The world wants its president
…having decided to elect him President and Community Organizer-in-Chief, the World will not be happy if those hopelessly parochial Yank knuckledraggers decline to endorse the World’s decision as to who should govern them and their ghastly backwater.
The Grauniad says so The world’s verdict will be harsh if the US rejects the man it yearns for.
Harsh? How so? Will I get a strongly-worded letter from Brussels?
An America that disdains Obama for his global support risks turning current anti-Bush feeling into something far worse (emphasis added):…
But what of the rest of the world? This is the reaction I fear most. For Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama.
Reuters reports on a poll where
A total of 23,531 people in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the UAE, Britain and the United States were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone in July and August 2008 for the poll.
I still haven’t figured out why Latin America, which eagerly wants more free trade with the USA, wants Obama to be president.
I have spoken to several politicians and economists from Latin America, and the one answer to the question, “What would be the best thing the US could do for Latin America?” they all gave in common was “Free trade.”
Obama wants to end NAFTA:
The Democrats have blocked the Free Trade agreement with Colombia.
Do the Latin Americans understand where Obama stands of free trade? Apparently not.
Do the populist socialists want someone in the White House that will perpetuate the isolationism, poverty and instability that keeps populists in power? Very likely. As Mary O’Grady points out,
there is no doubt that the agreements, warts and all, have aided in the process of dismantling trade barriers, strengthening the rule of law, and moving the region in the direction of democratic capitalism.
The consequences are dire:
Mr. Obama would reverse regional trade progress. He supports House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s opposition to the Colombia FTA, even though it will open new markets for U.S. exporters. He promises to “stand firm” against pacts like Cafta and proposes to force a renegotiation of Nafta, which is likely to disrupt North American supply chains and damage the U.S. economy. By heaping new labor and environmental regulations on our trading partners, his “fair trade” proposal will raise costs for our trading partners and reduce their competitiveness.
Perhaps worst of all, his antitrade bias will signal the region that protectionism is back in style in the U.S., and encourage new trade wars. No good can come from that, for the U.S. or for Latin America.
Which may be why whole lot of people who can’t vote for Obama are endorsing him.
Tags: Fausta's blog