percent over the past 18 months or so.  With this surplus, and the recent U.S. deficits, I suspect that the "debt as a % of GDP" numbers may be quite different now, possibly reversed from what it was in 2004.  Similarly, the Canadian dollar jumped up to parity with the U.S. dollar around the end of last year.  It has fallen back off now; as of this past week, it was valued at about 6% less than the U.S. dollar.   As for economic growth, I may be wrong on this, but I recall reading recently that over the past year, Canada has had the highest economic growth of any G8 country.  Still, despite having a generally strong economy this year (and even a very strong housing market), thanks to the U.S. mortgage crisis and the resultant impact on the banking system, Canadians have been hit in the wallet and the savings account just as hard as Americans.   It may be an internal U.S. problem that caused all this, but the whole world is feeling the impact, and Canada, being your closest neighbour, probably feels it more than any other country.  

Except for taxes, if a U.S. president does something that is going to increase prices in the U.S., chances are Canada will get those same increases.  Since we have our own tax system, obviously an increase in taxes in the U.S. won't affect us, unless of course it translates into higher prices for products, which we probably would get too.

I'm not all that up-to-speed on NAFTA, although I know that it sure doesn't mean that there are no cross-border taxes, either for individuals or for businesses.  "Free Trade" it's not!  My impression is that the U.S. problems with NAFTA relate more to Mexico and their ability to produce things more cheaply, and in fact Canada faces those same issues.  We're losing lots and lots of jobs in the auto & manufacturing sectors too, as companies choose to go to Mexico.  As for having an EU type North American relationship, personally I'd be very much against it.  I agree that it likely would result in an end to sovereignty, and Canada, being the smaller country, would probably lose much more than the U.S..  As a Canadian, that's not something I would like.   

As for international relations and how Canada is impacted there, I gave my opinion on that in my earlier post.  To net it out, yup, we'll be impacted by anything that the U.S. does internationally!

So we may not be able to vote, but Canadians sure will feel the results of this election, whatever happens.

pinoideae

No doubt Beesie.  U.S.A. and Canada need to continue stick together and continue to be close allies and continue to share our resources.

Odalys

I saw the interview and I think it's obvious she does not have enough experience. I don't understand how a woman would be trying to reverse Roe vs. Wade.  That scares me. I don't want the govt putting limits on what I can and cannot do to my body.  That kind of mentality sets back the women movement many years.  I've been a Hillary supported for many years.  I think she has done a lot to move us forward.  Palin comes across as very sure of herself and she is definitely an over achiever but I am not totally convinced she is ready for the job. Obama is even worse and he is running for president!     JMO

Anonymous

I do not believe that Roe vs. Wade will ever be overturned.  I believe there would be a huge uprising if this were ever an issue.  I am pro-life.  I think Palin was answering truthfully, but would never even try to put forth this issue for reversal.

Edited to add:  It scares me how Obama voted against NOT giving medical aid to born alive babies when the abortion failed.  At least Palin answered honestly when Obama said it was above his "pay grade" to know when life began.  C'mon, can't he even give a straight answer?McCain answered it easily and quickly...at the time of conception.  I do not trust Obama, period.

Shirley

FEB

If the Republicans had any intention of overturning Roe v Wade, wouldn't they have done it when they had the white house and a congress majority with Bush? The republican platform is pro life, but that does not mean there will be any effort to overturn it. It is too hot an issue and would be so devisive, no one wants to go there. McCain, is prolife and he says he has a problem with the fact that Roe v Wade was a supreme court decision and not a legislative one. He feels that there should be a referendum on the issue. I agree with this because I think the majority of the US would vote prochoice and then there would be a legal law put into effect which would stop the judicial debate. But as I said, it will never happen. No one will be willing to bring such a bill to congress.

I know that women on both sides of this issue, make this a major priority for the way they will vote. But you need to look at the bigger issues because they are too important to base a vote on one issue.

I was thinking that it is great that you Canadians are so up on what is going on in America. It is too bad Americans do not take the time to learn more about Canada. I bet most people cannot even name the Canadian provinces. Actually, I am not sure our kids can even name the American states. I was so embarrased last year when one of my French students challenged my friend's son to name all the states and capitals. I had given the French boy a US map and he was so excited to learn them. He won of course. He is now collecting liscense plates from all 50 states so if anyone has one lying around, send it my way!  Who says the French are not interested in the US? The kids love it here!

suzfive

Hope all you ladies in Texas are doing okay. My dd made it through her first hurricane okay.

I sure hope the McCain campaign hits back about that ad that the Obama campaign is airing about McCain not using e-mail. If his campaign knew how to Google they would find out that the Boston Globe and Forbes had articles in 2000 explaining how his POW injuries prevented him from combing his hair, typing, and tying his own shoes. How insensitive. I am more concerned that the President be running the country then if he can waste his time on the Internet.

Biden released his tax records for the last 10 years. "Poor" Joe and his wife made over $300,000 last year and donated about 0.3% to charity! He is in the top 1%! And he can feel your pain - he's the poorest senator - cry me a river - really! He and BO who donates about 5% of his income to charity (only in the last two years before that it was 1 to 2%) want to raise taxes on the top 5% (anyone making more than $155,000 is included in this group). If they want to pay more in taxes - the IRS takes checks, money orders, credit cards - would probably take cold hard cash if you wanted to send them more. McCain himself donated about 25% of his income to charity - that did not include what Cindy donates. Do you see this getting any press? If McCain donated so little it would be all over the media. BO and Joe want you to go out and do volunteer work and donate to charity but do they do it themselves - NO!

Linda - it is sad how little children here know about other countries. Part of the reason I think is because our media is only interested in what concerns us. If you watch the BBC they report on what is going on in Africa, Asia, Australia, US, Canada, etc. World News Tonight should just be called US News - to listen to them the "world" consists of US, Israel, Iraq and Iran with a little of Pakistan and sometimes N. Korea thrown in. Geography is also not something that is taught much in school here. My dh was not born in the US, came here for grad school so he made sure we had a globe in the house, maps in the rec room and regularly quizzes the kids on where different countries are - who is in charge of the government, what is the capital, etc. My 6th grader came home last week and told us he was smarter than an 8th grader because he knew who was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I guess he was the only one who knew. My dh who is a college professor told him he was smarter than a college student because he didn't think many of his students could answer that question!

Anonymous

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html    

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe

By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

-- New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

Anonymous

I've been watching the news about the hurricane.  I haven't seen any of "our" girls running around.  Come to think of it, I wouldn't know what "our" girls looked like!

Hope all you gals from Texas are do okay.  What a storm!  I know millions of you do not have electricity.  And the flooding...I couldn't believe Houston!

I'm originally from San Antonio.  My aunt and uncle lived in Houston and also had a vacation home in Galveston.  Oh, the memories.  We'd go crabbing and my aunt could make the best crab gumbo.

Let us hear from you as soon as you can get online.  PLEASE. 

We miss you.

Shirley

saluki

In case you missed Tina Fey as Sarah Palin on SNL yesterday. 

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2008/09/saturday-night.html

Bren-2007

The SNL clip had me laughing out loud!  Tina Fey rocks.  Hope the media got the msg, but I sincerely doubt it.

pinoideae

 http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/03/30/more-obama-lies-media-will-ignore

More Obama Lies the Media Will Ignore

By John Stephenson (Bio | Archive)
March 30, 2008 - 17:33 ET

• 
• 

 Update III:  Even more Obama lies exposed by his own handwriting!

Update II: It was then-Sen. John Kennedy that arranged a grant for a scholarship program to bring Kenyan students to America. The rest remains under question.

Update: Video of Obama's Selma Speech

When Mitt Romney stated that he saw his father march with Martin Luther King Jr., there was wall to wall media coverage reporting how he had to start backpeddaling. Even after witnesses came forward claiming they had seen his father march with him, the media story of Mitt fabricating the story still persists.

Will Obama get the same media treatment with his lies? Don't hold your breath. In a speech to a Selma, Alabama crowd meant to pump up his civil-rights movement authenticity and his Kennedy Camelot image, Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his "very existence". However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. For some reason the media never did the math on this.

The Washtington Post Fact Checker delves deeper.

Addressing civil rights activists in Selma, Ala., a year ago, Sen. Barack Obama traced his "very existence" to the generosity of the Kennedy family, which he said paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and thus meet his Kansan mother.

The Camelot connection has become part of the mythology surrounding Obama's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. After Caroline Kennedy endorsed his candidacy in January, Newsweek commentator Jonathan Alter reported that she had been struck by the extraordinary way in which "history replays itself" and by how "two generations of two families - separated by distance, culture and wealth - can intersect in strange and wonderful ways."

It is a touching story - but the key details are either untrue or grossly oversimplified.

Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were first approached for support for the program nearly a year later, in July 1960. The family responded with a $100,000 donation, most of which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton acknowledged yesterday that the senator from Illinois had erred in crediting the Kennedy family with a role in his father's arrival in the United States. He said the Kennedy involvement in the Kenya student program apparently "started 48 years ago, not 49 years ago as Obama has mistakenly suggested in the past."

[...]

Obama's Selma speech offers a very confused chronology of both the Kenya student program and the civil rights movement. Relating the story of how his parents met, Obama said: "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Junior was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama."

After bloggers pointed out that the Selma bridge protest occurred four years after Obama's birth, a spokesman explained that the senator was referring to the civil rights movement in general, rather than any one event.

Sister Toldjah wonders:

Will we see similar blanket, wall to wall coverage of Obama's latest faux pax, one of many he's been caught in on the campaign trail? I won't hold my breath. Mitt Romney didn't enjoy the "messiah-like" status that the media bestowed long ago on Barack Obama.

MacRanger:

Around these parts we call these kinds of mistakes - "lies".

I hate to break it to Obama, but this kind of crap is not "a new kind of politics."

Related link

-John Stephenson is editor of Stop The ACLU.

pinoideae

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview

Gibson took her point about Lincoln's words but we wouldn't know that by watching the interview since it was left on the cutting room floor. I urge everybody to see just how the unedited version of the first interview compared to what we saw on television  by checking out the full transcript. It is a fascinating look into media manipulation via skillful editing.

FEB

Ike is dumping rain all the way to Chicago. It is the highest rainfall we have ever had. I can't imagine how awful it is for those in Texas. We are all living on the lake here now, but it is still better than oceanfront property. And we do not have to worry about all the water snakes and gators. Get ready Canada, here it comes!

Susie, thanks for the SNL link. I missed the show. What a hoot. Are you reading the Chicago Trib now?

Summer, dont you know that when BO tells a lie, he simply misspeaks? Look at how the press went after McCain when he mixed up sunni and shia, and BO gets a bye for saying he has visited all 57 states. You are right Shirley, they do not teach Geography like they use to!

Back to doing my no more rain dance. . .