Both the New York Times and the Washington Post had commentaries this weekend about the change in government in Canada; and both referenced the same Liberal attack ad in their respective very first paragraphs.
I cringed every time I saw the attack ads (particularly that one, the *smile on Bush's face* ad) and I'm still cringing.
Election campaigns are not the place for criticism of another country. Period.
I don't think even the US stoops that low. They keep their "swiftboating" to their own. You don't see, "vote for us or else you'll end up like France", or anything like that.
Anyway. Now that we've put a smile on George W.'s face, I have to wonder, what position would Paul Martin be in had he won the election?
Would anybody down there even talk to him at all? Or was he not thinking ahead that far?
As it is, the Washington Post ventured a suggestion for Martin's next career move:
Lobbyist for Hugo Chavez.
Both articles also mentioned the softwood lumber dispute, and the Post went so far as to suggest that the US position is somehow tied to Martin's refusal to join the missile defense program. That's all well and good but both NAFTA and the WTO have declared the lumber duties illegal and the suggestions that I see about the US working to resolve the dispute seem bizarre when there are legally binding decisions in our favour.
But what do I know about international relations...
Cross posted to the CTV Election Weblog