Or, at least I think that is what he said, as it is really hard to tell:
"One of our greatest assets we have in Afghanistan today, frankly, are our Canadian friends," he said. "It's very controversial in Canada, their commitment and the suffering and the losses they have faced. And we need, we need our Canadian friends and we need their continued support in Afghanistan.
"So what do we do? The two Democrat candidates for president say that they're going to unilaterally, they're going to unilaterally abrogate the North American Free Trade Agreement. Our biggest trading partner, they're going -- who we made a solemn agreement with -- they're gonna unilaterally abrogate that. Now, how do you think the Canadian people are going to react to that -- who we are having now their enormous and invaluable assistance in Afghanistan and we're going to abrogate a free trade agreement?"
"I want to tell you right now I believe in free trade," McCain added.
This is hilariously bad attack from McCain. It is the sort of thing that makes me eager for the general election.
First, he ties every single issue into foreign policy, demonstrating a complete lack of concern for domestic affairs. It reminds me of a Saturday Night Live joke from late 1991. On Weekend Update, Kevin Neelin said something like 'Today, Pat Buchanan unveiled his 'America First' Campaign for the Republican nomination. In response, President Bush unveiled his 'America: When I Have The Time' campaign." NAFTA is somehow about maintaining troops levels in Afghanistan? McCain's one track mind and distaste for domestic affairs strikes me as a huge opening to exploit.
Second, talk about a tin ear on trade. Even talking about reforming NAFTA is somehow bad? While a plurality of Americans think NAFTA has been, on the whole, a good thing, less than a quarter think that it should not be reformed. But hey, if McCain wants to pin himself in an unpopular corner on trade, by all means, go for it.
Third, is McCain seriously raising the threat of pissing off Canada? I'm pretty sure that Canadians have pretty much the exactly same opinion of NAFTA as do Americans, and thus talking about reforming NAFTA won't anger them at all. Also, I know it isn't very progressive to say this, but even if this talk did anger Canada, most Americans probably don't care. The threat of Canada picking up its ball and going home because they don't like the tone of our voice is not going to resonate with many people here.
Fourth, McCain is just wrong on the face of it. He even had to sort of retract, and when he did he gave this garbled response:
"Maybe they're not saying they'd, quote, abrogate. They are saying radically restructure," he said. "The point is not whether I want to renegotiate any terms. The point is whether you want to renegotiate or unilaterally announce that you are going to take certain action whether the Canadians happen to agree with it or not."
Huh? I'd say that this was inaccurate, but I'm not even entirely sure what distinction McCain is drawing here. Democrats are bad for unilaterally announcing that they want to radically restructure the deal, when the right approach is to say that you want to renegotiate? What does that even mean? And how does a group of people unilaterally announce anything?
Wow--it is moments like these that make me pretty happy McCain is the nominee. There are a ton of holes to drive through here, and I guess it is simply a matter of Democrats choosing which hole at which they should aim the truck. |
