Presidential election may be up for grabs

[tomahawk6]

Obama may be in trouble according to this article. If the campaign is writting off Ohio and Florida its not a good sign. I think they might lose Michigan and Pennsylvania as well. California should be solid for Obama but McCain puts the state in play. Alot can happen between now and the election and gas prices may be the democrats undoing with the democrat controlled Congress refusing to do anything of substance. This one issue could turn out the democrat majorities in Congress or if they are smart they will take the issue off the table by passing a real energy bill one that includes drilling,new oil refineries and nuclear power.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/Jun/16/obama_camp_sees_possible_win_without_ohio__fla_.html

Barack Obama's campaign envisions a path to the presidency that could include Virginia, Georgia and several Rocky Mountain states, but not necessarily the pair of battlegrounds that decided the last two elections — Florida and Ohio.

In a private pitch late last week to donors and former supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe outlined several alternatives to reaching the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House that runs counter to the conventional wisdom of recent elections.

At a fundraiser held at a Washington brewery Friday, Plouffe told a largely young crowd that the electoral map would be fundamentally different from the one in 2004. Wins in Ohio and Florida would guarantee Obama the presidency if he holds onto the states won by Democrat John Kerry, Plouffe said, but those two battlegrounds aren't required for victory.

Florida, which has 27 electoral votes this year, gave the presidency to George W. Bush in the disputed election of 2000. Ohio, with its 20 electoral votes, ensured Bush of re-election in 2004 in his race against Kerry. Neither state was hospitable to Obama this year. Clinton handily won in Ohio and she prevailed in Florida although the national party had punished the state and the candidates didn't campaign there.

The presumed Democratic nominee's electoral math counts on holding onto the states Kerry won, among them Michigan (17 electoral votes), where Obama campaigns on Monday and Tuesday. Plouffe said most of the Kerry states should be reliable for Obama, but three currently look relatively competitive with Republican rival John McCain — Pennsylvania, Michigan and particularly New Hampshire.

Asked about his remarks, Plouffe said Ohio and Florida start out very competitive — but he stressed that they are not tougher than other swing states and said Obama will play "extremely hard" for both. But he said the strategy is not reliant on one or two states.

"You have a lot of ways to get to 270," Plouffe said. "Our goal is not to be reliant on one state on November 4th."

Plouffe has been pitching such a new approach to the electoral map in calls and meetings, according to several people who discussed the conversations on the condition of anonymity because they were meant to be private. Plouffe confirmed the descriptions in the interview.

Plouffe and his aides are weighing where to contest, and where chances are too slim to marshal a large effort. A win in Virginia (13 electoral votes) or Georgia (15 votes) could give Obama a shot if he, like Kerry, loses Ohio or Florida.

Plouffe also has been touting Obama's appeal in once Republican-leaning states where Democrats have made gains in recent gubernatorial and congressional races, such as Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Alaska and North Dakota.

Obama's campaign has spent heavily on time and money in Virginia, where a Democratic presidential candidate hasn't won since 1964. In recent elections, however, high-profile Republicans have lost there. And in a sign of how serious Obama is taking the state, Plouffe dispatched to Virginia many aides who helped Obama stage his upset win in the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3.

The key, Plouffe told supporters, will be to register new black voters and new young voters in Virginia.

Likewise, Georgia has many unregistered black voters who could turn out in record numbers to support the first major-party nominee who is black, he argued. Plouffe said the campaign also will keep an eye on Mississippi and Louisiana as the race moves into the fall to see if new black voters could put them within reach.

In a telling bit of scheduling, Obama declared himself within reach of the nomination at the statehouse in Iowa, yet another state he hopes to put in play.

Plouffe is warning Democrats that McCain is an appealing candidate who has proved he can take votes from the middle before and could do so again. McCain won New Hampshire as a GOP candidate in 2000 and 2008, thanks in large part to the state's high number of independent voters.

Clinton won Michigan's renegade primary after the national party stripped the state of its delegates for moving its contest to January. Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. Clinton handily won the Pennsylvania primary in April, gaining strong support from white, working-class voters.

Plouffe argues that McCain squandered his opportunity to reach independent voters in the past three months.

McCain's aides acknowledge frustration among fellow Republicans for the slow-to-start campaign. Even though McCain clinched his party's nomination in early March, his supporters didn't name operatives to run the must-win states, let alone open offices in key states. While Democrats hammered each other in their marathon contest, McCain left aides from his primary states sitting still, waiting for orders. It took more than two months for McCain's national headquarters to approve budgets for the battleground states.

The task, Plouffe said, is to define McCain as tied to Bush on the economy, the war and abortion rights. He said the campaign will go on offense against McCain, besides playing aggressive defense when criticized.

That promise was also given by Obama, who said Friday night, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." Critics have questioned why a candidate who promotes a new kind of politics planned such bare-knuckles tactics.

Among independent voters, McCain and Obama are about tied in favorability ratings in recent polls.

Plouffe in recent days has been making his pitch aggressively — part cheerleading, part sales job. Many of Clinton's supporters remain frustrated with how national Democrats resolved the issue of Michigan's delegates, agreeing to seat all of them at the nominating convention but penalizing them by half for violating the calendar, and Plouffe has tried to quell that frustration.

He wraps up the pitches by asking Democrats to imagine Obama taking the oath of office. On Friday at the Capitol City Brewery, about a block from where that would happen, Plouffe pointed toward the Capitol steps to reinforce the visual.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Part 1 of 3

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the current issue (July/August 2008) of Foreign Affairs, is an interesting article by Robert Pastor one of the co-chairs (along with John Manley of Canada) of the Independent Task Force on North America and, therefore, one of the authors of its (May, 2005) Report: Building a North American Community:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faessay87406-p0/robert-a-pastor/the-future-of-north-america.html

The Future of North America
Replacing a Bad Neighbor Policy

Robert A. Pastor

From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2008

Summary:  It's time to integrate further with Canada and Mexico, not separate from them.

Robert A. Pastor is a Professor at and Founding Director of the Center for North American Studies at American University. He is currently writing a book entitled The North American Idea.

On January 20, 2009, if not before, a new national security adviser will tell the incoming president of the United States that the first two international visitors should be the prime minister of Canada and the president of Mexico. Almost every new president since World War II has followed this ritual, because no two countries in the world have a greater impact economically, socially, and politically on the United States than its neighbors. The importance of Canada and Mexico may, however, come as a surprise to most Americans, as well as to the new president. In the presidential campaign, instead of discussing a positive agenda for North America's future, the candidates have focused critically on two parts of that agenda, the 14-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and immigration. And overall, one could conclude from listening to the campaign that Iraq is key to U.S. national security, China is the United States' most important trading partner, and Saudi Arabia and Venezuela supply most of the United States' energy.

None of these propositions is true. For most of the past decade, Canada and Mexico have been the United States' most important trading partners and largest sources of energy imports. U.S. national security depends more on cooperative neighbors and secure borders than it does on defeating militias in Basra.

The new president will take office at a low moment in U.S. relations with its neighbors. The percentage of Canadians and Mexicans who have a favorable view of U.S. policy has declined by nearly half in the Bush years. The immigration debate in Congress and the exchange between the two leading Democratic presidential candidates on who dislikes NAFTA more has left a bitter taste in the mouths of Canadians and Mexicans. The ultimatum issued by Senators Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to Canada and Mexico -- renegotiate NAFTA on U.S. terms, or else -- hardly displayed the kind of sensitivity to the United States' friends that they have promised. On the other side, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) has offered such an unvarnished defense of NAFTA that it would appear he feels nothing more is needed. Moreover, although an author of legislation on immigration reform, McCain retreated from such reform after being harshly criticized. CNN's Lou Dobbs' reports on the disastrous effects of illegal immigration and trade seem to have had a more profound effect on the national debate than many people have thought. Indeed, the candidates seem to have accepted Dobbs' variation on Hobson's choice -- either reject NAFTA or suffer decline as a candidate and as a nation.

Sadly, the United States' leaders are looking backward at NAFTA rather than forward by articulating a new vision of shared continental interests. NAFTA has become a diversion, a piñata for pandering pundits and politicians -- even though it succeeded in what it was designed to do. It dismantled trade and investment barriers, and as a result, U.S. trade in goods and services with Canada and Mexico tripled -- from $341 billion in 1993 to more than $1 trillion in 2007 -- and inward foreign direct investment quintupled among the three countries and increased tenfold in Mexico between 1990 and 2005. North America, not Europe, is now the largest free-trade area in the world in terms of gross product.

The new U.S. administration needs to replace a bad neighbor policy with a genuine dialogue with Canada and Mexico aimed at creating a sense of community and a common approach to continental problems. The new president must address the full gamut of North American issues not covered by NAFTA, as well as the governance issues arising from the successful enlargement of the market. North America's leaders should deepen economic integration by negotiating a customs union. They should establish a North American investment fund to narrow the income gap between Mexico and its northern neighbors. This would have a greater effect on undocumented immigration to the United States than so-called comprehensive immigration reform. And they should create a lean, independent advisory commission to prepare North American plans for transportation, infrastructure, energy, the environment, and labor standards.

For the last eight years, North America's experiment in integration has stalled. The new president needs to restart the engine.

THE NORTH AMERICAN DISADVANTAGE

No president has met with his counterparts in Canada and Mexico more and yet accomplished less than George W. Bush. Between February 2001 and April 2008, President Bush met the Mexican president 18 times and the Canadian prime minister 21 times. All three huddled together 12 times.

What have they accomplished? They have devised a North American game of Scrabble with intergovernmental committees meeting periodically to spell new acronyms that purport to be initiatives. NAFTA set the precedent with 29 working groups. President Bush brought the Scrabble game to a higher level, inventing and discarding new acronyms with great abandon. In his first visit to Mexico in February 2001, he announced the goal of building an NAEC (North American economic community). Seven months later, during a visit by the Mexican president to the White House, Bush abandoned the community in favor of the P4P (Partnership for Prosperity). To deal with security fears arising from 9/11 and economic fears that a more formidable border would reduce trade, the United States signed separate "smart border" agreements with Canada and Mexico. These gave birth to still more working groups and initiatives, including FAST (Free and Secure Trade), PIP (Partners in Protection), C-TPAT (Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism), WHTI (Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative), IBETs (Integrated Border Enforcement Teams), ACE (Automated Commercial Environment). SENTRI provided a fast-lane approach to the U.S.-Mexican border, and NEXUS did the same for the U.S.-Canadian border. No one explained why they could not do this with one, rather than two, acronyms -- or rather one agency and procedure rather than two.

In March 2005, the SPP, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, replaced the P4P. This was another bureaucratic exercise aimed at delivering "measurable results" to make North America more competitive and secure. It initially listed 300 goals, almost all technical -- for example, to harmonize regulations on jelly beans or eliminate "rules of origin" regulations, which tax the part of each product that is not made in North America. After three years, officials still have not harmonized jelly-bean labels, but they have removed "rules of origin" provisions on $30 billion of goods. That may sound like a lot, but it represents less than the growth of annual trade in North America. A year later, in 2006, the three North American leaders invited a group of CEOs from some of the largest corporations in North America to establish the NACC (North American Competitiveness Council). They focused on 51 recommendations, which included eliminating pesky regulations, and agreed on the need to work "under the radar screen" of public attention.

If you measure progress by examining the growth in trade, the reduction in wait times at the borders, and the public's support for integration, all of these initiatives have failed miserably. The growth in trade in the Bush years has been less than one-third of what it was in the previous seven years -- three percent versus 9.8 percent. The wait times have lengthened, and public opinion toward the rest of North America in all three countries has deteriorated, in part because the United States failed to comply with NAFTA on issues (for example, trucking and softwood lumber) of great importance to Canada and Mexico.

North American integration has stalled in the Bush years for several reasons, beginning with 9/11, which led to intense security inspections on the two borders, creating giant speed bumps for commerce. A study of the U.S.-Canadian border found a 20 percent increase in border delays crossing southbound and a 12 percent increase in delays northbound since 9/11.

Second, although North American trade has tripled, and 80 percent of the goods from that trade is transported on roads, there has been little investment in infrastructure on the borders and almost none for roads connecting the three countries. Thus, the delays are longer and more costly than before NAFTA. The steel industry recently estimated that wait times for their shipments, which are generally 5-6 hours, result in annual losses of $300-$600 million. Another study estimated that delays added a cost of 2.7 percent to the goods.

Third, trucks are still impeded from crossing the U.S.-Mexican border. Despite NAFTA's mandate that Mexican trucks be allowed to enter the United States starting in 1995, the first trucks -- beginning with 55 -- crossed in March 2008, on a pilot project that Congress has tried to stop. (As a point of reference, about 4.2 million Mexican trucks bring their products to the border each year.) Each year, more than four billion pounds of fruits and vegetables are placed on trucks in the Mexican state of Sonora. When the trucks reach the border crossing at Mariposa, the produce is unloaded in a warehouse, then retrieved by another truck that takes it several miles into Arizona, where it is unloaded again into another warehouse and then retrieved by an American carrier. With 280,000 trucks coming to the Arizona border each year, think of the inefficiency and cost of transferring fresh produce three times to cross one border.

Fourth, complying with the "rules of origin" provisions takes so long that many firms simply use the standard tariff that NAFTA was intended to eliminate. Finally, North American integration stalled because China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, and its exports to all three North American countries grew so fast that in 2007 it overtook Mexico as the United States' second-largest trading partner. In 2001, the United States imported more textiles and garments from Mexico than from China, but by 2006 it imported almost four times as much from China as from Mexico. (The United States still exports 60 percent more to Mexico than to China.)

Intraregional exports among the three North American countries as a percent of their global exports increased from 43 percent in 1990 to 57 percent in 2000 -- a level of integration almost matching that of the European Union after five decades of integration. Since then, intraregional integration in North America has not changed. Auto parts for one car cross the borders eight times in the course of being assembled. With added security, inadequate infrastructure, and the interruption of trucking from Mexico, the transaction costs now not only exceed the tariff that was eliminated but also are much higher than the tariffs imposed on foreign cars that need to enter the United States only once, as a completed product. In short, the North American advantage has turned into the North American disadvantage.

The immigration debate has added insult to injury by antagonizing Mexico without accomplishing anything. Only Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex.) dared to propose a North American investment fund to help close the income gap (and thus slow immigration), but he withdrew his proposal after being criticized by conservatives. That would have helped Mexican workers much more than the eight core labor conventions proposed for inclusion in the NAFTA agreement.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Part 2 of 3

A TWO-FRONT STORM

Assaults from both ends of the political spectrum have transformed the debate on North America in recent years. From the right have come attacks based on cultural anxieties of being overrun by Mexican immigrants and fears that greater cooperation with Canada and Mexico could lead down a slippery slope toward a North American Union. Dobbs, among others, viewed a report by a 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force (which I co-chaired), Building a North American Community, as the manifesto of a conspiracy to subvert American sovereignty. Dobbs claimed that the CFR study proposed a North American Union, although it did not. From the left came attacks based on economic fears of job losses due to unfair trading practices. These two sets of fears came together in a perfect storm that was pushed forward by a surplus of hot air from talk-show hosts on radio and television. In the face of this criticism, the Bush administration was silent, and the Democratic candidates competed for votes in the rust-belt states, where unions and many working people have come to see NAFTA and globalization much as Dobbs does.

The debate in the United States became so insular that Americans essentially reversed roles with their neighbors. For nearly two centuries, many in Canada and Mexico built walls to limit U.S. influence. Within two decades of their decision to dismantle the walls, the United States is being pressed by anti-North American Union populists to rebuild the barriers to keep out its neighbors. The idea that the United States should fear being taken over by its weaker neighbors is bizarre, but it is becoming a staple of the populist critique.

During the NAFTA debate, people in all three countries had anxieties and reservations. Canada and Mexico feared U.S. investors would take over their industries, and Americans feared that Canadians and Mexicans would take their jobs. None of this happened. Canadians invested at a more rapid pace in the United States than U.S. firms invested in Canada, and although foreign investment in Mexico soared -- from $33 billion in 1993 to $210 billion in 2005 -- the percentage coming from the United States declined by ten percent.

Meanwhile, all three economies became more connected. Many national firms became North American, producing and marketing their products in all three countries. The international sector of all three economies grew (and export-oriented firms pay wages 13-16 percent higher than the national average). Needless to say, as the market expanded and the competition grew more intense, there were more winners and losers, but as consumers, all North Americans benefited from more choices, lower prices, and higher-quality products.

In an econometric analysis of the effects of NAFTA, the World Bank estimated that by 2002 Mexico's GDP per capita was 4-5 percent higher, its exports 50 percent higher, and its foreign direct investment 40 percent higher than they would have been without NAFTA. NAFTA's effects on the United States, given the much larger size of its economy, are much smaller and harder to measure. Still, the first seven years of NAFTA, from 1994 to 2001, were a period of great trade expansion and job creation in the United States. NAFTA does not deserve the credit for all or even much of this job growth, but it surely cannot be blamed for serious job losses. If one focuses only on jobs, U.S. employment grew from 110 million jobs in 1993 to 137 million in 2006 (and in Canada, from 13 million to 16 million). And U.S. manufacturing output increased by 63 percent between 1993 and 2006.

These benefits have not yielded a positive consensus in part because they have not been equitably shared with those who paid a price. On this, North America's different voices are audible. One is the strident and angry voice, personified by Dobbs, which argues that Mexicans have little in common with Americans, that free trade hurts workers and the economy, and that the United States can solve the "immigration problem" by building a wall. This voice has echoes in Canada and Mexico, and it resonates among those who are uneasy or fearful about trade and integration. Another voice represents those who welcome integration and are willing to experiment with new forms of partnership. Public opinion surveys suggest that the latter voice represents the majority, even if few leaders speak for them today.

There are many surveys of public opinion conducted in North America, and they have found that values in all three countries are similar and converging. Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans like and trust one another more than they do people from almost any other country, even though Canadian and Mexican views of U.S. policy have grown negative in the past seven years. Thirty-eight percent of the people in all three countries identify themselves as "North American," and a majority of these publics would even be in favor of some form of unification if they thought it would improve their standards of living without harming the environment or diminishing their national identities. A majority believe that free trade is good for all three countries, although respondents also believe that free trade has benefited the other countries in North America more than it has theirs. A majority of the publics in all three countries would prefer "integrated North American policies" rather than independent national policies on the environment and border security, and a plurality feel the same way about transportation, energy, defense, and economic policies.

Given these surveys, the obvious question is why the current presidential candidates believe that the American public is anti-Mexican and supports protectionism. There are several possible explanations. Support for free trade is evident over an extended period, but the degree of support varies over time and space, depending on the state of the economy and the size of the trade deficit. A CNN national poll conducted in October 2007 found that more Americans believed foreign trade was an opportunity than believed trade was a threat. But exit polls of Democrats voting in the Ohio primary on March 4, 2008, showed that 80 percent blamed trade for job losses. In a tight race, the candidates responded to the negative view, which was more intense than the hopes reflected in the public opinion surveys. For that reason, and because no political leader is contesting him in the marketplace of ideas, Dobbs is shaping the debate, and the unions are shaping the policy prescription.

North America faces a Dobbsean choice -- between reversing and accelerating integration, between putting up barriers and finding new ways to collaborate. Ironically, the Dobbs view has strengthened just as economic integration in North America has weakened.

It is clear that the Bush administration's incremental, quiet, business-based approach has not succeeded in promoting economic integration or closer collaboration with the United States' neighbors. Instead, it has raised some legitimate concerns and provoked a nativist backlash. It was a mistake to allow CEOs to be the only outside advisers on deregulation and the harmonization of remaining regulations. Civil society and legislatures must be heard on these issues, which are less about business than about how to pursue environmental, labor, and health goals. More broadly, free trade is clearly not enough. Those groups that pay the price of increased competition need to share the benefits and need to have a safety net that includes wage insurance, education and trade adjustment assistance, and health care. Nor is free trade all that is needed to help Mexico enter the developed world.

The dual-bilateral strategy (U.S.-Canada, U.S.-Mexico) is also failing. It exacerbates the defining and debilitating characteristic of the United States' relations with its neighbors -- asymmetry. It leads Washington to ignore them or impose its will, and it causes Ottawa and Mexico City to either retreat or be defensive. Given the imbalance in power and wealth, a truly equal relationship may be elusive, but it is in the long-term interests of all three countries to build institutions that will reduce the imbalance. The genius of the Marshall Plan was that the United States used its leverage not for short-term gain but to encourage Europe to unite. That kind of statesmanship is needed to step beyond short-term and private interests and construct a North American Community.

There are other reasons for a North American approach. If three governments rather than two sit at the table, they are more likely to focus on rules than on power, on national and continental interests rather than on the interests of specific companies or unions. On issues such as transportation and the environment, a three-sided dialogue could produce North American plans. Even on border issues, the three nations could benefit from comparing procedures and borrowing from one another the ones that work the best.

A North American approach needs a vision based on the simple premise that each country benefits from its neighbors' success and each is diminished by their problems or setbacks. With such a vision, it becomes logical to consider a North American investment fund to reduce the income disparity between Mexico and its northern neighbors. Without such a vision, such a proposal has no chance. Without a vision, the governments will continue to grapple with one issue, one country at a time, reinforcing old stereotypes, such as that of Mexico as a corrupt, drug-dealing, immigrant-sending problem. With a vision of a community, all three governments should see one another as part of the transnational problem and essential to a solution.

The first step is to deepen economic integration by eliminating the costly and cumbersome "rules of origin" regulations, allowing all legitimate goods to move seamlessly across the borders, and permitting border officials to concentrate on stopping drugs and terrorists. To eliminate the rules of origin, the three governments will need to negotiate a common external tariff at the lowest levels. This will not be easy, as there are other free-trade agreements that would need to be reconciled, but it will make the North American economy more efficient. A smaller measure, which could have as large an economic impact, would be to comply with NAFTA and harmonize the three countries' regulations on truck safety so as to permit trucks to travel in all three countries.

Other decisions could harness the comparative advantage of each country to mutual benefit. For example, more Americans live and retire in Mexico than in any other foreign country. If the United States certified hospitals in Mexico and allowed retirees to use Medicare there, both countries would benefit. The second step is to secure national borders and the continental perimeter. The best approach would be to train Canadian, Mexican, and U.S. officials together to avoid duplication, share intelligence, and secure the borders as a team.

Another challenge is to narrow the gap in income that separates Mexico from its northern neighbors by creating a North American investment fund. The fund should target $20 billion a year to connect central and southern Mexico to the United States with roads, ports, and communications. With the goal of building a North American Community, all three governments should commit to narrowing the income gap, with each deciding how it could best contribute. Since it will benefit the most, Mexico should consider contributing half of the money for the fund and also undertake reforms -- fiscal, energy, and labor -- to ensure that the resources would be effectively used. The United States should contribute each year 40 percent of the fund's resources -- less than half the cost each week of the war in Iraq -- and Canada, 10 percent. Since NAFTA was put into place, the northern part of Mexico has grown ten times as fast as the southern part because it is connected to the Canadian and U.S. markets. North America can wait a hundred years for southern Mexico to catch up, or it can help accelerate its development -- which would have positive consequences in terms of reducing emigration, expanding trade, and investing in infrastructure to help Mexico enter the developed world.

North America's model of integration is different from Europe's. It respects the market more and trusts bureaucracy less. Still, some institutions are needed to develop continental proposals, monitor progress, and enforce compliance. The three leaders should institutionalize summit meetings at least annually, and they should establish a North American commission composed of independent and distinguished leaders from academia, civil society, business, labor, and agriculture and with an independent research capacity. The commission should offer continental proposals to the three leaders. The leaders would continue to be staffed by their respective governments, but they would respond to a continental, rather than a dual-bilateral, agenda. The commission should develop a North American plan for transportation and infrastructure and plans on labor, agriculture, the environment, energy, immigration, drug trafficking, and borders.

The three heads of state must also commit to building a new consciousness, a new way of thinking about one's neighbors and about the continental agenda. Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans can be nationals and North Americans at the same time. Indeed, an appreciation of one's neighbors as part of a compelling North American idea could enhance the prestige of each country. To educate a new generation of students to think North American, each country should begin by supporting a dozen centers for North American studies. Each center should educate students, undertake research, and foster exchanges with other North American universities for both students and faculty.

This is a formidable agenda that could transform North America and each of its states. It is not possible without a vision, and it is not feasible without real leadership and credible institutions. But with all three, a North American Community can be built. The existence of such a community would mean that the United States would consult its neighbors on important issues that affected them. It would mean that Canada would work closely with Mexico to build rule-based institutions and to develop a formula for closing the development gap. It would mean that Mexico would undertake reforms to make good use of the additional resources.

This is a very different agenda than seeking to improve working conditions and the environment by rewriting NAFTA and threatening to increase tariffs. Labor and environmental issues should be part of the North American dialogue working to improve the continent, but there is no evidence that foreign investors move to Mexico in order to take advantage of lax labor and environmental rules. Quite the contrary: Mexico's labor laws are so rigid that they often discourage foreign investors. Moreover, they incorporate the eight core international labor standards, whereas the United States has not approved six of them. As for its environmental laws, Mexico maintains standards that are quite good; the problem is that it lacks funds for enforcement or cleanup.

The immigration issue also needs to be addressed in this broader context. A fence is needed in some places, but building a 700-mile wall would be more insulting than effective. If the United States is going to try to forge a community, it needs to articulate an approach that acknowledges that it is complicit in the immigration problem in hiring illegal immigrants, who work harder for less. More important, if the United States were to join with Mexico in a serious commitment to narrow the income gap, then cooperation over other issues would become possible. The best place to enforce immigration policy is in the workplace, not at the border, but national, biometric identification cards will be needed for everyone to make the policy effective, and a path to legalization will be needed to make it just.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Part 3 of 3

A NORTH AMERICAN COMMUNITY

It might seem strange that President Bush would host his final North American summit meeting in New Orleans, as he did in April. His response to Hurricane Katrina was deservedly criticized for its mismanagement. But New Orleans was, at the same time, an appropriate site: both Canada and Mexico mobilized to assist the people of New Orleans after Katrina, with Mexico even sending troops to bring food and undocumented Mexican workers helping to rebuild the city.

The April summit meeting was probably the last hurrah for the SPP. The strategy of acting on technical issues in an incremental, bureaucratic way, and of keeping the issues away from public view, has generated more suspicion than accomplishments. The new president will probably discard the SPP. Annual summits, however, should be continued, but be opened to civil society, as Senator Obama has proposed, and intergovernmental connections should be strengthened.

It would be desirable for Canada and Mexico to join in making a comprehensive proposal for a North American Community, but Canada's aloofness from Mexico makes that unlikely. Therefore, the responsibility for defining North America's future will lie with the new U.S. president. If the next administration seeks to renegotiate NAFTA, presses for enforceable labor and environmental provisions, and allows special interests, such as the Teamsters Union and the trucking industry, to prevent competition and avoid compliance with the agreement, the United States' neighbors may look back on the Bush years with nostalgia. Canada and Mexico would be under pressure to seek their own exemptions to NAFTA, and they would likely remind Washington that when it comes to enforceable sanctions, the United States has been more guilty of noncompliance than they have. Renegotiating NAFTA would require a significant investment of the new administration's time and political capital without, in the end, helping workers or the environment much, if at all.

The alternative approach needs to start with a vision of a North American Community and some institutions -- quite different from Europe's -- designed to pursue a bold agenda that includes a customs union, a North American commission, a North American investment fund, and a common team of customs and border guards to man the borders and the continental perimeter. To move toward these goals, the next president should designate a national adviser for North American affairs, who would chair a cabinet-level committee to formulate a comprehensive plan and to help the president negotiate the difficult tradeoffs between special interests and national and continental interests. Instead of refighting the NAFTA debate, this comprehensive approach would lay the foundation for a new North America.

This is a very ambitious agenda, but on the eve of NAFTA's 15th anniversary, Americans are looking for a fresh approach, and no set of foreign policies would contribute more to U.S. prosperity and security than those devoted to building a North American Community. If the United States wants to compete, it cannot march backward, nor can it stand in place without falling behind. The new president -- working with counterparts in Canada and Mexico -- has the opportunity to redefine the face of North America for the twenty-first century. If the principal foreign policy challenge for the next administration is to restore trust in the United States, then the first step is to demonstrate to the world that it can work with and respect its neighbors.

I agree with Pastor re:

• The importance, to all three partners of the North American economic/trade relationship; and

• The failures, of the Bush administration, to manage that relationship well.

But, the (failed) “dual bilateral” system (Canada/US and Mexico/US) is, in fact, the only one that makes any sense to all three partners. There is no important Canada/Mexico relationship, NAFTA or not, and the nature of the Canada/US and Mexico/US relationships are quite different. One of the reasons Lou Dobbs and his ideas are so popular is that, insofar as they concern Mexico, they make sense. It is intuitively obvious that the Mexico/US border is an economic, social, political and security nightmare; the Canada/US border is not without problems but there are orders of magnitude in the differences between the two.

Therefore, I disagree with Pastor re:  ”A North American Community”. I do not believe it can work because I do not believe that the sorts of integration envisioned in the 2005 Report are possible on a trilateral basis. The report makes sense for Canada/US integration but I doubt that either Canada or the US would agree to the sorts of things Manley, Pastor et al proposed for Mexico.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
I agree with Pastor re:

• The importance, to all three partners of the North American economic/trade relationship; and

• The failures, of the Bush administration, to manage that relationship well.

But, the (failed) “dual bilateral” system (Canada/US and Mexico/US) is, in fact, the only one that makes any sense to all three partners. There is no important Canada/Mexico relationship, NAFTA or not, and the nature of the Canada/US and Mexico/US relationships are quite different. One of the reasons Lou Dobbs and his ideas are so popular is that, insofar as they concern Mexico, they make sense. It is intuitively obvious that the Mexico/US border is an economic, social, political and security nightmare; the Canada/US border is not without problems but there are orders of magnitude in the differences between the two.

Therefore, I disagree with Pastor re:   ”A North American Community”. I do not believe it can work because I do not believe that the sorts of integration envisioned in the 2005 Report are possible on a trilateral basis. The report makes sense for Canada/US integration but I doubt that either Canada or the US would agree to the sorts of things Manley, Pastor et al proposed for Mexico.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is a comment by former US Ambassador Gordon Giffen that supports my earlier comment:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080620.wcocanam20/BNStory/specialComment/home

Thou must not forsake a beneficial partnership
We have become too complacent in dealing with each other

GORDON GIFFIN

From Friday's Globe and Mail
June 20, 2008 at 8:46 AM EDT

The week began with a visit of four Canadian premiers to Savannah, Ga., and ends today with a visit by Senator John McCain to Ottawa.

In each setting, leaders from various parties and regions are touting the benefits of Canada-U.S. collaboration generally, and of the North American free-trade agreement specifically. Such meetings and engagement are to be encouraged. (While Barack Obama hasn't chosen to spend an afternoon in Canada yet, it's clear he understands and values the relationship.)

The enormous historic successes of the Canada-U.S. relationship are such a well-kept secret that the agreement that facilitated much of our shared prosperity has become a political football.

NAFTA is no more responsible for the loss of industrial jobs in the American Midwest than is the Treaty of Versailles - but the problem is many people think it is. There are some who even fault NAFTA for the loss of jobs to China and India.

The term "NAFTA," unfortunately, has become slang for globalization and unfair trade. That's been made possible because we have failed to explain the truth to our respective publics and failed to confront the naysayers with the facts. An uninformed public is able to be misled by ideologically driven talking heads such as CNN's business commentator Lou Dobbs, who are more interested in attracting viewers than in honest education.

While I believe the merits of NAFTA are evident, its advocates must be more vocal in the current debate. It's not sufficient simply to defend the 20-year-old agreement. Rather, we must define a new dynamic for a forward-looking vision for the Canada-U.S. relationship.

Our future together is more than commerce and must be examined in its broader context.

First, we have become complacent in our partnership. It is imperative that we renew our appreciation for our shared history and explain to our citizens why open borders, international collaboration and unfettered commerce are in both peoples' interest.

We were partners in liberating Europe in the Second World War and in confronting Communism during the Cold War. We co-existed on a continent along what was once referred to as the longest undefended border in the world. We built prosperous economies with the 1960s-vintage Auto Pact, followed by the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement. We have been resting on these accomplishments for quite some time now, and do not adequately celebrate and advertise that history of mutually beneficial collaboration to our fellow citizens.

Second, we must remember that it takes two to tango, not three. The current tendency in Washington and Ottawa is to trilateralize every policy discussion and bring our fellow North American nation, Mexico, into the equation.

That is a mistake for the growth and development of the Canada-U.S. neighbourhood and it has created an unintended impediment to the evolution of our bilateral relationship. Frankly, there are many initiatives, simply in the realm of border management, that are feasible at the 49th parallel but that may not be practical at the Rio Grande. Mexico is not part of NORAD, NATO or the OECD. Its democratic and economic institutions are not at the stage of development we enjoy. This doesn't mean we leave Mexico or trilateralism behind, but it does mean that where we can make immediate bilateral progress together beyond NAFTA, we should.

Third, our northern neighbourhood has become hostage to the morass of small ideas; we have forgotten that bold ideas work. Europe has outstripped us in solving the riddle of reducing barriers, harmonizing regulatory regimes and facilitating commerce, without eroding the political or territorial sovereignty of any nation state. Each year, countries on the fringes of the European Union campaign desperately to gain entry in the club - not so in this hemisphere.

In 1909, Canada and the United States created a visionary institution, the International Joint Commission, to manage our multiple boundary waters. In 1958, we created NORAD to provide for mutual defence of our continental airspace. In 1988, we entered into the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement, the template for NAFTA. Each were bold steps towards a vision of a better, more efficient, more collaborative North America. None of these steps substantively or politically were easy.

None of them were free of opposition from shortsighted nationalists and protectionists in either country. But they were bold ideas worth implementing.

The events of Sept. 11, 2001, complicated some of the ideas that should be pursued but this should not be a reason to retain the status quo.

It cannot be disputed that our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary. Where we have failed to forge a consensus is on visionary initiatives to address our shared security threats and shared challenges to our economic growth and development.

The fact that the governors of Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee met this week with the premiers of Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and PEI and that a senator who might be president is today focused on the attributes of our partnership makes this a very good week to deflate the political football and kick off a new era.

Gordon D. Giffin, former U.S. ambassador to Canada, is a partner with McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP in Washington.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is the text of Sen. McCain’s speech, given to the Economic Club, in Ottawa, today:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080620.wmccaintext0620/BNStory/Front/?pageRequested=3

John McCain's prepared remarks in Ottawa to the Economic Club of Toronto
Prepared remarks by John McCain on 'The Relationship Between The United States And Canada'

Globe and Mail Update
June 20, 2008 at 11:54 AM EDT

Thank you all very much. I appreciate the warm welcome to Ottawa, and the hospitality of the Economic Club of Toronto. The reputation of the Economic Club as a place for serious discussion of policy is well known in America, and I am honored by your invitation. There aren't any electoral votes to be won up here in the middle of a presidential election. But there are many shared interests that require our attention today, and many Canadians here I am proud to call friends.

If you've been following the presidential election, you've probably noticed that Canada comes up for discussion quite a bit these days. And this is as it should be -- because no other nation shares so many ties with the United States. And today the strength of that partnership is more vital than ever. The economic community we have founded, together with our alliance and the values we hold in common, have served our people for decades, and served us well. It will fall to the next president to strengthen these ties still further, adding to the security and prosperity of all of North America.

We in the United States are very lucky, in a way that's easy to take for granted. We are surrounded by two great oceans, and by two nations we count as friends. Think of the fate of other nations, and how much of their histories have been shaped by hostile neighbors. Generation after generation, they live in fear, resentment, and competition harmful to the interests of all. Lost in rivalry and distrust are the advantages of regional friendship and stability. What a blessing it is for the United States to have in Canada a neighbor we fear only on ice rinks and baseball diamonds.

The best American statesmen have always understood that Canada is not some adjunct to America. We are firm and fast friends. We are allies, partners in success and adversity alike, and a great deal depends on preserving that unity.

Trade is just a part of what unites us, but a very important part. Last year alone, we exchanged some 560 billion dollars in goods, and Canada is the leading export market for 36 of the 50 United States. This country stands as America's leading overall export market, and America is Canada's leading agricultural market. With 60 percent of all direct foreign investment in Canada originating in the United States -- some 289 billion dollars in 2007 -- our economies draw strength from one another.

A prosperous Canada means a more dynamic and resilient American economy. There are areas where the United States can learn a great deal from your experience. Beginning in 1995, Canada did the hard work to put its fiscal house in order. You reduced spending and brought the budget from deficit to surplus. However, unlike your free-spending neighbor to the south, Canada continued to run budget surpluses even while cutting its corporate and personal tax rates. Lower taxes and spending restraint is a philosophy we should import from Canada.

Our common interests extend to other pursuits as well. The future of our environment, the flows of our energy, and the security of nations -- all of these are aided by the close relations forged by our predecessors in Ottawa and Washington. And if I have anything to say about it after January of next year, America is going to expand these ties of friendship and cooperation between our two nations.

At the forefront of our minds, in these years since the Millennium Plot and the events of 9/11, is the security of our citizens. Our governments have made real progress in keeping our borders closed to terrorists and open to trade. Yet this will remain an ongoing challenge and a key issue for the next American administration. Tens of millions of people and vehicles cross the Canadian-American border every year. The two-way trade that crosses the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor equals all American exports to Japan. That transit, and all our crossing points, must remain secure. In extending our security partnership, we can ensure continued flows of people and commerce while maintaining security on which these very flows depend. We need to do an even better job of managing the regular traffic across our border.

Already, we cooperate in preparing for emergencies -- exchanging information and manpower to coordinate our response to danger. We have agreements in place to work together in detecting radiological and nuclear threats, to improve security at ports, borders, and airports, and to assist first responders. We exchange public health officers and have agreed on principles for screening intercontinental air travelers in the event of a pandemic. In all of this, we are drawing upon the skills and knowledge of one another, and we are joined in the crucial work of protecting our people.

At the same time, Canada and America are joined in other vital causes around the world -- from the fight against nuclear proliferation to the fight against global warming, from the fight for justice in Haiti to the fight for democracy in Afghanistan. I, for one, will never forget the response of our Canadian friends to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It was here in Ottawa, three days later, where tens of thousands of Canadians filled the streets on a National Day of Mourning. The Canadian people even took in Americans who has been left stranded by the shutdown of American air space. We in America have not forgotten your kindness. And we will never forget the solidarity, compassion, and friendship of Canada when it mattered most.

We know as well that Canada, too, has suffered casualties in the years since 9/11, and we honor their memory as we do our own. As always in Canada's history, this nation has been willing to do hard things, even when the costs run high. Along with our other allies, Canada and America are still fighting in defense of Afghanistan -- in the honorable cause of freedom for that long suffering country, and greater security for ourselves. To date, Canada has committed nearly two billion dollars to the rebuilding of Afghanistan, including a recent 50% increase at the Paris Conference. It is a generous investment, and a wise one, and together our countries are going to see this mission through.

Even in Iraq, where Canada has not always agreed with American policies, this nation has done all that those differences would allow to help the Iraqi people. In characteristic form, Canada has given generous humanitarian aid and development assistance. And your government has provided more than 770 million in combined assistance and debt relief to Iraq, helping a struggling young democracy at a critical time.

It's the mark of good friends that they're willing to correct you, and to do so without rancor. Many Canadians have objected to the policies of the United States in dealing with terrorists, and with enemy combatants held at the Guantanamo prison. It happens that I also regard the prison at Guantanamo as a liability in the cause against violent radical extremism, and as president I would close it. I intend as well to listen carefully when close allies offer their counsel. And even when they don't volunteer their advice, I'll ask for it and seek it out.

We're going to need that spirit in many efforts. We have a shared destiny, Canada and the United States. We are both continental powers, nations shaped by our diverse heritage and our frontier experience. We are also both Arctic nations. And because of this common geography, we must be acutely aware of the perils posed by global warming and take immediate steps to reverse its effects.

Three years ago, I traveled with some colleagues, including Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Lindsey Graham, to Yukon territory, a front line of global warming. We flew over miles of devastated spruce forests, every tree killed by insects that thrive in warm temperatures. As the trees die, fires multiply, and across the region the waters are vanishing. We heard from men and women near Whitehorse whose traditional way of life had been radically disrupted.

All of this is just a glimpse of the grave environmental dangers that global warming can bring, unless we act to prevent it. I was among the first in Congress to introduce legislation to curb greenhouse gasses. If I am elected president, it will be a top priority to enact an energy policy equal to this challenge. A sensible cap-and-trade emissions system, for instance, is a critical part of such a policy. Under U.S. and Canadian leadership, the Montreal Protocol began the process of phasing out gases that were destroying our planet's ozone layer. That cap-and-trade system removed the threat of acid rain. I believe we can apply it to great effect against the threat of climate change. And here, too, Canada and America can work in common purpose against common dangers.

We must also work to ensure reliable energy supplies and increase sources of renewable energy. As you all know, Canada is America's largest energy supplier. Not only does Canada have the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, 60 percent of the energy produced in Canada is hydroelectric, clean energy. We stand much to gain by harmonizing our energy policies, just as have gained by cooperating in trade through NAFTA. Since NAFTA was concluded, it has contributed to strong job growth and flourishing trade. Since the agreement was signed, the United States has added 25 million jobs and Canada more than 4 million. Cross-border trade has more than doubled since NAFTA came into force. We have established North America as the world's largest economic market and the integration of our economies has led to greater competitiveness of American and Canadian businesses. Because of our common market, our workers are better able to compete, and to find opportunities of their own in the global economy.

There is still more work to do. Complying with NAFTA's rules of origin can be cumbersome and costly. Border delays can pose a serious impediment to trade, the equivalent of a tariff. And even now, for all the successes of NAFTA, we have to defend it without equivocation in political debate, because it is critical to the future of so many Canadian and American workers and businesses. Demanding unilateral changes and threatening to abrogate an agreement that has increased trade and prosperity is nothing more than retreating behind protectionist walls. If I am elected president, have no doubt that America will honor its international commitments -- and we will expect the same of others. We will strengthen and extend the open and rules-based international trading system. I aspire to lead a proud, outward-looking America that deepens its partnerships throughout the hemisphere and the world.

Long before NAFTA, America received one of its most valuable exports from Canada in the form of a great statesman, Dean Acheson. He was descended from a great Canadian distilling family and a man who knew Canada well. As secretary of state, Acheson liked to drop by the home of his great friend Hume Wrong, Canada's ambassador to the United States, for consultation and advice over a quiet drink. As I said, Acheson came from a distilling family.

The relationship was not always smooth. But it was productive. Canada and the United States together gave generously for the reconstruction of Europe. And together, too, we helped to forge the new trading system that restored the prosperity of the world after a terrible war.

We've been through an awful lot together, Canada and America, and together we have achieved great things. We have a long shared history to draw from, and deep reserves of good will and mutual admiration. I thank you for all that you have done to advance one of the finest friendships between any two nations in the world today. I thank you for the conviction and clarity you bring to that work ahead for our two nations. And I thank you all for you kind attention here today.

In reminding Canadians of Dean Acheson and Hume Wrong McCain is reminding us all of the halcyon days of the Truman-Eisenhower/St Laurent era – something of a golden age for Canadian policy and influence and for Canada/US relations. There is also a lot in this speech that mirrors Ambassador Giffen’s remarks, posted earlier.

 

[CougarKing]

Another interesting development:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080621/ap_on_el_pr/obama_hagel

Hagel says he'd consider VP offer from Obama
By ANNA JO BRATTON, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 28 minutes ago

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said Friday he would consider serving as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's running mate if asked, but he doesn't expect to be on any ticket.

Hagel's vocal criticism of the Bush administration since the 2003 invasion of Iraq has touched off speculation that if Obama were to pick a Republican running mate, it might be Hagel. Hagel said in an interview with The Associated Press that after devoting much of his life to his country — in the Senate and the U.S. Army — he would have to consider any offer.

"If it would occur, I would have to think about it," Hagel said. "I think anybody, anybody would have to consider it. Doesn't mean you'd do it, doesn't mean you'd accept it, could be too many gaps there, but you'd have to consider it, I mean, it's the only thing you could do. Why wouldn't you?"

In a book published this year, Hagel said that despite holding one of the Senate's strongest records of support for President Bush, his standing as a Republican has been called into question because of his opposition to what he deems "a reckless foreign policy ... that is divorced from a strategic context."

Hagel wrote in "America: Our Next Chapter" that the invasion of Iraq was "the triumph of the so-called neoconservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence."

He said Friday that he and Obama also have differences.

"But what this country is going to have to do is come together next year, and the next president is going to have to bring this country together to govern with some consensus," Hagel said.

He hasn't endorsed Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumed Republican nominee, whom he calls a friend. Hagel said Friday he hadn't thought about who to vote for in November.

In a March appearance on ABC's "This Week, he said he and McCain have "some pretty fundamental disagreements on the future of foreign policy," including the Iraq war.

McCain has said his goal is to reduce U.S. casualties, shift security missions to Iraqis and, ultimately, have a noncombat U.S. troop presence in Iraq similar to that in South Korea. He has said that such a presence could last 100 years or more.

Ted Sorensen, a former speechwriter for President John F. Kennedy, said Thursday that Obama should consider Hagel.

Sorensen, a Nebraska native, said Obama should pick a running mate who can help where he's weakest, and Hagel's national security experience makes him a logical candidate. Obama has a team managing the vetting process that includes former first daughter Caroline Kennedy, and Sorensen said he has spoken to her about the selection.

Hagel served as an Army sergeant in Vietnam and was twice wounded in 1968, earning two Purple Hearts.

He was the only member of his party on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to support a nonbinding measure critical of Bush's decision to dispatch an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq.

"There is no strategy. This is a pingpong game with American lives," Hagel said at the time.

The rhetoric drew the public ire of Vice President Dick Cheney, who told Newsweek in January 2007 that Ronald Reagan's mantra to not speak ill of another Republican was sometimes hard to follow "where Chuck Hagel is involved."

___

On the Net:

U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel: http://www.hagel.senate.gov

 

[larry Strong]

Is there any precedence of someone from the other partry running on the same ticket? I know we have a mitt full of politicians who change their colors when it suits "Them". But has it happened in the US of A?

 

[tomahawk6]

None for VP-yet. We have had some in the Senate and House that have changed parties.Lieberman couldnt get the democrats to back him in his Senate race so he became and Independent but he still caucus' with the dem's.Jumpin Jim Jeffords went from being a Republican to a Democrat.Hagel wouldnt help Obama nor would Bloomberg as they are both very liberal.Some think that Obama might go with Sam Nunn who could help him down south.Bottom line few people vote for President because they like the VP choice its always the guy at the top of the ticket that matters.

 

[a_majoor]

This is a hilarious and potentially very effective campaign tool:

http://freedomnation.blogspot.com/2008/06/pork-invaders.html

Pork Invaders

At long last the video game we have all been waiting for, Pork Invaders! It is a game where any freedom loving individual can do mighty battle against the forces of waist and government excess. Who do we have to thank for this wonderful game? Could it be Sega or Sony? No! This unique yet oddly familiar game comes to us thanks to the John McCain campaign team.

John McCain is not satisfied with just running for the most influential elected office in the world. He also wants to serve as ambassador to Canada and the CEO of a video games production company. All this at his age! The man is truly a marvel.

Pork Invaders does not just provide hours of entertainment. It is also educational. In such a short time I have learned so many things that I did not know before. For example, did you know that McCain was a better presidential candidate than Obama? I had no idea!

Well here

is the link to this awesome new game, enjoy kids!
[/quote]

 

[CougarKing]

Whoever is elected, they must face the ff. issue with China:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25288252

China quandary will confront next president
Trade deficit and Chinese holdings of U.S. bonds complicate relations
By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
updated 8:17 a.m. PT, Mon., June. 23, 2008
WASHINGTON - Over the next few months, msnbc.com is presenting a weekly series Briefing Book: Issues '08 assessing some of the issues and controversies that the next president must confront once he takes the oath of office on Jan 20.

These weekly primers will define the problem or issue; outline the candidates' positions on the topic; evaluate shifts in the candidates' positions or votes; and forecast potential hurdles for the next president.

We begin with China, the world’s most populous nation, the fastest growing large economy, and the host of the Olympics in August. China is both America’s second largest trading partner and a growing military rival to the United States.

Why it’s a problem
Americans buy billions of dollars more of Chinese goods than the Chinese buy of American goods, leading to a large and growing trade imbalance. For every Boeing 747 being sold to a Chinese airline, billion of dollars worth of electronics, toys, and clothing is sold to American customers.

American manufacturers charge that China is manipulating its currency to gain advantage over U.S. firms, leading some in Congress to call for imposing punitive duties on Chinese imports.

As of the end of April, Chinese investors owned more than $500 billion of U.S. Treasury bonds, which made the Chinese second only to the Japanese as foreign holders of U.S. Treasury debt. These holdings give the Chinese leverage over the finances of the U.S. government and the value of the dollar.
Meanwhile, military tensions have been growing between Washington and Beijing.

Last year, the Chinese suddenly rejected a long-arranged port call for the U.S. aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk in Hong Kong.

The Chinese military also destroyed one of China's weather satellites with a ground-based missile, a step toward the militarization of outer space.

The United States has antagonized the Beijing regime by selling arms to Taiwan and awarding a congressional gold medal to the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama.

The summer Olympics open in China on Aug. 8. The build-up to the Olympics featured a crackdown on Tibetan nationalists, which in turn sparked calls for Olympic boycotts.

Human rights activists have also fired criticism at the Beijing regime for doing business with repressive regimes in Africa, especially in Sudan.

Where the candidates stand
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Obama said while campaigning in Pennsylvania on April 15, that as president he would say to the Chinese government, “You guys keep on manipulating your currency, we are going to start shutting off access to some of our markets. If you are doing the right thing and not trying to manipulate your currencies to our disadvantage then you will have access.”


He also promised last year, after a series of safety and lead contamination problems with Chinese toys, that if elected president he would ban their import.

"I would stop the import of all toys from China,” he said at one point in New Hampshire.

He added in Iowa, “I will work with China to keep harmful toys off our shelves. But I'll also immediately take steps to ensure that all toys are independently tested before they reach our shores and I'll significantly increase penalties on companies that break the rules….The more toys we import from China, the more risk to our children.”


Obama supports a bill that would permit U.S. companies to seek punitive duties on Chinese imports based on the alleged undervaluation of its currency.

Obama said last April that if the Chinese do not help stop the violence in Darfur and respect Tibetan rights, President Bush should boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Beijing this summer.

McCain said that if Beijing did not cease its repression of Tibetans and of political dissidents, he would not attend the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics this summer and he urged Bush to rethink his decision to do so.

McCain has also warned of the Beijing regime’s military buildup. “When China builds new submarines, adds hundreds of new jet fighters, modernizes its arsenal of strategic ballistic missiles, and tests anti-satellite weapons, the United States legitimately must question the intent of such provocative acts,” he said last year.

He also criticized China’s cozy relations with what he called “pariah states such as Burma, Sudan, and Zimbabwe.”

Unanswered questions
Would Obama really start shutting off Chinese access to its American customers? If so, how would that action not be in violation of World Trade Organization rules? How would China retaliate if he did so?

What can McCain do about China’s military strength, apart from voicing worry about it? Will such fretting cause China’s leaders to think of the U.S. as a “paper tiger,” a loud critic who can’t back up its words with actions?

Evolution and shifts in position
Both McCain and Obama have been fairly consistent in their views on China.

How they have voted
In 2005, McCain voted to table (that is, kill) an amendment offered by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R- S.C., that would have imposed a 27.5 percent tax on imported goods from China, as a way of punishing China for its alleged manipulation of its currency in order to boost Chinese exports.

Obama voted against the effort to kill the Schumer-Graham amendment.

In 1999, McCain voted for the landmark bill to give permanent nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to China. Enactment of this bill helped greatly expand American trade with China.

McCain voted against amendments proposed by Sen. Paul Wellstone, D- Minn., and Sen. Jesse Helms, R- N.C. that would have blocked normal trade relations until the Beijing government stopped its use of “reeducation through labor” camps to imprison political dissidents and released Chinese Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims whom Beijing had imprisoned because they openly practiced or professed their faith.

Surprises for the new president
Charles Freeman, the former chief China trade negotiator for the United States, said, “All you would need is a slight downturn in the Chinese economy" to cause a significant strain in U.S.-China relations.

The Chinese economy, he notes, "has run at about 10 percent growth a year. They need to find jobs for 50,000 people a day just to keep ahead of the game. Say they dropped to 7.5 percent growth, the number of unemployed people starts adding up pretty quick.”

Freeman, who's now the chair of Chinese studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, explained, “Almost certainly the downturn would come as a result of global circumstances, including a downturn in the number of exports to the United States."

He said, "What the Chinese government would almost certainly do is to find some outside actor to blame rather than have the Chinese population say, ‘It’s our stupid government.’ So almost certainly they would try to inflame Chinese nationalism. That would create challenges for the United States in dealing with an angry China.”

If the new president was “looking to try to stimulate China’s help on North Korea or Iran or whatever it might be, that could be a real problem.”

“Is that likely to happen? No, but it is certainly out there. If you’ve been averaging ten percent growth for years, there is a point at which what goes up must come down.”

Another risk is a flare-up of tension over Taiwan, Freeman said.

“Things are looking good right now, but if the rapprochement between Beijing and Taipei doesn’t produce the benefits that people on both sides of the Straits are hoping for, you could run into confrontation pretty easily. And that would bring the United States in by default.”


© 2008 MSNBC Interactive

 

[YZT580]

Is there any precedence of someone from the other partry running on the same ticket? I know we have a mitt full of politicians who change their colors when it suits "Them". But has it happened in the US of A?

Actually the original setup in the U.S. if I remember correctly was for the runner-up candidate to become the VP.  The premise was that the runnerup had received the second largest number of votes and therefore was well-placed to provide replacement should the in-office president become incapacitated (either permanently or otherwise).  It is, I suppose, a precedent of sorts.

 

[geo]

Actually the original setup in the U.S. if I remember correctly was for the runner-up candidate to become the VP.   The premise was that the runnerup had received the second largest number of votes and therefore was well-placed to provide replacement should the in-office president become incapacitated (either permanently or otherwise).  It is, I suppose, a precedent of sorts.

Don't know when that last happened.  The Rep & Dem Presidential candidates select their running mates at the nomination convention and are "running mates" thereafter.

 

[CougarKing]

Retired US general Wesley Clark questions McCain's war hero status being a qualification to run for the Presidency.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/29/clark.mccain/index.html

Clark: Getting 'shot down in plane' doesn't make McCain qualified
Story Highlights
Retired U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark questions John McCain's executive experience

In "Face the Nation" interview, Clark says McCain hasn't "ordered the bombs to fall"

McCain campaign calls for Barack Obama to condemn the comments

(CNN) -- Retired U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark, a supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, on Sunday questioned whether Sen. John McCain's military experience qualified him to be commander-in-chief.

The McCain campaign called for Obama to condemn the remarks.

The dust-up began with Clark's appearance Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation," where moderator Bob Schieffer asked him about his interview with the Huffington Post earlier this month.

In the interview, Clark said McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, was "untested and untried."

When Schieffer asked to explain the comment, Clark said he was referring to McCain's experience, or lack thereof, in setting national security policies and understanding the risk involved in such matters.

"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.

"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not," Clark said.

Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences, nor had he "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."

"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark said.

In a statement released by the McCain campaign Sunday afternoon, retired Admiral Leighton "Snuffy" Smith criticized Clark's comment.

"If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain's service to his country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates," Smith said.

"If he expects the American people to believe his pledges about a new kind of politics, Barack Obama has a responsibility to condemn these attacks."

 

[tomahawk6]

I dont think that anyone cares,outside of the nutroots,what Clark has to say.He will say anything to gain favor.He hopes for some type of post in the Obama regime in exchange he will say anything to further that cause.I wont say that he almost started WW3 as SACEUR but if the UK general had followed orders and denied the airfield to the Russians things would have gotten very tense very fast. Later Clinton eased him out as he was a complete disaster as a commander.The classic photo of the period that I saw was Clark exchanging hats with the Bosnian Serb commander Radic [spelling ?].

Alot of things are being said on the left to smear McCain as a war hero as Obama didnt serve[thankfully]. Obama has flipped on a number of issues lately to try and position himself in the center,which I dont think is possible. If McCain looses this election it will be because of a poorly run campaign. Obama has zero experience which matters not at all to the democrats. McCain has no executive experience either which is why senators are rarely elected President. This election is going to get very ugly on the democrat side and McCain doesnt have the stomach for this fight. The problem Obama has is that he has sold himself as a new kind of politician but all we see and hear is the same old thing. Four years of Obama will be very expensive. More taxes.Less energy.Less freedom.More government.

 

[TCBF]

...I wont say that he almost started WW3 as SACEUR but if the UK general had followed orders and denied the airfield to the Russians things would have gotten very tense very fast. ...

- That UK General MIGHT (  8) ) have had some VERY good product coming from the Coyote Observation Posts of Recce Sqn LdSH(RC). 

- A bold move by the Russians, but justified if you believe they were securing their technology from foriegn eyes.

- Rumour has it the Russians ran out of water and got some by asking for water from the Canadians.

 

[a_majoor]

Senator Obama certainly outspent and out politiced the Clintons to gain the nomination (although by only a small margin, something the MSM seems to overlook), now he needs to keep his head screwed on tight for the campaign. This article hints things might get wobbly out there:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/07/09/sheldon-alberts-obama-s-short-fuse.aspx

Sheldon Alberts: Obama's short fuse
Posted: July 09, 2008, 12:00 PM by sheldon alberts
U.S. Politics, Sheldon Alberts, Barack Obama
Testy, testy.

Any reporter who has seen Barack Obama up close on the campaign trail knows he has never been short on self-confidence – some might describe him as haughty or, at a mininum, self-satisfied.

But increasingly he’s become downright stand-offish and impatient. Sometimes he’s simply exhausted from a punishing schedule. On other occasions, his critics contend he’s just showing his arrogant side.

This is the same Democratic candidate, after all, who once dismissed Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy experience as little more than having tea with the wives of foreign leaders as first lady.

He later dismissed her in a New Hampshire debate as “likable enough,” otherwise known as damning with faint praise. But where Obama’s prickly demeanour really shines through is in his dealing with his traveling press corps. During the Pennsylvania primary in April, he became irritated when reporters began asking him questions as he dined on a burger during a restaurant photo-op.

“Why can't I just eat my waffle?” he snapped.

Obama’s become even less enamoured of his media entourage in the past week, accusing them of spinning Republican talking points about his position on Iraq to falsely contending he’s flip-flopping his way to the political center.

Last week in North Dakota, Obama became annoyed when New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny when asked whether his plan to “refine” his Iraq policy meant a forthcoming shift in his 16-month troop withdrawal promise. “I guess I'm just puzzled,” Obama responded. “I mean, I'll be frank with you, Jeff. I think what's happened is that the McCain campaign primed the pump with the press to suggest that somehow we were changing our policy, when we hadn't.”

His frustrations were even more evident Tuesday at a town hall meeting in Georgia, when a voter asked about the accusations he was flip-flopping for political convenience.

Here’s Obama’s response, in its entirety:

“Let me, first of all, talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center or that I'm flip-flopping or this or that or the other. You know, the people who say this apparently haven't been listening to me. And I have to say, some of it are my friends on the left and in some of the media.

I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive and squarely in the Democratic camp.

But as you just heard me talk about with education, I don't ... I'm not somebody who's just talking about government as the solution to everything. I also believe in personal responsibility. I also believe in faith.

So, for example, when I talk about the idea that we should recruit churches and places of worship, if they are willing to abide by the separation of church and state, to get involved in providing critical services to communities in faith-based initiatives, that's not something new. I've been talking about that for years now.

I've been organizing with churches for years in the community.

And so the notion that somehow that's me trying to look like I'm, you know, more centered, more centrist, is just not true. You know, there was a Supreme Court ruling saying that the Second Amendment gives people the individual right to bear arms.

Now, I actually have said that I agree with that for years, even before the ruling came down. That doesn't mean that I also recognize that we need to make sure that we've got decent controls over the use of illegal firearms in our community.

Those two positions aren't contradictory.So a lot of this stuff -- you know, one of the things that you find as you go through this campaign is everybody has become so cynical about politics that the assumption is, 'You must be doing everything for political reasons.'

And the message I want to send to everybody is: You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that, if I don't agree with you on something, that it must be because I'm doing that politically. I may just disagree with you.

But we can agree on 90 percent of the things that are important. And on those 10 percent, we'll agree to disagree.”



Whew, glad he got that off his chest.

The Los Angeles Times last week reported Obama is now “showing signs of stress” after pivoting directly from his marathon primary campaign against Hillary to the general election race against John McCain.

The newspaper reported “at times he has seemed annoyed by a press corps he once went out of his way to charm.”

The story recalled an encounter recently when a reporter asked – presumably out of concern, but possible just for the sake of getting a good TV clip – whether Obama had seen a doctor about the cold he was suffering from. Obama sniffed at the banality of the question.

“Can you believe this?” he told an aide. “You can't make it up.”

Only four more months to election day.

 

[CougarKing]

US Senator James Webb has declined Obama's offer of a VP spot. If he had accepted, it would have given the Obama camp some needed military credentials since Webb not only is a USMC Vietnam vet, but also used to be a SECNAV (Secretary of the Navy). His novel, titled "Fields of Fire" is so popular among his readers that even it was suggested as required reading for the USMC's 10-week OCS and its TBS course at the Marine base at Quantico, VA, IIRC. He even speaks Vietnamese fluently.

Anyways, one thing that Obama and McCain do both agree on is immigration and immigration reform, since both voted for an immigration act legislation back in 2006 during the immigration hype of that year, which saw all these Latino-Americans protesting or rallying by the millions to call for immigration reform and to seek an humanitarian way to solve the immigration crisis without dehumanizing the illegal immigrants of which Hispanic form a huge part; 15% of the US population are Hispanics and both Obama and McCain are trying to attract their vote, although the Hispanic vote has traditionally been a Democratic stronghold.

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/07/jim-webb-says-he-wont-be-candidate-vice-president

By Warren Fiske
The Virginian-Pilot
© July 8, 2008
RICHMOND

U.S. Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia said Monday that he has told U.S. Sen. Barack Obama that under "no circumstance will I be a candidate for vice president."

Webb said he informed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee of his decision last week.

"A year and a half ago, the people of Virginia honored me with election to the U.S. Senate," Webb said in a written statement. "I entered elective politics because of my commitment to strengthen America's national security posture, to promote economic fairness, and to increase government accountability. I have worked hard to deliver upon that commitment, and I am convinced that my efforts and talents toward those ends are best served in the Senate."

Webb became the second Virginia Democrat prominently mentioned as a vice presidential prospect to remove his name from consideration. The other was former Gov. Mark Warner, who is running this fall to join Webb in the U.S. Senate.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, an early supporter of Obama's presidential bid, also has been rumored a potential No. 2. Kaine has not ruled out joining the national ticket but has voiced strong doubts that Obama would choose him.

Webb, 62, has created a national buzz since joining the Senate in early 2007. This year, he pushed legislation through Congress that doubled the college tuition benefits offered to troops and veterans. President Bush signed the bill last week.

Webb also received widespread publicity this spring with publication of "A Time to Fight," a new book he wrote about his political philosophy, policies and experiences in the Senate.

Many Democratic blog sites strongly promoted Webb for vice president. They said his background in military affairs and national security complemented perceived weaknesses in Obama's resume.

"He was very widely discussed," said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist. "He was probably the Democratic bloggers' No. 1 choice."

Jessica Smith, a spokeswoman for Webb, declined to say Monday whether Obama or his emissaries had approached Webb about the vice presidency.

Obama's campaign has been mum on possible candidates.

The two people managing the vetting process for his campaign are one-time first daughter Caroline Kennedy and former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder.

Democrats will formally nominate Obama and his running mate at their national convention in late...

 

[a_majoor]

Looking back at some stuff from the 2004 election, I am struck by the optomistic picture Republicans actually had at the time (some even suggesting the changes in demographics predicted a "permanent Republican majority"). Now of course, they have lost control of the House, and ma loose the Executive office as well.

This series of articles suggests to me that the reason the Republicans got drubbed is they have become disconnected with the core values of Republicanism, and indeed America. (Left wing Democrats are connected with their values and highly organized, which overcomes their disconnect with many Anerican values). While probably too late for this election cycle (unless Senator Obama flames out, which may yet happen), American Republicans will need to do some serious reevaluation to reconnect with the "base".

Right Nation
By John Micklethwait & Adrian Wooldridge
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/micklethwait_wooldridge200406140836.asp

A Different Conservatism
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/micklethwait_wooldridge200406150848.asp

The Right Rules
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/micklethwait_wooldridge200406160902.asp

Right Roots
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/micklethwait_wooldridge200406170930.asp

Faith, Fortune, and the Frontier
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/micklethwait_wooldridge200406180914.asp

 

[a_majoor]

A look at Senator Obama's record of achievement:

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/

BARACK OBAMA

Obama's $100K Garden That Didn't Grow

I was particularly pleased with this post, assessing the pattern of Obama's career.

Stemming the tide of urban decay in Chicago’s worst neighborhoods in the late 1980s was beyond even the most tireless efforts of one man. “Sisyphean” is the term that keeps coming to mind, but I would note that what Obama actually accomplished – “a successful effort to convince the city of Chicago to locate a jobs placement office on the far South Side and his part in a drive to push the city to clean asbestos out of a housing project in the same area [Altgeld Gardens]” – aren’t a ton to show for three years of effort.

As a state legislator, Obama had been in office for all of four years before he decided he was ready to replace Rep. Bobby Rush in Congress. The voters in his district didn’t see it that way. Relatively powerless when Democrats were in the minority, Obama’s accomplishments piled up in the final two years in the state legislature, as his political godfather, Emil Jones Jr., helped Obama take a lead role in just about every piece of high-profile legislation. By the end of 2003, Obama focused heavily on the upcoming U.S. Senate race.

This brings Obama to the U.S. Senate. His first general election ad touts a bill he didn’t vote for, his signature accomplishment in foreign policy (the nuclear nonprofileration bill) was so uncontroversial it passed by unanimous consent; and with his signature domestic policy accomplishment, ethics reform, nonpartisan observers conclude he has exaggerated his role in passage. Two years isn’t a lot of time to bring about “real change,” and most of his supporters would concede that Obama’s accomplishments as a freshman senator have been modest. He’s been rebuked by his colleagues for taking credit for legislation he had little role in crafting.

It’s easy to wonder whether the candidate who talks about “real change” and pledges a government that will “heal the sick” and “stop the oceans from rising” actually knows how to get big things done – or whether he had the patience. Obama would seem to have the skills and brains to be a legendary community organizer, or state legislator, or U.S. senator. But momentous accomplishments in each of those positions take time, and at each level, Obama hit a wall, and turned his attention to a position of greater power.

I concluded then, responding to a Boston Globe investigation of housing projects Obama touted that are now uninhabitable, "one of the problems of constantly moving on to the next promotion is that you never get to see the consequences and ramifications of past actions."

I mention that because the Chicago Sun-Times has done a terrific article looking at what happened after Obama gave $100,000 in state money to a campaign volunteer to create a botanic garden in one of Chicago's most blighted neighborhoods. The result? The money's gone, the volunteer says he doesn't have the paperwork to prove he spent it properly, a landscape architect from the Illinois Green Industry Association who found no evidence of the work that Obama's volunteer said he did, and the site is strewn with weeds, garbage and broken pavement.

Big promises. Little follow-up. Once again, one of the problems of constantly moving on to the next promotion is that you never get to see the consequences and ramifications of past actions.