...act now before Canada becomes too similar to the US to make these jokes anymore

January 10, 2012 11:04 AM

Canada declares its "canadacy" in the race for US President (The Canada Party on Twitter; also spotted on HuffPo)
posted by flex (67 comments total)

Oh, no. You aren't going to blame us again.
posted by Hardcore Poser at 11:06 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]

I stopped at "illiterate foreigners invading our southern borders". Because I died. Of laughing.

I'd vote for Canada before I'd vote for Obama (again).
posted by DU at 11:07 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]

I'd vote for Canada before I'd vote for Obama

You heard about Harper, right?
posted by Hoopo at 11:09 AM on January 10 [11 favorites]

At this point? Yeah, sure. Sounds good.
posted by EatTheWeak at 11:09 AM on January 10

Fantastic FPP title.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:09 AM on January 10 [4 favorites]

theCanadaParty The Canada Party
Apologies to #MicheleBachmann for scaring her out of the race on our first day. Is it legal to abort a campaign in Iowa?
4 Jan
posted by Orange Pamplemousse at 11:15 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]

Our Great White Hope.
posted by resurrexit at 11:16 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]

You heard about Harper, right?

Harper wouldn't be in charge of the US. Canada would.
posted by DU at 11:18 AM on January 10 [4 favorites]

We can see Alaska from our house!
posted by oulipian at 11:19 AM on January 10 [11 favorites]

We're all armchair experts on American issues. And we think you should be more like us.
posted by orange swan at 11:20 AM on January 10 [6 favorites]

America, But Better
posted by Flashman at 11:22 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]

The location for the Twitter account is listed as 'Vancouver'?

OH NO YOU DON'T.

/runs off to make a Toronto account
posted by Phire at 11:27 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]

Canada: America's Thinking Toque.
posted by middleclasstool at 11:30 AM on January 10 [8 favorites]

Our Great White Hope.

Surely, you mean "Our Great White North Hope." because the other has... unfortunate connotations.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:33 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]

They've got my vote. I've always dreamed of seeing the president at a hockey game.
posted by lumpenprole at 11:33 AM on January 10

As a Canadian of American parentage (and secret Muslim) let me just say that I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:34 AM on January 10

Surely, you mean "Our Great White North Hope." because the other has... unfortunate connotations.

No, it was a combination of the two cultural references, because won't they be trying to beat "the black guy," the other great hope?
posted by resurrexit at 11:37 AM on January 10

Ah, what the heck is up with my tags today...
posted by resurrexit at 11:37 AM on January 10

Can someone tell me the difference between Stephen Harper and Mitt Romney? Romney isn't even backing down from his MA healthcare bill, he just says we shouldn't have universal healthcare on a federal level. Canada's healthcare system is actually run by the provinces.
posted by delmoi at 11:38 AM on January 10

So everyone's aware his guy is a retired U.S. Marine, right? Because that makes this about a hundred times sweeter IMO.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:38 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]

I have a bad feeling this is all a secret plot of Canadian World Domination.
posted by Celsius1414 at 11:39 AM on January 10

Canada's healthcare system is actually run by the provinces.

After moving to BC this became very clear to me. What is it with the damned province? User fees for the ambulance? MSP fees not automatically deducted from paychecks? I was here for a year before I realized I was supposed to be paying in to the system outside of paycheck deductions. I miss OHIP.
posted by Hoopo at 11:42 AM on January 10

Throw in some maple syrup and real Canadian bacon then we'll talk.
posted by Talanvor at 11:42 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]

he just says we shouldn't have universal healthcare on a federal level. Canada's healthcare system is actually run by the provinces.

"Let the states decide" is pretty much the Republican throwback to the Civil War. States' rights over human rights.
posted by Foosnark at 11:44 AM on January 10

Harper wouldn't be in charge of the US. Canada would.

Obviously that means the Canadian parliament, right? Canadians picked Harper to run them, Are we talking about some 'ideal' Canada that American liberals imagine, or the actual one?

Anyway, the problem is "running for president", not wanting to annex the U.S. and make it a colony, or whatever. That means they'd be interacting with the rest of the existing U.S. government the same way Obama does. So who knows what people like Harper would do with that power?

Of course, "Canada" would have a lot more people who could work in that job, and potentially have much more fine-grained control over the operation of government then Obama, personally can.

Also, did you know that the U.S. federal government has about 1,909,000 civilian employees and 1,219,995 military personnel (as of 9/30/2011).

That's 10.900865 Canadians per U.S. federal employee.
posted by delmoi at 11:51 AM on January 10

Sounds good to me. For the first time in a long time, I have no idea how I'm going to vote. Obama has been such a disappointment, I really don't know if I could actually vote for him a second time, even as a "anyone but a Reupblican" vote. What we really need is for some billionaire philanthropist to dump lots of money into biotech research, so maybe we can grow a Democrat that has a pair of balls and a backbone.
posted by xedrik at 11:55 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]

Ok, so no Canada? How about Mexico? We sure know how to manage a country!
posted by elmono at 11:56 AM on January 10

Yes, please send most of 11 Canadians to help me do my job. That will improve things greatly.
posted by psoas at 11:57 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]

In the event Canada drops out, there's always Vermin Supreme.
posted by bwerdmuller at 11:58 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]

How about Mexico? We sure know how to manage a country!

What are you talking about? You've got a presidential election in less than six months and you haven't even managed to bore the rest of the world with it yet. Don't you even know how things are supposed to work?
posted by psoas at 11:59 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]

xedrik: " Obama has been such a disappointment"

What, you mean you thought he was a liberal instead of a moderate? You mean you thought he'd immediately make it rain puppies and kittens from the sky? That he'd take up a flaming sword and personally lead the crusade against Evil?

I keep hearing that people are disappointed in him and wonder what you DID expect him to do, with the majority of the House against him and the entire Republican party hell-bent on making him look bad at any expense. Has he made mistakes? Of course. Anyone in a job like that is going to make some. Has he been forced to compromise? Yep. Same deal. Is he likely to be better for the US as a whole than anyone else with a serious chance at running for the office? Duh.
posted by caution live frogs at 12:03 PM on January 10 [4 favorites]

What, you mean you thought he was a liberal instead of a moderate?

At least based on his campaign, he presented himself as a liberal alternative to whomever the GOP was throwing into the race. Though I do get why the events of 2008 have to be rewritten, given Obama's right-wing policy choices since election.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:12 PM on January 10 [4 favorites]

I keep hearing that people are disappointed in him and wonder what you DID expect him to do

Not assassinate American citizens and their children over seas? Close Guantanamo bay and prosecute the people who approved torture? Not sign a bill letting him put people into military prison forever without charges, including American citizens on American soil? I could keep going but we've all had this argument here how many times? At this point you must be putting your fingers in your ears and/or hands over your eyes.
posted by dibblda at 12:20 PM on January 10 [3 favorites]

good god people are we going to have the same people devolve the thread into another bicker fest? Seriously? There are other threads and there will be more threads,
posted by edgeways at 12:22 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

So anyway....Canada. Before I'd be willing to accept you rule, I need to know two things: one, where have you been hiding Rick Moranis, and is Alice Munro as mean as she looks?
posted by Diablevert at 12:23 PM on January 10

On the derail: You don't have to like the person you vote for.

On Canada: The Kids in the Hall.........s of Congress!
posted by benito.strauss at 12:25 PM on January 10

Rick Moranis is hiding here.
posted by dibblda at 12:28 PM on January 10

"I keep hearing that people are disappointed in him and wonder what you DID expect him to do"

Let the Bush tax cuts expire. Healthcare with a public option and no mandate. Out of Iraq, sooner, and without being essentially kicked out by the Iraqi government.

You know, Obama's three major policy planks while running for election. You know, the kind of things that fiscally responsible governments do from time to time irrespective of their political leanings.

You can add closing Guantanamo to that list too.

And yes I understand, at least on a procedural level, the problems with blue dogs and supermajorities in the first two years. HA. To think that the Canadian Senate would be less dysfunctional and more effective than the American one boggles the mind. Part of the job of an effective president is to lead and Obama couldn't even get his own party's junk together. Two years.

I'm a Canadian but I live in the United States. I volunteered for the Obama campaign based not on "hope and change" or some mistaken belief that he was a "liberal". I volunteered for him based on, like, you know, stated policy goals. Beyond simple human compassion and onto the overall effect those policies would have on the federal budget and the American economy at large.

What a dupe I was. To think that a government could be, you know, prudent and responsible from time to time.

Maybe it is something in the Maple Syrup.
posted by striatic at 12:31 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

I'd vote for Canada before I'd vote for Obama (again).

I'm Mitt Romney and I approve of this message.
posted by yoink at 12:44 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

Well you all have a point with respect to Gitmo. On the other hand, what would the alternative have been? I assume had McCain been elected we'd be in the midst of invading Iran right now, abortion would be illegal, DADT would be eliminated in favor of something much, much worse, and admitting evolution or climate change might be real would result in a mandatory public stoning... so there's some things to be thankful for.

But back on track here, Canada can't run for President. Not without showing a birth certificate proving it was born on American soil. (No, "North American" isn't close enough.)
posted by caution live frogs at 12:52 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

Oh, now they come calling. Where was Canada in 2004? I remember actually wishing to emigrate right after that election.

Also, this had me completely at "You know, that country you like to pretend you're from?" In my brief time overseas (in 1994) I was puzzled by being taken for Canadian once or twice; when informed that this was a high compliment to U.S. tourists who weren't overtly unpleasant, my puzzlement turned to gratitude and obscure relief.
posted by FrauMaschine at 12:52 PM on January 10

Margaret Atwood for President! And kd lang for Vice-Pres!
posted by ThatCanadianGirl at 12:53 PM on January 10 [6 favorites]

Obviously that means the Canadian parliament, right?

No. It'll be consensus between a toque, a moose, a beaver, a puck, a beer, Doug Gilmour, a plate of poutine and a copy of Strange Brew on VHS.
posted by jimmythefish at 12:55 PM on January 10 [3 favorites]

I assume had McCain been elected we'd be in the midst of invading Iran right now,

Don't worry - there is still a chance to invade/attack Iran VIA the Nobel Peace Prize winner.
posted by rough ashlar at 12:58 PM on January 10

Can someone tell me the difference between Stephen Harper and Mitt Romney?

Dennis the Menace hair-styling.
posted by Fizz at 1:01 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

I assume had McCain been elected we'd be in the midst of invading Iran

We still have a number of months till the election....and there has been quite a bit of saber rattling as of late.

abortion would be illegal

I think that would require a constitutional amendment at this point.

DADT would be eliminated in favor of something much, much worse, and admitting evolution or climate change might be real would result in a mandatory public stoning

That is a lot of hyperbole sir, and you know better.

Canada can't run for President. Not without showing a birth certificate proving it was born on American soil.

Long or short form?
posted by dibblda at 1:01 PM on January 10

Also, I hope I don't come across as some judgmental cad incapable of of understanding the imperfections inherent in national governance, but if the Obama administration could just knock out some victories on the level of this or this from time to time, that'd be real swell.

Maybe next term?
posted by striatic at 1:03 PM on January 10

if the Obama administration could just knock out some victories on the level of


He could also keep his hand out of the cookie jar and stop appointing bankers to his administration.

Coulda shoulda woulda
posted by dibblda at 1:11 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

What is the deal with Stephen Harper anyways? I've always thought of Canadians as being progressive and they elect that guy?
posted by dibblda at 1:12 PM on January 10

I'm a Canadian who recently became American and this will be my first big election. My choice is now clear! Or... maybe they mean me? I could do it. First order of business: everyone takes off their shoes when they enter the White House. You people are barbarians!
posted by marylynn at 1:14 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

dibblda - Well, you have Harper and then there's the loudmouthed dickweed Ford as mayor in Toronto. So sometimes even Canadians pick a conservative, regressive asshole as a leader.

I blame America.
posted by caution live frogs at 1:20 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

Can someone tell me the difference between Stephen Harper and Mitt Romney?

Mitt Romney sounds like a sad robot.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 1:25 PM on January 10

"What is the deal with Stephen Harper anyways? I've always thought of Canadians as being progressive and they elect that guy?"

The deal with Stephen Harper is a combination of the Canadian first past the post parliamentary system and incumbent bias.

Most Canadians did not vote for Harper's party in the last election, and yet Harper got a majority due to vote splitting among the parties to his left. In the elections previous to that, Harper had a minority government for similar reasons.

Then you have your incumbent bias, which means that so long as thing seem to be going pretty well, the incumbent tends to win even if the opposition might have a more popular platform. People go with what they know.

Thing is, in a parliamentary system like Canada's "in power" can be difficult to define. Harper's minority governments were held in check by and were forced to make deals with the other parties, and yet despite the negotiated policies, Harper came off as the incumbent. Which he was, but it shouldn't be as clear cut as it is in the United States, and yet it is to the population at large. Harper is very aware of this too, going to great lengths to brand the Canadian government ass "The Harper Government" in government documents, making the PMO's website Conservative blue.

There are also a lot of conservative people in Canada, lowercase "c", especially in Alberta and certain regions of Ontario which also happen to be some of the fastest growing areas in Canada both economically and in terms of population.

Harper is also a master propagandist. Check out the "Canada Action Plan" ads that have been running over and over for the past 3-4 years in Canada. Just brilliantly simple stuff to pump up that incumbent bias. One wishes the Democrats were even half that savvy, though i'm guessing there may be laws against using government funds for that kind of marketing. Probably a good thing, I guess.

.. lastly, The United States happens to exist, which allows Canadian Conservatives to look downright socialist by comparison and i suppose in certain respects they are - though less in ideology and more so in what they are typically able to get away with.
posted by striatic at 1:31 PM on January 10 [6 favorites]

We didn't elect Stephen Harper the same way the US elected Obama. The Conservative party (Harper's party) won more seats than any of the other parties (and in the last election, actually a majority of seats).

Canadians can be progressive (at least more progressive than the Republican party) and still vote Conservative. My parents, who voted Conservative, believe there should be free healthcare, but they want the option for a parallel private system so they can buy better service if they can afford it. That's basically what the Democrats want in their wildest dreams.

Me, I vote NDP and want to keep the health system we have.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 1:33 PM on January 10

Thanks for the info all.....I'd forgotten about the parliamentary system that you have in place in Canada.
posted by dibblda at 1:37 PM on January 10

"Well, you have Harper and then there's the loudmouthed dickweed Ford as mayor in Toronto."

i believe that 'dickweed Ford' was also a beneficiary of vote splitting, gathering 47% of the vote .. but at 47% vote splitting shouldn't be considered a serious factor. Toronto suburbs especially have a real conservative streak and the GTA structure gives them the balance of power over the city - see Bad Boy Mayor Lastman, Mel.

but eh, it is Toronto, whatareyougonnado?
posted by striatic at 1:38 PM on January 10

In 1998, Toronto absorbed Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough into its boundaries. They're not quite sprawling in the US sense, but if you live in Scarborough, you're far more likely to drive everywhere than if you live in old Toronto. The population of those areas outnumbers the older, transit and walking-friendly parts of Toronto, York and East York.

Ford was elected because he's pro-car, and anti-anything that gets in the way of car traffic like bike lanes and surface light rail. He and his voters probably (I'm generalizing here) see bike lanes as toys for the wealthy downtowners and an impediment to the working man who just wants to get to work.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 1:57 PM on January 10

Harper is also a master propagandist. Check out the "Canada Action Plan" ads that have been running over and over for the past 3-4 years in Canada.

My wife and I shout "ACTION PLAN!" every time we see one of those placards. They're so ridiculous. I mean, I don't think Harper's breaking any new ground here with stimulus and infrastructure spending. It's kind of what governments here do. I hate that this sort of thing actually has an effect on people.
posted by Hoopo at 2:17 PM on January 10

I would no shit vote for Canada over Obama.
posted by odinsdream at 2:23 PM on January 10

"Can someone tell me the difference between Stephen Harper and Mitt Romney?"

Harper is a man with right-wing beliefs who loves power above everything else. When he's not in charge, Harper is all about urging the government to do things in an idealized conservative way - decentralized government, more accountability to the voters, lower taxes, etc... But when he's in power, Harper is all about centralizing decision making within himself. The executive branch has become unprecedentedly powerful during his time in office.

Romney, near as I can tell, is plastic man. He doesn't really have beliefs, and is willing to do or say whatever it takes to gain power. Whether he's good or bad largely depends upon the collection of voters and interest groups he needs to stay in office. As governor of Massachusetts he was pretty much what the voters wanted him to be. The same would be true if he was President, I guess. If a broad distribution of the voting public supports Romney, he'll have policies with broad appeal. But if he can get and keep power by appealing to the fringe, his policies will be as loony and extremist as they are.
posted by Kevin Street at 3:38 PM on January 10

But what about the Metric System? Would our Canadian overlords decree that we must speak of kilograms, kilometers, and degrees Celsius? Because that could be a deal breaker!!!
posted by exphysicist345 at 3:42 PM on January 10

That would be a real improvement. The adults would hate it, but your kids would be fine with metric in a generation and never want to change back.
posted by Kevin Street at 3:50 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

Canada's not fully into the metric system either. Sure we use degrees C for the weather, km for roads, and grams and mL in packaging, but building construction is in feet and inches, cooking is cups, tablespoons and degrees F, and you give your height and weight in feet/inches and pounds. Paper is also letter and legal, 8.5 inches wide.

Actually I guess that means we're mostly happy in both worlds. Except I have friends that can't think in miles, and when baking I have no idea what 350F is in C.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 5:01 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

I keep hearing that people are disappointed in [Obama] and wonder what you DID expect him to do

For starters, I expected a constitutional lawyer to have some respect for civil rights.
posted by orange swan at 7:34 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

derail/

Harper got a majority due to vote splitting among the parties to his left.

If the wikipedia article is accurate in saying that:

Vote splitting is an electoral effect in which the distribution of votes among multiple similar candidates reduces the chance of winning for any of the similar candidates

Then I reject the notion that NDP and Liberal were proffering 'similar candidates'. The fact that a large number of NDP were voted in to their respective ridings for the first time indicates that the electorate feels as I do.

/derail
posted by not_that_epiphanius at 8:21 PM on January 10

What, you mean you thought he was a liberal instead of a moderate? You mean you thought he'd immediately make it rain puppies and kittens from the sky? That he'd take up a flaming sword and personally lead the crusade against Evil?

Yes, the only possible interpretation is that xedrik expected Obama to make kittens fall from the sky.

At least based on his campaign, he presented himself as a liberal alternative to whomever the GOP was throwing into the race. Though I do get why the events of 2008 have to be rewritten

It's interesting, Obama always played it pretty ambiguous. He was never really all that specific about ideology, instead presenting himself as a 'pragmatist' who wanted the best solution. Obviously people are going to think that their own ideas are the most reasonable. Honestly his campaign was pretty vacuous, it was mostly about making people feel inspired, and hopeful after everyone got so depressed about Bush. And the reality is that, once the primary was over (where all he had to do was be "the credible alternative to Hillary Clinton") the general election was a cakewalk There was no way the American public would vote for another republican after Bush.

However, there are a couple of obvious things that he definitely did say he was going to do differently, and then didn't. One was corruption and the influence of lobbyists. That's not a left/right issue. Closing Gitmo, and Civil liberties in general have been a disaster. He campaigned on the public option, etc.
posted by delmoi at 8:56 PM on January 10

Please give us the metric system. Please. I'm begging you.
posted by linzenoonoo at 10:07 PM on January 10