Trade is almost a bad word in the U.S. these days. We had two meetings today — one at the Department of Commerce and one at the office of the U.S. Trade Representative — that were “off the record,” which means I can’t report what was said. It wasn’t earth-shattering information by any stretch. It’s just that some government people are sensitive. But the general message I gleaned is that while civil servants in Washington appreciate the close relationship between the U.S. and Canada — and Mexico — many Americans do not share that appreciation. This is reflected in the statements of those running for leadership of the democrat and republican parties. Protectionism and security are fashionable. Free trade and the global market are not.
I learned a bit about the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. Government and business reps from each country are working together on the dual pronged goal of improved security and improved prosperity. Critics in all three countries fear the purpose is to create a common market and erode sovereignty. Staff at the Department of Commerce recommended I visit the web site at www.spp.gov for more information. You’ll find lots there, including a note under the “myth vs. fact” section that says, “The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency.” One component of the prosperity agenda is to “Lower costs for North American businesses, producers, and consumers and maximize trade in goods and services across our borders by striving to ensure compatibility of regulations and standards and eliminating redundant testing and certification requirements,” as the website says. Agriculture regulations are a big part of that. (The Canadian SPP website is www.spp-psp.gc.ca) A poster on the wall of the commerce building noted that U.S. exports to NAFTA countries had risen to $360 billion in 2006, which was double the amount the U.S. exported to the rest of the world. You would think that figure alone would be enough to support a pro-trade agenda.
Later in the day…
We had a fun meeting with Jordan Lieberman, publisher of “Campaigns and Elections” magazine. He gave us the run down on his political views and provided come background for the party leadership candidates. Here’s a review:
Mitt Romney (Republican) — a Mormon with lots of business experience and lots of money, but he got clobbered in the Iowa primaries because he’s not the kind of guy “you want to have a beer with,” Lieberman says.
Mike Huckabee (Republican) — Baptist minister farther to the right than George W. Bush, Lieberman says. He’s a likeable guy with not a lot of money behind him compared to others. He won in Iowa but got beat bad tonight in New Hampshire.
Rudy Giuliani (Republican) — Former mayor of New York who guided the city through 9/11. He is pro-gay rights, pro-choice, and leading in national polls. But he got fewer votes than Huckabee in New Hampshire tonight.
John McCain (Republican) — Says he wants to personally find and shoot Osama bin Laden. He comes from a military family, has lots of political experience, and the press and people like him. The geezer won the New Hampshire primary handily over second place Mitt Romney.
Barack Obama (Democrat) — On a roll with his message of change, but if the race stays close, Lieberman expects the Hillary Clinton machine to start digging up dirt on his past drug use and his middle name: Hussein.
Hillary Clinton (Democrat) — She has experience and passion and her husband, but some don’t view her as likeable. Women went with Obama in Iowa, but Hillary cried on TV last night, and women went back to Hillary in New Hampshire. She won the state primary by a hair over Obama.
Bill Richardson (Democrat) — Lots of experience, especially on the international scene with the UN, etc. Wants the U.S. out of the war in Iraq. He was a distant fourth in New Hampshire.
John Edwards (Democrat) — Lieberman talked about Edwards’ $400 haircuts, but didn’t mention anything else about him. He looks good and this is his second time around. Still, he’s a distant third so far.
After meeting Lieberman, we went to Porter’s pub a few blocks from our hotel to watch results come in from New Hampshire. It was a meeting site for Obama supporters. The place was packed tight but subdued, because Obama lost — which was a surprise. Lieberman and most other pundits and polls predicted Obama would win by 12 percentage points over Clinton. This proves once again that political pundits don’t have any more ability to predict election results than you or I do.
From what I’ve learned about U.S. electoral process in the past day or two, the primaries — which occur in every state — determine how many delegates each candidate gets to send to the leadership conventions in August. If you win 40 per cent of the vote in a state, you get 40 per cent of that state’s delegates. With only the small states of Iowa and New Hampshire counted to date, the leadership races are far from over.
Leave a comment