Is it Martin or Wilkins we should be worried about?

The Globe and Mail: U.S. ambassador rips Martin over Kyoto

This is interesting. Martin gets ripped by David Wilkins over his comments against Mr. Bush at the Montreal conference on Climate Change. Yep, we heard it.

But, here is what I think is the most interesting part of this article:

Stephen Clarkson, a professor political economy, argues the White House has set its sights on regime change for the first time in North America since John Kennedy's battle with former PM John Diefenbaker in 1963. With supporters from the National Rifle Association to Friends of the Family taking a public stance against recent Canadian policy, Prof. Clarkson argues the Bush administration is looking for a change on Parliament Hill.

But unlike in the days of JFK, he predicts such a move will surely backfire.

Unlike Mr. Kennedy, The Bush administration is extremely unpopular in Canada. According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, 75 per cent of Canadians say they have a less favourable view of the U.S. since Mr. Bush's re-election.

But, Prof. Clarkson says such a stance will surely give the Liberals a boost.

“It certainly diverts the attention from beer and popcorn,” said Mr. Clarkson, in reference to a Liberal gaffe last weekend, suggesting some parents would spend Conservative child-care dollars on other things.

That is the part I like. I hope he's right, because that's not the take I took....

I think many Canadians are becoming acutely aware of our embarassing reputation as ardent anti-Americans. As such, I think any blatant anti-Americanism by any party will likely not play well with the majority of the electorate.

Now, I still think Martin's comments were not that bad... while it seems that the US may have made more progress outside of Kyoto than we have within it.... most Canadians probably think we're better at the environmental thing than our friends south of the border. What I was worried about was the fact that he may well have "poked the bear". Getting the US riled up enough to prompt an angry public response, let alone two responses is not good.

It wasn't really Martin's comments that worried me, I was more worried about the response it got. I don't think the Liberals want anything or anyone to bring attention to their alleged "anti-American" tendencies.

But, Professor Clarkson posits that I am incorrect in my thinking.

Let's hope so.

Stephen Harper seemed to be concerned with seeming too close to the US and the Bush administration.

During the 2004 election campaign, Mr. Martin consistently portrayed Conservative Leader Stephen Harper as a right-wing extremist for his sympathies to the Bush administration's policies. Mr. Harper has been doing everything possible to distance himself from Washington during this election campaign, however.

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.

Interesting indeed!

A. (Cautious) Liberal