Tuesday, December 13, 2005

U.S. warns Canada: Talk nicer.

David Wilkins, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, has warned the parties contesting the upcoming elections to stop being so mean to their neighbors to the south.
“It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner constantly,” Mr. Wilkins said in a speech to the Canadian Club at the Chateau Laurier Hotel in Ottawa. “But it is a slippery slope, and all of us should hope that it doesn't have a long-term impact on the relationship.”
Well considering slippery slopes, how slippery is the slope we start down when we attempt to interject our line of thinking into the political campaign of our Canadian neighbors? Their election is their business, and America involves itself there-in at the peril of the side 'we' would like to see win the election. After all this administration is intensely unpopular with Canadian population, and the perception that George Bush or Mr. Wilkins would be happy with a particular outcome is certain to improve the prospects of the opposing party. One can only imagine the pained expression on the faces of the Conservative party leadership as news of Mr. Wilkins bluster broke.
“The last time I looked, the United States was not on the ballot for the Jan. 23 election,” Mr. Wilkins said to scattered applause.
Well we are now Mr. Wilkins... and your conservative buddies to the north are none to happy to see that development:
The Conservative Leader sent an open letter this week to the right-wing Washington Times newspaper, repudiating much of a recent glowing commentary that painted a potential Conservative win as “a rare foreign event that manages to put a smile” on Mr. Bush's face.

Mr. Harper also said Tuesday a Conservative government would not join the American-led war in Iraq, as some opponents have contended.
**fake news alert** According to Liberal Party candidate Paul Martin, Ambassador Wilkins has been invited to speak at daily media events until election day. **end fake news alert** If Mr. Wilkins wants to insure a conservative victory he needs to talk up the liberals... not the other way around. Sheesh, where is Karl when you need him?


As to the propriety of Canadian politicians holding forth with their opinions on Canadian/American relations... Of course the relationship of Canada to the United States plays a far greater role in their elections than vice versa. I'll wager a significant percentage of American citizens could not correctly place Canada on a world map! Who doubts that had some tremendous political issue been presented during the 2000, or 2004 elections that threw Canada in a bad light, candidate Bush would have attempted to make full political use of said issue. Or is this the ONE time the Bush campaign would have remained silent and let a political winner just slide by without exploitation. Thank goodness this post is in type, because if I were talking to you right now I'd have to pause for a moment while you recovered from the hearty laugh you just enjoyed.

The administration, in the finest traditions of the greatest example of democracy on the face of the earth, is engaged in a concerted attempt to influence the Canadian election.
The Bush administration, [author Stephen Clark] says, entered the election fray last week when it rebuked Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Frank McKenna over Mr. Martin's “rather banal” statements at the Montreal summit.

“Everybody and his brother knows that U.S. is trying to sabotage [the Kyoto Protocol],” he said. But chastising an ambassador in such a public manner was about as serious a diplomatic move as possible, short of expulsion, he argues.

“It's very rare to do that, and it can't be an accident,” he said.

But, he argues, the Bush administration underestimates their popularity in Canada.

“The White House has made a decision to intervene,” Mr. Clarkson said. “It should help Mr. Martin, just because the Bush people are so unpopular here.”
In other words we see here a first hand example of the Bush administration making up facts (they really are not unpopular in Canada) in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and bungling their approach to the issue based upon their faith based presumptions. But I doubt very seriously that any amount of Bush administration wishing and hoping is going to change the results of the Canadian election.

So to our Canadian neighbors we say keep on giving this administration the bashing they deserve. This rhetoric is speaking truth to power, and is the path to electoral victory. According to the polls south of the border, the Bush administration is nearly as unpopular here as it is up there. Too bad we can not hold a no confidence vote of our own...

Comments:
Why do they have to pick on GW? It's not fair! Just because he fucks up on a constant basis doesn't mean you have to pick on him... Bad Canucks, bad canucks...
 
So, since we don't have a 'no confidence' vote, impeachment it must be...
 
I think we should just invade and get it over with. I mean who do those canucks think they are? Let's go snatch those tar sands and all that timber before somebody else does. This is just the excuse we need.
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]