3 March 2008
Lying for Political Expediency?
Posted by Joy Bischoff under: Constitution in Peril; Presidential Election 2008; What's News .
There is something I have noticed time and again as I have studied politics through the years. Although the Republicans and Democrats have different positions on a number of issues, when it comes to the presidency, it doesn’t matter what party they are in. The Democrats were against NAFTA but Bill Clinton pushed it through. Those who are welcomed into the Establishment do their bidding no matter what party they are in. That is why it does not make a whole lot of difference which of the three candidates win. It will be the elite who win.
Although only 16% of Americans support NAFTA, all three candidates will support it and a big part of that support will be to make sure the border stays open, no matter what they say now.
Obama denies assuring Canada on NAFTA
SAN ANTONIO - Barack Obama said Monday that his campaign never gave Canada back-channel assurances that his harsh words about the North American Free Trade Agreement were for political show — despite the disclosure of a Canadian memo indicating otherwise.According to the memo obtained by The Associated Press, Obama’s senior economic adviser told Canadian officials in Chicago that the debate over free trade in the Democratic presidential primary campaign was “political positioning” and that Obama was not really protectionist.
The adviser, Austan Goolsbee, said his comments to those officials were misinterpreted by the author, Joseph DeMora, who works for the Canadian consulate in Chicago and attended the meeting…
Harper said he has watched the U.S. campaign closely and believes all leading candidates from both parties — Obama, McCain and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton — “would continue the strong friendship and partnership that Canada and the United States enjoys.”The original report by CTV in Canada suggested an Obama emissary had reached out to officials at the Canadian Embassy in Washington. Embassy officials artfully denied any such contact had been made with them.
As it turned out, the meeting took place in Chicago instead, with Canadian Consul General Georges Rioux and DeMora taking notes.
The memo says: “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.”It went on: “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.”…
NAFTA is widely opposed in economically depressed Ohio, which holds its presidential primary Tuesday and is a battleground between Obama and Clinton.Clinton said Monday that Obama’s campaign gave the Canadians “the old wink-wink.”
“I think that’s the kind of difference between talk and action that I’ve been talking about,” Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Ohio. “It raises questions about Senator Obama coming to Ohio and giving speeches against NAFTA.”
Goolsbee “was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy,” the memo’s introduction.
2 Comments so far...
Terrie Soberg Says:
3 March 2008 at 9:50 pm.
We know that we aren’t being told the truth when it comes to immigration, amnesty, protecting the borders, SPP, and NAFTA. Now, when Hillary is insinuating Obama is covering his position up…hmm.
Jesse Says:
4 March 2008 at 10:54 am.
I’ve been reading about this. Canada is trying to backpeddle because NAFTA is important to their government. Most of their people hate it but their government is invested in the North American Union. They prefer McCain because he is so solidly behind NAFTA but Obama says he wants to renegotiate the terms to make a better deal for US workers.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.