And this is from one of our few allies who still supposedly likes us... http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_4987.shtml Canadians to Bush: Hope You Lose, Eh By Jonathon Gatehouse Feb 6, 2004, 10:24 According to a new poll, only 15 per cent of us would vote for the President February 9, 2004-Maybe it's that smug little smile. His penchant for fantastically expensive military photo-ops. Or the swaggering, belt-hitching walk that cries out for a pair of swinging saloon doors. And though, God knows, we have too many of our own syntactically challenged politicians to be casting stones, shouldn't the leader of the free world know that "misunderestimate" isn't a word? Yes, we're cavilling, but clearly there is something about George W. Bush that gets under the skin of Canadians. After all, vehemently disagreeing with the policies of American presidents is almost a national pastime. There has to be another explanation for our extreme reaction, the desire afoot in the land to see him turfed from office. That and the unprintable sentiment about him and the horse he rode in on. Even before we know whom he will be running against this fall, Canadians have made their decision. Only 15 per cent, according to an exclusive new Maclean's poll, would definitely cast a ballot for Bush if they had the opportunity. And if Americans remain almost evenly divided -- some 50 per cent approve of his performance in the White House and he's running neck and neck with his likely Democratic challengers -- there is no such dithering on this side of the border. Just 12 per cent of us feel Canada is better off since he took office, and only a third of respondents will admit to liking the world's most powerful man, even just a little bit. It's an antipathy that appears to extend far beyond our traditional coolness towards Republicans, says Michael Marzolini, chairman of Pollara Inc., the Toronto-based opinion research firm that conducted the national survey. With a political spectrum that skews to the left of America's -- legalized same-sex marriage and the promise of looser mar1juana laws being the most recent, and in some quarters, celebrated examples -- we've generally perceived Democratic presidents as being more in tune with our values. But where Ronald Reagan and Bush the elder were at least grudgingly respected, Dubya is decidedly not. Despite a spate of polls showing a broad desire for improved relations with the United States after the often rocky Chrétien years, there is a sense that this administration isn't one we want to do business with. "These numbers really show the difficulty for Paul Martin," says Marzolini, the long-time pollster for the federal Liberal party. "He has to get closer to the Americans, but he can't get too close to George Bush. It's a fine balance." The intense sympathy Canadians felt following the attacks of 9/11 -- something that manifested itself not just in acts of mourning and charity, but in a willingness to support whatever actions the U.S. deemed necessary -- has dissipated. In its place is a deep dislike of the bellicose new global reality, and a lingering distrust of Bush's motives. It's evident even within sight of the frontier. Stopping to take a picture of icy Niagara Falls on a recent frigid day, Mike Mitreveski tried to explain why he's uneasy about Bush. "I get a sense that he's in it for himself first and then the country," said the Windsor, Ont., graduate student. "And I worry that he's doing all of this stuff in Iraq for the oil industry. He used to be part of it and has lots of high-ranking friends." David Kowalewski, an engineering consultant from Niagara Falls, Ont., says he initially supported Bush's foreign policy, but now has grave doubts. "I thought it was noble at first, but now they've gone security crazy." Life has changed for the worse in his community, said Kowalewski, citing long delays at the border, and the fallout for local businesses that depend on tourism. A trio of physicians taking in the sights on a day off were no kinder to Bush. On sober reflection, all asked that their names not be used. "Please, someone, teach him how to pronounce nuclear," said one, a Toronto pediatrician. Another, an American who has lived on this side of the border for the past 14 years, said she understands why Canadians dislike so many of Bush's stances, even though she is troubled by the tone of the debate. A doctor friend from the Netherlands provided a reminder that opinions of the President are often even harsher abroad. "In Amsterdam," she said, "we think he is kind of stupid." On the humid night in August 2000 when George W. Bush officially became the Republican nominee for president, the thousands of delegates and reporters packed into a Philadelphia arena were given a peek at what party strategists planned to sell to the American people. The beautifully realized infomercial was mostly shots of Bush at his Crawford, Tex., ranch, tending stock, mending fences, driving a vintage pickup truck with his spaniel perched on his lap, all the while talking about his vision of a big country with small-town values. It was a persona lifted straight from a Hollywood Western. The likeable, soft-talking cowpoke who knows the value of an honest day's work and isn't afraid to take on the guys in the black hats when the town's in trouble. Reagan successfully mined the same vein for eight years. And it's an image that continues to pay dividends for Bush, playing off his folksy, good-natured strengths, and positioning him as someone who might reasonably be excused for not reading newspapers or knowing the names of his foreign counterparts. Clearing brush on the back forty is a lot more man-of-the-people than weekending at the palatial family compound in Kennebunkport, Me. But Canadians have never been that comfortable with the type of cowboys who take the law into their own hands. Our frontier heroes were the scarlet-clad North West Mounted Police, not lone gunslingers. In a pre-9/11 world, when Bush was vowing to be a domestic-policy president, it didn't seem to matter that much. But over the past 2 1/2 years, his muscular commitment to protecting and advancing U.S. interests abroad -- unilaterally if allies and international bodies such as the UN fail to sign on -- has unsettled many around the world. There is a burgeoning cottage industry of writers and analysts exploring the underpinnings and fallout of this new American "imperialism." In Canada, a country that has always fretted about being swallowed up, either territorially or culturally, by the behemoth to the south, the spectre of an expanding American Empire feeds a deep-seated paranoia. At least for some. David Frum, the Canadian author and pundit who spent 13 months working as a speech writer for Bush -- he is credited with co-authorship of the infamous "axis of evil" line -- says he doesn't believe polls that suggest a yawning chasm between American and Canadian perceptions of the President. "My contention is that the differences are much less dramatic than they are usually made out to be," he says. And if Bush is held in less esteem north of the border, adds Frum, it is largely because of the distorted lens the public sees him through. "The Canadian media have generally taken a very belittling approach to him. By and large, they do not take the terror problem very seriously, and they communicate that to public opinion." Canadians might understandably prefer presidents who are reluctant to flex their global political power, either economically or militarily, says Frum, but when it comes to things that really matter, we should have the good grace to at least not stand in the way. "There's no expectation in Washington that Canada and the U.S. should agree on every issue. But they do, as a friend, expect to be given the benefit of the doubt on issues that they regard as essential to their security." It's a point of view that many Canadians find difficult to swallow, given the dubious claims of weapons of mass destruction and hostile intentions that fuelled America's foray into Iraq. (The Maclean's annual year-end poll found that 75 per cent of Canadians believe Ottawa was right to refuse to commit troops to Iraq, even if it annoyed our closest trading partner.) Yes, we're friends and neighbours, but with feelings running so high, there is a danger that our distaste for the leader will spill over to the people he represents. Clifford Krauss, Canadian correspondent for the New York Times, recently encountered two young boys on the street outside his Toronto home, holding a sign that read Honk if you hate President Bush! (This is a school project.) "I was shocked because of the word hate," says Krauss. "You'd never see a sign like that about Saddam Hussein, or Slobodan Milosevic." It's a virulent strain of anti-Americanism that the Times reporter says he encounters more and more frequently. "I've experienced rude and prejudiced behaviour, just because I'm an American," says Krauss. "I've lived in countries in Latin America that have tricky relationships with the U.S., but I didn't expect that sort of thing here." Truth is, we might well be the ones in need of a dose of perspective. With the Canadian political landscape now virtually emptied of leaders we feel passionately about -- either negatively or positively -- we might be guilty of transference. Our growing distaste for Bush is smug and more than a bit juvenile, argues Reginald Stuart, a Mount Saint Vincent University expert on U.S.-Canada relations, now in residence at Washington's Woodrow Wilson International Center. "When the Communists were in power, we dealt with Russian leaders that we disagreed vehemently with on some very fundamental issues," he notes. Our worries that the Bush administration, viewed by the bulk of the Canadian public as overly religious and conservative, will somehow interfere with progressive social policies in this country (the Maclean's year-end poll identified same-sex marriage and proposals to relax mar1juana laws as new "wellsprings of national pride") are overblown, says Stuart. In Canada, there is still no surer kiss of death for a politician than caving into American pressure. For decades now, we have alternately railed against, and revelled in, the generalized American ignorance of Canada. At the same time, we have prided ourselves on being one of our neighbour's harshest critics. At the centre of our relationship is the conceit that so much of what we produce -- resources, goods, culture, people -- flows south, that America must really need us. Now, with the U.S. showing a willingness to stand alone and demand the obeisance due to the last remaining superpower, Canada, like the rest of the world, is caught up in an uncomfortable new reality. Bush's repeated "with us or against us" declarations have made it clear that there are new, tougher requirements for being America's ally. And as long as he remains well-positioned for another four years in the White House, we may have to do our share of puckering up. Canadians know that. We just don't have to like it.
Oh great Canada doesn't like Bush!! Why should we care? Because, like it or not, we're a part of the world community, and what the world thinks of us directly impacts the quality of our lives. If our friends dislike us, you can be guaranteed our security will be affected. If Europe doesn't like us, you can be guaranteed their persistance in shutting down the finances of terrorists will be less dogged. Even if you could care less about other countries, you can't seriously be naive enough to believe that we don't need the help of others to guarantee our own security, do you?
On the flipside, should we concede to other countries viewpoins at the expense of our own security just so they "like us?"
Heck, we let our friends proliferate nucular secrets. They just have to say they are sorry and all is good.
Canada is one of our closest allies. Before the advent of advanced satellite observation technology, we depended on Canada working in concert with us to detect a potential first strike by the Soviet Union. They are one of our largest trading partners. Get your head out of the sand. Of course we should care. A better question would be, why should we not?
I would be surprised if 15% of Americans could even name the Canadian Prime Minister, so his approval ratings probably aren't that high here, either.
No, but they had that luxury, as fortunately for them, no terrorists ever tried to smuggle stuff through Vermont to blow up Dorval Airport, no Canadian military interventions have requested US troops for peacekeeping purposes, etc etc etc.
Security?...We are doing something about our security in an offensive manner...It just so happens to be offensive to some Icelanders, but round these parts we do it or do not, and the fact is so many are playing in the pudding to varying degress, but it is the U.S.'s position to splash feet first in the pudding and to lather, rinse and repeat if necessary, because it is the only way to engage terrorism...Military scholars have studied, and studied, and studied about this new stage of terrorism, and there are just 3 things to do:...Be offensive, defensive, or do nothing...This is undeniable...Each of the 3 choices actually has hundreds, perhaps thousands of alternative tactics and severity of degree on how offensive, how defensive or how do nothing...There is actually hundreds or thousands of alternative tactics on doing nothing...see your mid to far left governmental representatives in either the states of Massachusettes, Hawaii, Vermont, California, Cook county, Illinoise...or even Washington D.C. on the choices...... Defensive costs more than you can possibly imagine, and...won't work... So we have one choice, and we all hold hands and be brave and drink the kool-aid and realize we have lived long enough without these acts, but they are happening, they are being planned and we need to do something...Whether you think Iraq was no immenent threat is contradictory to the intel. that was available to the last two Presidents of differing political ideology...If Saddam was alright and not a psycho-delic freakout, then why did he presumably destroy the WMD's without dragging the guy with the blue helmet to the pit where they were trashed and said ;"here they are destroyed,...Happy? go home",....He would surely have saved his regime if he would have showed some simple stuff, no?... How can people say there are none, when there were, and the question is where are they, who has them, and if they had been destroyed, why was no evidence or intelligence made to the point of the fact of the waste of such WMD made evidentiary? The real deal is the sufficience of the course of action against Iraq is compelling on different fronts when you consider this and that and this, which is not only his outright public announcements that cuddled the terroristic ideology, but also the chances upon chances he had in the world conglomerate authority that insisted he do what needed to be done,...after so many chances he didn't...Proximity to the hotbed of terroristic breeding ground...Actions of crimes against one's own subjects and humanity...blah, blah, blah,...of course this is retread stuff, but it is point in fact that seems to be misunderstood as a basis on why the decision was made,...and to add to that, we had more nations and states that took part to differing degrees than you can shake a stick at...Only surrendering France, Russia, and Germany voiced "Don't do something!"...3 lonely little babies riding agendas we may never know, such as, O I don't know...infared technology, secret deals,...monetary interests,...self serving election interests,...blah, blah, blah..You can go on all night...tossing and turning, just thinking about it... So what are you going to do?...You gotta play the offensive hand...It's the only way to win the game.... Here are the tips from my opinion...: Always use the minimal amount of force required, but don't hesitate to use deadly force if all other less than lethal options are exhausted... Try to be popular, gain and keep friends...but don't be overly reliant on friends when the stakes is your life...or your life... Ladies and gentlemen,....are you ready to play and win the game?
I never said Canada didn't like the US. If we did a survey on that, I'm sure the numbers would be different, see how you guys like to spin things?
apparently not as much as Bush likes martin's aide Perhaps W's been watching the Bravo channel too much... Bush prefers Martin spokesman to his own By JANE TABER Friday, January 16, 2004 - Page A1 OTTAWA -- This is the tale of the two Scotts -- one American, the other Canadian. One is dark-haired, the other blond. Both are 35 and both work for the most powerful men in their respective countries. Scott McClellan is the press secretary to U.S. President George W. Bush; Scott Reid is the senior strategist to Prime Minister Paul Martin. But, according to Mr. Bush, Mr. Martin has the prettier Scott. Indeed. Welcome to a new era of "pretty face" Canada-U.S. relations. This is what happened: Mr. Bush met Mr. Reid earlier this week at the summit in Monterrey, Mexico, just after the President's breakfast with Mr. Martin. Mr. Reid was not initially in the hotel room where the two leaders and their closest advisers met, but was called in to brief the Prime Minister at the end as the group waited for the media. Mr. Bush wandered over during Mr. Reid's chat with the Prime Minister. Mr. Reid introduced himself and shook hands with Mr. Bush. "Well, what do you do for this guy?" the President asked as he pointed to the Prime Minister. "Well, you know, sir, I can't really say," Mr. Reid said. "It's not that I don't want to. It's just that, you know, I don't really know from day to day." This is true. Mr. Reid handles a number of files and performs a number of different duties, depending on the issue and the day. The President chuckled. "Well, you got a pretty face," he told the surprised Mr. Reid. He wasn't done. "You got a pretty face," he said again. "You're a good-looking guy. Better looking than my Scott anyway." This is true. His Scott has a receding hairline and is on the chubby side, while Mr. Martin's Scott has a full head of hair and is quite fit. For the first time in his life, Mr. Reid had no reply. "I didn't know what to say," said Mr. Reid, noting later that he wished that Mr. Bush had referred to him as a "rugged-looking young man or something. "But I'll take what I can, I guess," he joked. "When a Texas Republican says you've got a pretty face, then I guess there is just no way around it."
I don't think the article says that Canada doesn't like us, I thought they say they don't like Bush. Heck about half of the people in this counrty feel the same way. As long as their gov't aren't the ones saying it (then it would be a disrepect for the U.S. as a whole) it's not a big deal.
It's pretty much a given that anywhere outside the US, if people could vote in the US elections, Bush would probably not get more than 15 or 20 %, even in the UK or Germany. Since they cannot vote for US President, it is not all that relevant either. But presidents like Kennedy or even Reagan were highly popular in Germany, for instance.
