Has any American newspaper ever endorsed a guy running for prime minister of Canada? Big campaign boost that'd be, I'm sure. Between the cries of "Yankee puppet" this and "marching orders from Washington" that, the attack ads would practically write themselves. (They already did, in fact).
Bit ironic, then, that the Canadian media rarely bears even the slightest apprehension about bossily dictating U.S. elections. Our papers state their partisan preferences loudly and often, but thankfully no one south of the 49th seems to give a doodle-dandy. And to be fair, as far as nefarious foreign endorsements go, you could do a lot worse than the Canadian stamp of approval.
Anyway, who's getting the honour this year?
"The United States' presidential election is fundamentally about one issue: the economy," says the Globe and Mail board, and despite "his flaws," they still think Obama's the best dude to handle the mess.
I mean, he did the whole stimulus thing, and that was pretty great. And once he gets back in we're sure he'll continue to pursue a "moderate agenda that would use a mix of spending cuts and tax increases to tame the country's vast debt."
Ol' Mormon-face, meanwhile, has an economic plan that "does not add up," with unchecked military spending and loophole closures as dubious as his tax returns. Plus, he hardly exudes "the tolerance America needs," what with the abortion junk and all. So our choice in this inconsequential thought exercise could not be clearer!
Yeah, the Prez might not be perfect, but he clearly "stands head and shoulders above his rival" agrees the Toronto Star (insert feigned gasp).
The Stardinistas basically sing the same praises as the Globies (Obamacare is great, the stimulus deserves credit for "averting another Great Depression," this water tastes much more delicious since he turned it into wine, etc.) while warning that the "severely conservative" Massachusetter presents a "severe risk" for economic recovery.
Briefly pausing to remember what country they're in, the Starlets also make the fairly contorted case that Obama's the more Canada-friendly choice, too.
Don't be fooled by the self-evident logic that a Republican president would get along better with a Conservative PM, they warn, Harper's big fancy border integration dealie thing "might be stalled" by a Romney administration for unclear reasons! And the Keystone pipeline... well, Obama "is not opposed in principle," and that's evidently better than Romney's support in practice. Look, we just don't like him, okay?
But alas, not all Canadians are united in Obamaramamania. Michael Coren at Sun News, for instance, sees Barry as the radical and Mitt as the moderate, or at least a guy who's "less conservative" than every Republican standard-bearer of the last five decades. Obama, on the other hand, hates Christianity and hates America and for economic guidance, "looks to the north European democracies, and for some obscure reason believes that they have succeeded." So if that's what you're into, Yankees, by all means...
Meanwhile, from the cramped chambers of her plagiarism-proof bunker in the Globe and Mail basement, Margaret Wente is equally down on the anointed one.
Sure, Canucks might be all over Obamacare, she says, but have you actually seen this crap? It's "a bloated monster of a bill that only a bureaucrat could love." And don't get me started on his whole vision-for-the-next-four-years thing. "If he has one, he's kept it to himself," she huffs Went-ily.
Unlike Coren, alas, Maggie cannot bring herself to actually endorse Romney. I mean, Obama should obviously lose, but "I'm pretty sure the other guy doesn't deserve to win either," she says, feeling no need to justify this paradox (maybe she's a closet Jill Stein fan?).
So there you go, America, your instructions.
Hope everything's easier now.
POST CONTINUES BELOW SLIDESHOW...
Fine, so maybe Canadian newspaper endorsements sit somewhere alongside Rosanne Barr in the column of things least likely to affect the results of election 2012. But that doesn't mean there still aren't tons of variables that will!
Our old pal Hurricane Sandy, for instance.
"In purely political terms for Obama and the Democrats, Hurricane Sandy was the perfect storm," posits Tony Burman at the Star. Yeah, it was sad when all those people died and stuff, but c'mon, did you see Obama hug that lady? Soooo president-y!
Obviously hugs are crucial, says the Globe's Jeff Simpson, but you know what's even more important? The "ground game." Since the next prez's victory "margin will certainly be smaller than the one four years ago," it's absolutely crucial that Obama get all his people out; blacks, hispanics, youth, black hispanic youths, etc. Ditto for Mitt; he's gotta rally the whites, Christians, and old folks -- basically the entire nursing home set.
Naw, you're both wrong, says John Robson in the Sun papers. It's all about the electoral college. Johnny's made a cute little map of all the blue states and red states, thoughtfully shaded to illustrate their partisan intensity. And if you look closely, he says, you'll see a "double-whammy for Republicans" since Mitt not only faces a disadvantage in the number of electors he can win from his "friendly states," but also a depressingly high total of "states the Democrats might pick off" thanks to how fair-weather their friendliness is.
Tension city, amirite?
But don't worry Americans. No matter what crazy outcome unfolds Tuesday night, you can rest easy knowing somewhere, somehow, some Canadian saw it coming.