Paul Jackson overstates the role Paul Martin and Jean Chretien (especially Martin) played in current Canada/U.S. relations. Sure, Chretien was a defiant son-of-a-bitch; a Frenchman who is tough in the fiber (who once actually beat-off a house intruder with a household art piece- while in his 70s). But when he held back from joining in the “Coalition of the willing,” he was merely reflecting the wishes of nearly the entire country. This is the job of a democratically elected Prime Minister.
Paul Martin, on the other hand, was seen as the new hope for Canada/U.S. relations, for the sole reason that he wasn’t Chretien. Again, with the issue of missile defense, where Martin was seen as insincere with Bush on the issue, Canada is a sovereign nation which is accountable only to the global community as a whole. Having said that, Paul Martin- in his furious attempt to keep his minority parliament afloat- was listening to the will of the Canadian people. We didn’t want in.
You can’t put the blame on the leaders of a country for following the character of the country’s collective conscious. If there is anti-U.S. sentiment in Canada (which there is), it is not handed down from leaders, but rather the opposite. And I wouldn’t say that Paul Martin was anti-American. He worked very hard to be a voice of moderation and acceptance when it came to the Bush Administration (despite rabid anti-Bushers back home).
And as for this bit of inexcusable reporting: “Amongst other incidents that upset Washington were Liberal MP Carolyn Parish’s comment, ‘Americans! I hate the bastards!’ and her calling Bush’s allies a ‘coalition of idiots’ Martin never rebuked Parrish for the comments.” – If you call kicking her out of your party—when you’re already a marginalized minority party—never rebuking her then, yes, I’ll agree to that.
Harper thinks he’s going to come in and blaze new trails, but he’s just not. He’s as compromised by his minority status as Paul Martin was. I’d actually like to see him dance the way Paul Martin danced to stay alive. Harper has to realize he has to consider the wishes of the entire country if he wants to remain in power. He wants to build Canada/U.S. relations? Good. I hope he succeeds. But if the rest of the country isn’t behind him, I assure you, he won’t. And the rest of the country won’t be behind him until we can start agreeing on certain key issues, like softwood lumber. That’s the other thing: Harper was harping (no pun intended) on Paul Martin for not being tough enough on America regarding the softwood lumber. So which is it, Steve: you going to be tough with our neighbours, or nice, or both? Maybe you’ll start to appreciate what it is to be a politician.
1 comment:
Paul Jackson overstates the role Paul Martin and Jean Chretien (especially Martin) played in current Canada/U.S. relations. Sure, Chretien was a defiant son-of-a-bitch; a Frenchman who is tough in the fiber (who once actually beat-off a house intruder with a household art piece- while in his 70s). But when he held back from joining in the “Coalition of the willing,” he was merely reflecting the wishes of nearly the entire country. This is the job of a democratically elected Prime Minister.
Paul Martin, on the other hand, was seen as the new hope for Canada/U.S. relations, for the sole reason that he wasn’t Chretien. Again, with the issue of missile defense, where Martin was seen as insincere with Bush on the issue, Canada is a sovereign nation which is accountable only to the global community as a whole. Having said that, Paul Martin- in his furious attempt to keep his minority parliament afloat- was listening to the will of the Canadian people. We didn’t want in.
You can’t put the blame on the leaders of a country for following the character of the country’s collective conscious. If there is anti-U.S. sentiment in Canada (which there is), it is not handed down from leaders, but rather the opposite. And I wouldn’t say that Paul Martin was anti-American. He worked very hard to be a voice of moderation and acceptance when it came to the Bush Administration (despite rabid anti-Bushers back home).
And as for this bit of inexcusable reporting: “Amongst other incidents that upset Washington were Liberal MP Carolyn Parish’s comment, ‘Americans! I hate the bastards!’ and her calling Bush’s allies a ‘coalition of idiots’ Martin never rebuked Parrish for the comments.” – If you call kicking her out of your party—when you’re already a marginalized minority party—never rebuking her then, yes, I’ll agree to that.
Harper thinks he’s going to come in and blaze new trails, but he’s just not. He’s as compromised by his minority status as Paul Martin was. I’d actually like to see him dance the way Paul Martin danced to stay alive. Harper has to realize he has to consider the wishes of the entire country if he wants to remain in power. He wants to build Canada/U.S. relations? Good. I hope he succeeds. But if the rest of the country isn’t behind him, I assure you, he won’t. And the rest of the country won’t be behind him until we can start agreeing on certain key issues, like softwood lumber. That’s the other thing: Harper was harping (no pun intended) on Paul Martin for not being tough enough on America regarding the softwood lumber. So which is it, Steve: you going to be tough with our neighbours, or nice, or both? Maybe you’ll start to appreciate what it is to be a politician.
Post a Comment