‘NAFTA-gate’ story takes unexpected turn

[no name 1]

Steven - You're trying to tell us that his senior ECONOMIC ADVISOR doesn't know when he's talking about NAFTA?

Obama’s advisor: Blame Canada!

Austan Goolsbee, Barack Obama’s senior economic adviser, is trying to get out an embarrassing situation by playing dumb and blaming our biggest trading partner and most friendly neighbor - Canada (AP via Fox News):

Barack Obama’s senior economic policy adviser said Sunday that Canadian government officials wrote an inaccurate portrayal of his private discussion on the campaign’s trade policy in a memo obtained by The Associated Press.

The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.

Goolsbee disputed a section that read: “Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.”

“This thing about `it’s more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,’ that’s this guy’s language,” Goolsbee said of DeMora. “He’s not quoting me.

“I certainly did not use that phrase in any way,” Goolsbee said.

So now, in order to prevent anyone from looking behind the curtain for the truthbehind the Audacity of Hype, Goolsbee would rather set off an international incident with Canada. Either that, or he is a complete ignoramus on political matters.

Why do I say that? Take a look at this piece of the story:

He said the visit lasted about 40 minutes, and perhaps two to three minutes were spent discussing NAFTA. He said the Canadians asked about Obama’s position, and he replied about his interest in improving labor and environmental standards, and they raised some concerns that Obama sounds like a protectionist.

He said he responded that Obama is not a protectionist, but that the Illinois senator tries to strike a balance between the economic struggles of working Americans and recognizing that free trade is good for the economy.

“That’s a pretty ham-handed description of what I answered,” Goolsbee said of memo’s account. “A: In no possible way was that a reference to NAFTA. And B: In no possible way was I inferring that he was going to introduce any policies that you should ignore and he had no intention of enacting. Those are both completely crazy.”

“In no possible way was that a reference to NAFTA”? Is he kidding? The entire question came out of a NAFTA discussion. Moreover, Canada is the largest exporter to us, and we’re its biggest export market - and someone of Goolsbee’s stature should know that. It is impossible for any Canadian official to have a discussion on trade, politics, and the American presidency without it impacting NAFTA.

If Obama or his staff had even the most limited foreign policy experience, they would know this. They would understand that you can’t speak about NAFTA in any way without Canada getting nervous. To imply that the Canadian consulate is making stuff up is hardly the way to address that problem.

The late Patrick Moynihan once famously said of Jimmy Carter, “Unable to distinguish between our friends and our enemies, he has essentially adopted our enemies’ view of the world” (NRO). Obama clearly has the first troubling part down. Do we really want to have him complete the sentence, and repeat history, in the White House?

[garya505 2]

I love this sh!t. When Obama gets the nomination and the REAL campaign starts it will get even better!

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I love this sh!t. When Obama gets the nomination and the REAL campaign starts it will get even better!

Yep - especially because the nativists in the Republican party love NAFTA

[garya505 2]

I love this sh!t. When Obama gets the nomination and the REAL campaign starts it will get even better!

Yep - especially because the nativists in the Republican party love NAFTA

I don't have much of an opinion on NAFTA, but when the Obama-rama bubble bursts I'm gonna enjoy it.

[no name 1]

I love this sh!t. When Obama gets the nomination and the REAL campaign starts it will get even better!

Yep - especially because the nativists in the Republican party love NAFTA

I don't have much of an opinion on NAFTA, but when the Obama-rama bubble bursts I'm gonna enjoy it.

Lots of people will.

[Dan J 277]

All this situation has really proved, is that Hillary will use anything, true or not against an opponent.

If this is a sign of her leadership style. She will likely accomplish much of nothing as president.

[no name 1]

All this situation has really proved, is that Hillary will use anything, true or not against an opponent.

If this is a sign of her leadership style. She will likely accomplish much of nothing as president.

So why bother voting for her?

No true supporter spews such (consistent) hate about their candidate.

Edited March 6, 2008 by illumine

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

All this situation has really proved, is that Hillary will use anything, true or not against an opponent.

If this is a sign of her leadership style. She will likely accomplish much of nothing as president.

So where does Obama stand on NAFTA? Do you think he should/would scrap it?

These are going to be important issues if he is to be the nominee and beat McCain, not what Clinton may/or may not have done. And he will be hammered by McCain if he does not clarify his views.

[Dan J 277]

All this situation has really proved, is that Hillary will use anything, true or not against an opponent.

If this is a sign of her leadership style. She will likely accomplish much of nothing as president.

So why bother voting for her?

No true supporter spews such (consistent) hate about their candidate.

I didn't. If she gets the nomination, then I will only vote for her because she is better than McCain.

As far as hate, why can't I question her leadership style? You so much love doing that with Obama.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Dan + Gemvita

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

metta, you're a riot. First you complain that Carptebagger's assertions were unsubstantiated and then you post that ####### above. You love the mud, don't you?

The Hillbots sure do love mud. It's what the campaign is made of.

[no name 1]

All this situation has really proved, is that Hillary will use anything, true or not against an opponent.

If this is a sign of her leadership style. She will likely accomplish much of nothing as president.

So why bother voting for her?

No true supporter spews such (consistent) hate about their candidate.

I didn't. If she gets the nomination, then I will only vote for her because she is better than McCain.

As far as hate, why can't I question her leadership style? You so much love doing that with Obama.

No, I question his experience. His empty promises.

You & Steven consistently bash Hillary for no other reason than you can, every single post. It reeks of desperation & fear.

As far as you voting for her, in this post:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...14260&st=12

you say Obama will definitely win the nom yet you will vote for her no matter what. Contradictory.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I'm still waiting for clarification on Obama's views on NAFTA

Constantly bitchin' about clinton isn't going to win over independents like myself, or for that matter the general election

[Dan J 277]

All this situation has really proved, is that Hillary will use anything, true or not against an opponent.

If this is a sign of her leadership style. She will likely accomplish much of nothing as president.

So why bother voting for her?

No true supporter spews such (consistent) hate about their candidate.

I didn't. If she gets the nomination, then I will only vote for her because she is better than McCain.

As far as hate, why can't I question her leadership style? You so much love doing that with Obama.

No, I question his experience. His empty promises.

You & Steven consistently bash Hillary for no other reason than you can, every single post. It reeks of desperation & fear.

As far as you voting for her, in this post:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...14260&st=12

you say Obama will definitely win the nom yet you will vote for her no matter what. Contradictory.

So what are you suggesting, If Obama doesn't get the nomination i should just not vote?

How democratic.

[no name 1]

I'm still waiting for clarification on Obama's views on NAFTA

Constantly bitchin' about clinton isn't going to win over independents like myself, or for that matter the general election

Some tidbits from his website, obvs his fans don't care to answer:

“I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery…We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other's success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers.” — Barack Obama, New York, NY, September 17, 2007

Trade

Obama believes that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. He will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security.

* Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.

* Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.

From another Obama-sponsored source:

Obama has a strong pro-labor voting record. Obama voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement and has said that NAFTA should be renegotiated. Obama has cosponsored many important bills to help workers, including: an increase in the minimum wage, and the Employee Free Choice Act. He also championed efforts in the Senate to help air traffic controllers engaged in a labor dispute with the Federal Aviation Administration

link

A very interesting source:

How Have Clinton, McCain, and Obama Been Voting on Trade Issues?

McCain voted "pro-trade" in all the 13 roll calls I looked at in which both he and Clinton voted. Clinton voted pro-trade in 54% of them. I haven't scored Obama because he only entered the Senate in 2005 and wasn't there to vote in more than half of the roll calls included here. However, from 2005-2007, he and Clinton voted the same way in each roll call I've included.

Clinton tended to vote for bilateral ("free") trade agreements (FTAs) (she voted yes in seven of the eight FTA votes included here). She voted against Trade Promotion Authority (Fast Track) in 2002, she voted twice to limit U.S. compliance to NAFTA commitments to allow Mexican long-haul trucking, and she voted against tabling the Chinese Currency Act in 2005 (a vote to keep it alive).

All this situation has really proved, is that Hillary will use anything, true or not against an opponent.

If this is a sign of her leadership style. She will likely accomplish much of nothing as president.

So why bother voting for her?

No true supporter spews such (consistent) hate about their candidate.

I didn't. If she gets the nomination, then I will only vote for her because she is better than McCain.

As far as hate, why can't I question her leadership style? You so much love doing that with Obama.

No, I question his experience. His empty promises.

You & Steven consistently bash Hillary for no other reason than you can, every single post. It reeks of desperation & fear.

As far as you voting for her, in this post:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...14260&st=12

you say Obama will definitely win the nom yet you will vote for her no matter what. Contradictory.

So what are you suggesting, If Obama doesn't get the nomination i should just not vote?

How democratic.

Never said that!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

All this situation has really proved, is that Hillary will use anything, true or not against an opponent.

If this is a sign of her leadership style. She will likely accomplish much of nothing as president.

So where does Obama stand on NAFTA? Do you think he should/would scrap it?

These are going to be important issues if he is to be the nominee and beat McCain, not what Clinton may/or may not have done. And he will be hammered by McCain if he does not clarify his views.

Shouldn't that be something that every curious voter should find out on their own? I'm not trying to be smug here, but obviously there's going to an enormous amount of misinformation and disinformation about each candidate and we owe it to ourselves to find out just where they stand on issues. Both Hillary and Obama have stated, several times, where they stand on NAFTA. What originally came into question was whether Hillary had changed her tune (which she has), and that's what lead to this smear tactic to discredit Obama's consistent stand against NAFTA as it is constructed.

And for what it's worth.... (from WaPo)

Both candidates are also guilty of glossing over the difficulties of renegotiating highly complex trade agreements. During last week's debate, both Clinton and Obama threatened to "opt out" of NAFTA unless the deal is renegotiated to U.S. satisfaction. There was no mention of the fact that Canada might like to renegotiate parts of the agreement that give the U.S. preferential access to Canadian oil, or that Mexico may have second thoughts about importing subsidized American grain.

In their quest for votes, both candidates have been guilty of twisting the facts on NAFTA and trade. Obama has been telling Ohio voters that "one million jobs" have been lost as a result of NAFTA, including "nearly 50,000 in Ohio." I examined this claim (originally made by John Edwards) in a previous post, and my fellow fact checkers at Factcheck.org debunked it again today.

For her part, Clinton has sought to give the impression that she has a magic formula for turning economically depressed areas around, when this is far from the case. Running for the Senate in 2000, she promised to bring 200,000 jobs to upstate New York. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there was a net loss of 26,500 more jobs in the region during Clinton's first six-year-term as senator. She now calls the promise "a little exuberant."

The Pinocchio Test

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can fairly be accused of "political positioning"--diplo-speak for "pandering"--on NAFTA and trade. Their positions on NAFTA are actually fairly similar, but they are seizing on anything negative to say about the other candidate as part of a no-holds-barred contest for votes. Two Pinocchios each.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checke...id=sec-politics