Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Insulting Canada




As reported by Media Matters
On November 30, as President Bush visited Canada to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter and CNN Crossfire co-host Tucker Carlson ridiculed the United States' northern neighbor. On FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, Coulter said that Canadians "better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent." On CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Carlson stated: "Without the U.S., Canada is essentially Honduras, but colder and much less interesting"; he went on to say that instead of following politics, "the average Canadian is busy dogsledding." And on Crossfire, Carlson referred to the "limpid, flaccid nature of Canadian society."
Read the complete story.

What does it say about someone’s political philosophy, view of the world and maturity that they would say such things about inoffensive Canada? What kind of people approve and enjoy listening to such opinions?

6 comments:

paladin said...

I could get more worked up about entertainers like Coulter and Carlson insulting Canada, if not for the fact that Jean Chretien called George Bush a "moron", and another high ranking Canadian official called Bush a profane name that I'm sure would not pass filters here, and said same high ranking Canadian offical stomped on a George Bush doll on Canadian TV. Let's get real here---many countries play the anti-American/anti-Bush card to pander to voters and win elections. Unfortunately, playing the anti-American card didn't work for the liberal Canadians and they now have a conservative government. But think about this----what if George Bush had called the Canadian PM a "moron"? The press/Democrats would have gone crazy---and so would you. It would have been right up there with Brownie doing a "heckuvajob". Let's have a little intellectual honesty here.

Anonymous said...

Wait, we're talking about the 51st state, right?

Dave Barrett said...

paladin, do you see a difference between insulting an elected official because you disagree with what he is doing and insulting all the people who happen to have been born in a country? No, probably too subtle a difference for you to discern.

Why do you suppose conservatives take it so personally when Bush is criticized? Probably because deep inside they are starting to suspect they have been bamboozled into voting for Bush twice, convinced he was a fellow conservative, when all the evidence from his what he actually did once is office shows he is not a conservative at all.

paladin said...

Dave - do you see the difference between entertainers like Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson and official representatives of a government like Chretien? Don't you think it makes a difference who's doing the dissing? Is the difference too subtle for you to discern? As for Bush not being a conservative (well, we should have known that the "compassionate" part was gonna cost us)and changing his stripes after he was elected----well, duh! Kinda like when Clinton went for NAFTA and welfare reform after he was elected. Sheesh! From your photo, you don't look like you were born yesterday, but I'm beginning to wonder.....

Dave Barrett said...

paladin, are you saying that it is inevitable that a politician who campaigns as a conservative will, once he is in office, do very non-conservative things? And why do you think that Clinton's support of Nafta was surprising to the people who voted for him or different than the way he campaigned.
Paladin, I was not born yesterday and during my lifetime I have seen a lot of presidents. Although presidents once in office have to make compromises and disappoint their supporters to some degree and in some ways what George W. Bush has done is unprecedented.
He came into office scoffing at the notion of nation building. Now we are invading countries to bring them democracy He campaigned as someone who could bring people together and he is the most divisive president we have ever had. He came into office claiming that government was too big, was trying to do too much and that maybe we should eliminate the Dept of Education. In office he has increased the Medicare entitlement to such a degree that it is going to bankrupt us for generations.
It is an almost 180 degree turnaround. It is not how things usually go and not something that you or anyone else has to or should accept.

paladin said...

Hmmmm---well, I see you think I'm some sort of Bush apologist---you would be wrong! While I don't think Bush is the bees knees, I don't think he is Beelzebub either. I was ready for a change in 2004, but what did the Democrats give us as an alternative? Mr. Reporting For Doody. What a lame@ss candidate! I was an early fan of Howard Dean's, until it was obvious that the Good Doctor was Not Ready For Prime Time. But I still would have voted for Dean if he had been the nominee, since he at least believed in something (which Kerry obviously never did----except himself!) and Dean's record as governnor of VT was fairly moderate, I thought. So if you're looking for someone to defend GWB, you'll have to look elsewhere. It ain't me babe.