This was done last month and kind of got ignored with the Bolton controversy and the Senate nuclear option debates going on... but I thought I'd post about this: Bush has picked his nomination for the new Canadian Ambassador to be David Wilkens, the Speaker for the South Carolina legislature.
But who is David Wilkens, you say, and what are his qualifications? Well apparently, its not because of any diplomatic experience he possesses, nor because of any great knowledge of Canada, but quite frankly its because he's a Bush loyalist. (In Canada, we'd call this a patronage appointment). Here's what a recent newspaper article described about Wilkens:
"The Bush administration has nominated a right-wing, fundamentalist, pro-war, pro-military Southern Republican, David Wilkins, as new US ambassador to Canada. Indeed, Wilkins reminds historians of John Calhoun, the South Carolina politician who was one of the main advocates for invading Canada in 1812.
Wilkins is Speaker of the South Carolina legislature. He is a religious conservative known for opposition to women's rights, abortion, the environment, gay rights, marijuana, pacifism, and the Canadian softwood lumber industry.
In otherwards, he opposes almost everything that is standard Canadian public policy - a brilliant choice for America's new Ambassador to Canada.
And what about that last point - his opposition to Canada's lumber industry? Well, in 2001, he apparently helped to organize a resolution in the South Carolina legislature calling on the US to enforce trade sanctions against Canada on this particular issue. That fact should warm him up to the Canadian people and government, dont you think?
The article goes on to detail his loyalty to Bush
- in 2000 he was the guy who organized a vicious attack against Senator John McCain in the S.C Primary.
- he is a major Bush fundraiser and campaign leader
- he is friends with the Bush family, including Bush Sr.
And what of his knowledge on Canada?
Wilkins, who has been a South Carolina legislator for 25 years, admits he's only been to Canada once, and that he doesn't know hardly anything about Canada... 'I don't know where we went. It's been so long, I'd have to look at the map,'he said.
Great - a guy who knows nothing about Canada or the issues.. at least when Cellucci was here and was mouthing off every week at a Press Conference, he did have some knowledge of this country.
The article's conclusion?
Wilkins is likely to be confirmed as ambassador by the US Senate and at his post in Ottawa by late June. What he won't bring north with him is an insider's nuanced knowledge of Canada, a consensus-building attitude, or any authentic respect for Canada that would distinguish him from the arrogant Cellucci, whose dictatorial approach offended Canadians for four years.
The moral of the story? In Bush's world, qualifications are secondary to loyalty to Bush. I think this pick - while nowhere near as publicized as the Bolton one, gives a hint as to why BOlton has been picked when there were other equally qualified candidates for Bush to be picking.