Obama + Canada + NAFTA = Rhetoric, Lies, & “Denies” March 2, 2008
Posted by canuckgal in Politics.Tags: CTV, goolsbee, NAFTA, obama, Politics, rhetoric, rioux
trackback
Updates:
1). From CTV: (video) Mike Duffy and Tom Clark LAUGH at Obama..
2). From the Globe & Mail – PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) Confirms that CLINTON campaign made NO contact with Canada about NAFTA; only Obama’s made contact.
Obama’s Rhetoric – When Will Enough Be Enough?
Let me get this straight.. Obama’s Chief Economic Adviser, Austin Goolsbee, advised Canadian officials “not to worry” about Obama’s talk about NAFTA, that it was “just campaign rhetoric”?His name was kept anonymous by CTV at first. Both the Canadian Embassy and the Obama Campaign were quick to issues denials. At this point, CTV provided the names of the officials on both sides.
That both of these officials – despite the fallout that has occurred from a mythical conversation, if you believe Obama – refuse to “confirm or deny” that the conversation took place as reported by CTV is bizarre, and reminds one of the image of an ostrich with its’ head buried in the sand.
Obama’s camp now sits silent, refusing to address the specific names and timeline that CTV can provide and support, trying to hide behind the Canadian Embassy Denial as opposed to going to the reported source(s) of the information, and in typical Obama fashion he is simply ignoring the fact that he has been caught lying.
Using rhetoric to further his chances is nothing new to any politician, it is just that Obama’s campaign seems to contain a lot of rhetoric backed by more rhetoric. Where’s the substance?
More on this story below:
CTV Wins The Match
From Jim Geraghty (NRO): “Obama Adviser Who Talked To Canada Named”
(in part, emphasis mine):
I realize Obama’s campaign can still claim that one of his advisers went rogue in contacting the Canadians about his NAFTA rhetoric, but to me, this is game, set and match to CTV.
On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Barack Obama’s campaign called the Canadian embassy within the last month saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn’t worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.
The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.
However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama’s senior economic adviser — Austan Goolsbee — and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.
Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.
If Goolsbee had not talked to officials in the consulate, it seems likely that his answer would have been, “No, I didn’t talk to them.”
(Retrieved 2008-03-01 fromhttp://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmViMjk1ZDQxNmM1ZDU5OTRmOTQ3MjMwODIyMjE5NTM=)
From ABC News:
ABC News spoke to Goolsbee, Thursday, and who denied calling the Canadian embassy in Washington, or calling Rioux, but wouldn’t confirm or deny whether he had spoke to Rioux about Obama’s NAFTA rhetoric. “It’s not correct that I contacted them,” Goolsbee told ABC News Thursday. “They contacted me at one point to say ‘hello’ because their office is around the corner but it is not correct that I contacted them at all,” he said.
The Obama campaign isn’t responding to requests for information about the reported conversation between Goolsbee and Rioux.
(Retrieved 2008-03-01 from: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4365922&page=1)
From American Thinker Blog: “Obama NAFTA Flap ready to Explode”, by Rick Moran
(in part, emphasis mine):
But Obama went a step further; according to Canadian TV he actually had one of his primary aides get in touch with the Canadian government and assure them that Obama was just demagoguing the issue and that he would not press for any major changes.
The Obama camp denied this story and called it a smear. Evidently CTV doesn’t like being referred to as a liar because they have released the information that the Obama camp couldn’t afford to have out there – the name of the Obama aide who spoke to the Canadian government:
The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.
However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama’s senior economic adviser — Austan Goolsbee — and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.
Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue.
On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.
CTV is also reporting that their high level source in the Canadian government is reconfirming the visit by the Obama staffer.
This idiotic gaffe could easily cost Obama Ohio. And the Clinton campaign has a ready made issue of honesty and integrity fall right into their lap.
(Retrieved 2008-03-01 from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/02/obama_nafta_flap_about_ready_t.html)
From American Thinker Blog: “The Danger of Obama’s Amateur Diplomacy”, by Thomas Lifson
(in part, emphasis mine)
…Under the terms of NAFTA, Canada is prohibited from cutting off oil exports to the US if there is a worldwide shortage or supply disruption unless supplies are also rationed to Canadian consumers by the same amount…
…After the Hillary/Obama debate, Canada’s trade minister pointed out that if NAFTA is re-opened, Canada might want to opt out of this clause, which would then leave Canada free to sell its oil to any other country for whatever price it could get…
…So the Obama campaign has been caught in a lie and is potentially opening a door for China (among others) to become involved in our most secure source for foreign oil, where the oil sands contain deposits equal to those of Saudi Arabia, while alienating our best friends in foreign countries.
…Do we really want to let this man into the Oval Office?
(Retrieved 2008-03-01 from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/02/the_danger_of_obamas_amateur_d.html)
From the Proverbial Horse’s Mouth – CTV:
From John Nichols: “Obama, NAFTA, and some ‘Straight Talk’”
(in part, emphasis mine):
After that report aired on Wednesday, an Obama campaign spokesperson claimed in an interview with CTV that “no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.”
The problem, of course, is that CTV has a very credible source — a a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy — who has provided the network with details of the call and a timeline.
Of course, the source is now being pressured to tell a different story by superiors. But few serious observers of the trade debate — with its history of back channel communications — doubts the scenario as it was first reported.
Attempts by CTV to get the Obama camp to respond to specific questions about the conversation and the timeline in question have so far proven unsuccessful. (Retrieved 2008-03-01 from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080301/cm_thenation/1293120)
Critical Thinking?
That anyone could continue to follow, support, and believe Obama after repeated proof of lies, denials, and rhetoric is only explainable by a lack of critical thinking skills. Or perhaps a vulnerability to the “cult-like” aura that is Obama’s campaign.
Obama comes off – once again – as a fool.. if he is so firm in his stance that “nothing was ever said”, then let him challenge CTV in Court, or better yet, debate with the reporters who broke the story. Their credibility is not on the line – Obama’s is.
Let me respond – in part – to some of the comments made about my writing (on another site) here:
http://casadelogo.typepad.com/factesque/2008/03/deciding-the-le.html
*****
From “Thomas Nephew”:
Comments
I guess I think two things about that story. No, three.
1) I agree with canuckgal that some kind of conversation happened. But I think this was Goolsbee talking informally with some Canadian schmuck who may have turned some remark like “not everything that’s said in a campaign will happen” into a “nudge nudge wink wink” comment. It was not Obama speaking about what he intends, it was Goolsbee gazing into his crystal ball for some reason. Obama shouldn’t have Goolsbee, and should consider firing him now, not for thinking his thoughts so much, but for arranging to think them out loud in front of some Canadian schmuck.
2) Cui bono? Who benefits from the leak? Specifically, did Canada benefit? It’s not clear how torpedoing a candidate who might well win the White House anyway is a good bet. I think this was some guy with his own agenda who embellished Goolsbee’s remarks and importance. It’s also not clear how Obama could have believed he would benefit from telling Goolsbee “go reassure mighty Canada that I’m just kidding”. I think this was Goolsbee’s Really Really Bad Idea.
3) I think even if you make NAFTA a higher-value issue than authorizing Iraq and/or future adventures, a vote for Obama might the strategic one. He’ll have something to prove on this issue, and I guess I don’t think he’s just been blowing smoke about it. I also think Goolsbee’s star just dimmed considerably, which seems good to me.
No, four:
Kidding. I think this was a case of extremely bad help, but of course I’m not sure. The meeting itself just doesn’t make sense from Obama’s own standpoint.
4) Mmmm…. Obama Kool-Aid sure tastes good!
Posted by: Thomas Nephew | March 02, 2008 at 01:37 AM
*****
What I have to say:
1).Georges Rioux – The CONSUL GENERAL FOR CANADA in Chicago is NOT a “schmuck”..
2). The point isn’t about who benefits from what, it is about the denial, and subsequent refusal to address the discrepancies/conflicting stories.
What Canada may or may not gain in the “the leak” is beside the point – someone is lying, and it clearly isn’t CTV.
The suggestion of gain comes off more than a little weak when you consider that the story was reported by a respected Canadian news service (we’re not talking tabloids here) who can support their facts, NOT – as you so quaintly write – by “some guy with his own agenda”.
Rioux is pulling a “Goolsbee” and neither confirming nor denying anything. For some “schmuck” with his own agenda, you’d think he’d be taking advantage of his 15 minutes if it was his agenda..
3). Emotion-based, subjective reasoning here (“I think” “I guess” “might” etc.). Doesn’t sound like you are actually convinced about what you believe. Those words indicate a lack of commitment to the statements you are making.
4). Critical Thinking skills are the point here, or lack thereof, in approaching Obama’s record thus far in his campaign – fact vs. fiction, logic vs. rhetoric, etc.
But on the point of the meeting not making sense from Obama’s standpoint..??
He threatens to back out of NAFTA to get votes in Ohio, Canada hears about this and calls him on it, and a meeting with the Canadian Consulate General for Canada – the Trade Commissioner, in fact – wouldn’t make sense from an Obama standpoint? Logical fallacy at it’s finest..
Whether or not Obama instructed Goolsbee to act or speak on his behalf or not is moot – as Obama’s Chief Economic Adviser, Goolsbee DOES speak for Obama whether Obama dictates it or not. Goolsbee represents Obama when he speaks to international partners, and Goolsbee is especially experienced in the field of economics. Goolsbee is more than qualified to know Obama’s standpoint – and to speak to it – on such critical issues as international trade.
The fact is that the Obama campaign flat-out denied (as has the Canadian Embassy) that a meeting took place. This was when CTV’s sources were anonymous. After releasing the names, and after their repeated refusals to confirm or deny, Obama has continued to refuse to clarify or address this discrepancy. This IS a problem. For Obama.
As a “leader”, now would be a good time for him to show that he has leadership abilities. It’s time for him to step up to the plate.
[...] The Obama advisor was named by CTV as Austin Goolsbee after Obama and his camp denied the report. canuckgal wastes no sympathy on them. Obama’s camp now sits silent, refusing to address the specific names and timeline that CTV can [...]
I would not be surprised if the have a recording of the conversation. Just waiting to use it during the Gerneral Election. Most Canadians are conservative and Republican
Candy, I don’t know where you get your information from, but to state that “most Canadians are conservative and Republican” is highly entertaining (and ignorant!).
Please do try to back it up with objectively verifiable facts.
Or – at the very least – define what you mean when you say “Conservative” and “Republican”. Both have different meanings in Canada, especially since WE DON’T HAVE a Republican party. There was one, once, based out of Quebec.. the “Parti Republicain”.. it existed between 1964 and 1971 and was never successful in any election. Not quite a majority of the population.
You are aware that same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005? Hardly what a majority “conservative” population would allow.
That is just for starters, but please, do educate me on what “most” of my countrymen (and women) believe. I enjoy laughing!
Honestly, I would regard Obama’ take on NAFTA as nothing but naivity. No country could be an island in anyting including trade. The most prosperous nation in the world made it through international trade. Obama’s lack of experience must have played a role, and I suspect he only made anti-NAFTA rhetoric to please the Ohio blue-collar workers. Most of his words would not hold water when he steps into the White House.
Mak,
(Please see my more current post on the subject: http://canuckgal.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/liar-liar-obama-goolsbee-cant-backpedal-fast-enough-to-escape-nafta-gate/)
The issue isn’t about the rhetoric as much as it is about the LYING.. the subsequent LACK of integrity makes the original assertion of Obama’s rhetoric by CTV much more credible – and plausible!
Obama and his campaign have displayed a lack of integrity from the start of this whole affair:
*At the first denial, Obama upheld his stance that the meeting didn’t happen, that NAFTA wasn’t discussed.
*The sources were then named.. and Obama remained silent, perpetuating his lie.. Goolsbee refused to “Confirm or deny”.. (the old “if we ignore it, maybe it will go away” approach)
*The memo surfaced.. and Obama explained that he lied based on the information he had at the time.. Goolsbee downplayed the importance of the Canadian officials and the meeting, agreeing with most of the memo save for the part that leaves Obama with egg on his face..
OKAY – NAIVETE? This has nothing to do with Obama’s lack of experience or innocence in diplomacy as it has to do with his integrity! But if anything highlights Obama’s amateurishness, this clearly demonstrates an ineptitude to rival George W.
When Obama denied and CTV then named sources, why would Obama NOT investigate the claims and the timeline in question? If he was certain of his position, he would have no reason not to question the source of the information, especially if it was – as he claims – a smear tactic.
ONLY after CTV named sources, ONLY after they provided a timeline of the meetings, and ONLY after a copy of the memo of the meeting surfaced does Obama COMMENT and ACKNOWLEDGE his initial denial.. NOT to apologize, but to “spin” and avoid and sidestep any accountability and responsibility FOR HIS INITIAL ERRONEOUS WORDS.
OBAMA OWES CTV (and Canada) an APOLOGY..
GOOLSBEE does as well..
This must beg the question for Americans – WHEN WILL OBAMA TELL THE TRUTH??
i am gonna show this to my friend, man