I don't know what's going on with McCain and Obama's ads -- I think McCain's is stupid, which I assume his people are not, and I think Obama's is about race, though he denies it; in both cases, I assume it's an attempt to deflect their opponent's attention to trivialities -- but I learned something this morning, from the LA Times --
Just for a start, industry types say the (McCain) ad is wrong: In the Hollywood lexicon, Obama is not a celebrity. He's a rock star. (Note to McCain strategists: That's the difference between Jessica Simpson and Bono.)
Who would have guessed?
3 comments:
From the outside, in a country which will be strongly affected by the political machine south of our border, I see some startling ads on the Detroit and Rochester stations. I would strongly hope that the political machines supporting each candidate are competent. The Ad Campaign people seem suspect.
I have to admit I never heard of a presidental candiate running for office in Germany before. Maybe he is not as isolationist as all that! Makes me wonder why he didn't drop into Canada...after all, we are only the biggest trading partner, staunchest ally and largest market the US has. Oh right...I remember now, those ads I mentioned...he wants to get rid of this mutually beneficial trade, and piss off another G8 nation.
On the other hand, you got this old fella who has been around long enough to piss off most of the people in his own congress. Everybody seems to have a "Senator Hot Head" story. Adaptability is less of a military virtue than conformity, and he is perceived up here as the same old same old, and that "same old" brought you bank collapses, mortgage crises, hurricanes,and high gasoline prices. Mind you, we don't see his voting record, just his ads.
Bill, you are caught between two devils....and you gotta pick one. As I said before, glad I don't have to do the pickin! Unfortunatly, I will have to deal with some of the fall out, no matter which way it goes in November.
Good luck eh!
The perception here tends to be that NAFTA was a bad move insofar as it contributed to the exodus of jobs. I kind of agree with that. I don't think it's that simple, but thats the level of thought I usually inhabit.
Berween the two, it's an easy choice for me. What I still strive to understand is a) how the other guy can be an easy choice for others (what makes him appealing, other than that he's not Obama?), and b) what blind spots do I have in my view of Obama? eg - is he arrogant? Does it matter if he is? Is it good, bad, neutral that Sarkozy likes him?
As for Canada -- I still like Mulrooney's statement -- "Thank god for Canada. What can I do for Canada today?"
We in Canada have more regulations involving production methods, and are required to pay our people more in benefits...partly to offset the higher taxation and MUCH higher cost of living. NAFTA to Canadians meant that more jobs went south, as American companies "consolidated", shutting down those divisions which once were Canadian companies that they had assimilated in the eighties and ninetys. Often this was a corporate decision made in a different country which affected the workers here, and of course our workers blame "The corporate bastards on Wall Street", the "High U.S. Dollar", and of as a last resort, they blame the "Gxx Dxxxx NAFTA" for cutbacks which are usually explained by normal business cycles.
NAFTA really was an attempt to duplicate the success of the Autopact, which was brought in in 1965 to keep jobs in the US. Essentially we had a NAFTA in place in the auto industry since the days when I wore a hippie headband and the present troubles with the big three have nothing to do with "free trade". Against my instincts, NAFTA really did increase trade, making it easier and cheaper to move goods across our shared border. Trade is what made our respective countries great, and limitations on trade benefit only a very select few. They really benefit governments who collect a piece of every transaction fer sure! NAFTA was an example of two large federal governments that were forced to tax people LESS, and you just know that goes against nature, and it can't last!
Because of this perception, you won't find many Canadians suggesting that NAFTA has done much good for them, and all in all, they would just prefer to go back to the old ways, where we slapped duties on everything. The Liberal Party wants to institute a "carbon tax" on anything which uses fuel to make or move. The US government has charged a duty on every stick of Canadian lumber brought in for the last two decades in defiance of NAFTA, and it has made little or no effect on jobs, but it DID jack the price of lumber to build a house by 12 percent or so.
I am not an economist, so I don't know how this countervailing duty system works or what effect it would have on jobs. I suspect that getting rid of NAFTA might benefit my business in Canada since most of MY competitors are in the US, and high duties would make US goods less attractive. OTOH, those very same high duties would make it almost impossible to SELL any of my stuff in the US since it would price it out of the market.
We'll just have to see....a small blacksmith job in the backwoods of Canada may depend on who gets elected in a country I don't even live in. And I don't get a vote!
Post a Comment