Ooo, look, everybody's out of step except our Paul

BBC News has quoted Maclean's columnist Paul Wells criticizing Prime Minister Paul Martin's statements about the United States.

[Paul Wells] says with Mr Martin fighting for re-election after his government was brought down in a vote of no-confidence, he is behaving like a politician with his back to the wall.

"He's allowed his worst instincts to come to the fore and he's basically pandered to anti-American sentiment more energetically than any politician I can remember," he adds.

Mr Wells says the US is still the country's most influential role model and that Mr Martin's anti-US rhetoric could damage Canada's relations with the White House.

My honest opinion is that this is one of the stupidest things he could possibly do. We do have to get along with these people - $1bn of goods and services are traded across the border every day," he says.

"It's really dumb to lecture them at a global forum on global warming, when Canada has been notoriously far more profligate in its greenhouse gas emissions than the United States. That's simple hypocrisy and the Americans are smart enough to know that."

Nevertheless, Mr Wells says that the anti-American card is always popular with Canadian voters. He notes that tracking polls seem to suggest that Mr Martin's popularity has risen since the US ambassador made his comments.

The question is, can Wells have it both ways? Is it good politics? Or bad policy? Or both? When a hard line to the U.S. is so popular with the public, is the public, or are commentators like Paul Wells, out of step?