Martin and Bush Meeting

[August1991]

PM PM is due to fly to DC on 29 April to meet congressmen and then on 30 April to meet Bush in the Oval Office.

CBC Visit Details

According to me, Bush did not go into the "bubble" to mince words. He seems to say freely what he thinks, even about other countries, if he thinks it's pertinent.

Question 1: Will Bush do something to get rid of Martin?

According to me, PM PM wants to appear 'Statesman/Presidential/Main Guy' in DC. Mend fences but make it plain that he's his opwn man.

Question 2: Will PM PM get a vote bounce from this trip?

According to me, Harper will be left out of this whole scenario.

Question 3: How should Harper respond to this trip?

Pollster Michael Adams' Take

A nationalist flourish on the White House lawn has the potential to be something of a magic bullet for the Martin Liberals, as it could deal simultaneous blows to rivals creeping up on the government both in English Canada and in Quebec.

[willy]

"Question 3: How should Harper respond to this trip?"

Harper should stay quite on this. Canada is split and this is a hot button. Martin should not have set this meeting before his election call (if I was his advisor). He is not playing to his support by having a working relationship with Bush and for others the Liberals will be the ones who didn’t help a friend in need (not verbally supporting the US on Iraq).

Harper should stay on Martin about the sponsorship scandal, conflict of interest and other mismanagement issues.

The Conservatives want a closer relationship with the US but it does not pay in politics to play every issue as priority.

[August1991]

Question 1: Will Bush do something to get rid of Martin?

No, nothing. In the Bushies' mind, Martin will either make it across the road or he's road kill. It's Martin's problem. If Bush has any consideration, it'll be we're good "neighbors to these Canadians". (Watch for the smart Cdn jourtnalist question: "Mr. President, did the PM talk with you about an election date?" My bet? He will.)

Question 2: Will PM PM get a vote bounce?

PM PM is counting on it. Watch him 1) appear to be the international-statesman, idea-guy type, 2) mend US fences because he's a seriously rich business-type guy that Republicans understands and 3) attempt lamely not to kowtow to the Americans in some symbolic way. (You know, line about all the hockey players in Tampa Bay being Canadian...)

"Question 3: How should Harper respond to this trip?"

Harper should stay quite on this. Canada is split and this is a hot button.

Harper has to. Now or later, he'll have to deal with Martin-Bush meeting (or Canada US).

Here's a take. Mulroney won that 1988 election despite all. Standing up for Canada does not mean standing up to the US. (Quelle langue l'Anglais avec ses verbes composés!)

Canadians are loyal to certain fundamental values. (For example, we have never had military draft. And we Canadians sent people abroad to fight for freedom in 1939, two years before the Americans did. In every small town in Canada, there's a monument about this. Did the Liberals give money to explain this to young Canadians? And what this was all about?)

IOW, take a Canadian stand, and defend it. For a brief time, Canada did not kowtow to the UN nor the US, certainly not France nor even the UK.

Our position was a Canadian position, not a knee-jerk anti-American position.

[Black Dog]

Question 1: Will Bush do something to get rid of Martin?

Well first someone will have to explain to Bush, slowly, using small words, just who Paul Martin is and where this "Canada" place is located.

Seriously though, expect Martin to kiss major ass to deflect the Cons' criticisms that the GGrits are "anti-American".

Question 2: Will PM PM get a vote bounce?

I doubt this will have any significant impact. If he softballs Bush, expect right-leaning Grit hardliners to nod sagely with approval, while the small "L" liberals roll their eyes, but any boost will be purely short term. (Unles Martin opts to take up residence in Bush's colon a la "Irish Eyes" Mulroney's fellating of Reagan.)

Question 3: How should Harper respond to this trip?"

Harper will watch closely and jump on any precieved slight towards his future masters in Washington.Mostly however, he'll be preaching to the Con choir.

[August1991]

I'll do some PR for you BlackDog:

Question 1: What Bush do...

someone will have to explain to Bush, slowly, using small words, just who Paul Martin is and where this "Canada" place is located.

You have fallen for Bush Jnr's shtick. (His Dad taught him that.) Lower expectations and you always win. Duh.

My query - what can Bush do to get rid of Martin and get Harper elected? You didn't answer. What kind of political analyst are you?

Question 2: What Martin gain...

expect Martin to kiss major ass to deflect the Cons' criticisms that the GGrits are "anti-American".

Martin, pull a Mulroney? No way.

If he softballs Bush, expect right-leaning Grit hardliners to nod sagely with approval, while the small "L" liberals roll their eyes, but any boost will be purely short term.

Dumb NDP/Turner/post-Modern Chomsky answer. "You sold us out..."

Here's a fun video clip: Turner Mulroney Debate Clip

Question 3: Harper...

Mostly however, he'll be preaching to the Con choir.

Interesting. Mulroney won in 1988. The Con choir is a Can choir.

[Black Dog]

My query - what can Bush do to get rid of Martin and get Harper elected? You didn't answer. What kind of political analyst are you?

What makes you think he cares? What possible interest would the U.S. have in regime change here when they already have a pliant pal in Martin?

Martin, pull a Mulroney? No way.

Why not? Martin has already expressed support for missile defense and for other ways of "strengthening ties" between the U.S. and Canada. Both Bush and Martin are rich, white businessmen. They talk the same language and have the same interests at heart.

Interesting. Mulroney won in 1988. The Con choir is a Can choir.

Hmm. Then the P.C's utter decimation in 1990 must have been a figment of my imagination.

[August1991]

Judging by the activity on this thread (posts/views), Canadians care not a whit about the only "International Affairs" of possible importance to Canada.

IOW, if journalists report anything about Rwanda, Argentina or India, it is completely irrelevant to Canadians. Canadians do not care about the outside world. When the CBC talks about all this stuff, nobody is listening. In one ear, out the other. Static.

Can Canadians possibly care more about Rwanda, Argentina and India than they do about America? WTF? Which country matters to us? Or do we care about stuff that only matters to us as "humans"? WTF? (Thare are public sector union strikes in Nfld and BC. The strikes are not about Rwanda, nor Iraq, nor about PM PM's trip to DC.)

Canadians, posting here, care more about marijuana laws, electoral systems, gay rights than what happens when their PM goes to Washington.

PM PM goes to Washington. No discussion, no debate. How much does the CBC report international stuff badly. Why?

My point is NOT to editorialize, CBC style, about the ignorance and backwardness of ordinary Canadians who prefer to discuss hockey and gay laws rather than Palestinian suffering and conferences in Washington.

I'm just observing a fact. How many posts/views here and how many posts/views to the thread on Bill C-250?

[Black Dog]

Canadians, posting here, care more about marijuana laws, electoral systems, gay rights than what happens when their PM goes to Washington.

Gimme a break. There's only so many hours in a day. It's not like I get paid to post here...

[August1991]

Gimme a break.

Never.

But I'm gratified to know there's one central Albertan who looks beyond her/his nose.

BD, I know you're not the CBC/Radio Canada, but allow me a break.

My point is that people pay taxes to hear CBC News about International stuff they don't care about (judging by posts here). Result? I suspect that most CBC listeners ignore the news.

More pointedly? I hate paying taxes to hear CBC nonsense about stuff without another side of the story! (I'm still waiting for someone on the CBC to say something honestly positive about Bush.)

PS. Unlike the CBC which never presents both sides, Radio Canada is not bad on domestic (Quebec) stuff. (This drives the Chretien federalists crazy.)

Both CBC/Radio-Canada are too International though.

[Black Dog]

I'm still waiting for someone on the CBC to say something honestly positive about Bush.

I don't see this happen, as the possibility of Bush ever doing anything positive is remote at best.

[KrustyKidd]

Black Dog, are you constrained by simple hatred of an idividual? The whole thread was about the CBC and out of it, you pick a sentence that mentioned Bush as an example of the bias of the CBC and you don't agree, defend or remain neutral. Just simply use it as a dig to bash Bush.

I am not defending him here and actually have a concrete reason for disliking him that goes to my core far more than you however feel that you are being unfair and unreasonable as he does have accomplishments unrecognised by you and those who simply use this as a focal point for their cause. After all, Hitler gave us the Bug and was an animal lover. Musillini made the trains run on time.

[August1991]

Let me make my point absolutely clear.

Apparently, most people post to this forum because there are threads whether the Liberals are honest, Harper is a religious fanatic or lesbians can kiss in a bar.

Canadians (judging by the number of posts to this thread) don't give a tinker's cuss about US/Canada relations. Yet it's arguably the most important international relation Canadians have.

Honest, no posts! (Minor detail to attract attention: Bureaucrats in Ottawa troll these forums for a cheap focus group...)

But there are more posts to the International Folder than to the US/Canada folder (but admittedly these International posts are akin to those to the Religion posts. Interesting but "philosophical" debate.)

So, my point?

The CBC has WHOLE newscasts devoted to arcane issues about foreign countries that, judging by posts to the various threads of this MapleLeaf Forum, are completely irrelevant to most Canadians.

CBC News is your Grade 11 English teacher telling you about some foreign poet who married some foreign chick and then they died...

(Can I make comments about Canada's bureaucrats?)

[Black Dog]

But there are more posts to the International Folder than to the US/Canada folder (but admittedly these International posts are akin to those to the Religion posts. Interesting but "philosophical" debate.)

If you build it they will come. Got some articles, issues, ideas on the Canada/US subject? Then post 'em. Canadian politics and international affairs happen to be pretty hot topics at the moment, don't you know.

The CBC has WHOLE newscasts devoted to arcane issues about foreign countries that, judging by posts to the various threads of this MapleLeaf Forum, are completely irrelevant to most Canadians.

Another dig at the CBC, presumably for...what exactly? Too much international coverage?

I liek lots of international coverage, especially in the age of globalization. We could be more self-absorbed and inward-looking, I suppose. But then we'd be more like the U.S. media which doesn't give two craps about anything beyond its borders or directly involving Americans. This, in turn, creates a kind of cultural myopia that leads to feelings of superiority, as well as rampant ignorance about the way the rest of the world is.