Empty Suit, Empty Rhetoric, Real Consequences.
March 3rd, 2008 at 06:56pm Leo Pusateri
When your quest to sound relevant and important leads to insulting our closest neighbor and ally, in my book, it’s cause for real concern.
Tom Bevan at Real Clear Politics reports:
It’s never good when a story that you’ve slapped down as false gets up and slaps you back - as the NAFTA story has just done to the Obama campaign. The AP reports of a memo surfacing that appears to support the original version of the story that an Obama advisor told Canadian government officials that Obama’s railing against NAFTA was more or less just campaign rhetoric.
The AP story goes on to say
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.
In the words of David Byrne, ‘this ain’t no party, this ain’t no disco, this ain’t no fooling around.’ Obama (as is the case with many liberals) needs to realize that, given his position as a potential Commander-In-Chief of the United States, his empty-headed, off-the-cuff rhetoric can carry real world consequences. Obama, like most liberals, has a nasty habit of thinking that he lives in a vacuum, and that his rhetoric is shielded from consequence by the mere presence of good intentions (remember his rhetorical foray into Pakistan?). Obama would do well to remember that unlike a high school debate class in which all rhetoric is forgotten at the end of the day, his words, at least until November 4th, will have real, possibly earth-shattering implications.
It is my hope that his future choice of rhetoric will reflect a more thorough understanding of its implications.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Corruption, Democrats, Foreign Affairs
26 Comments
1. Rich | March 3rd, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Say it aint so!!! You mean the Golden Boy was acting like a politician? I thought he was above politics like this? Any comments
from the resident libs on this?
2. Obama2008 | March 3rd, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Deleted - off topic.
3. congressive | March 3rd, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Deleted - off topic.
4. djp | March 3rd, 2008 at 7:21 pm
“remember his rhetorical foray into Pakistan?”
Yes. He is that if he had actionable intelligence into the location of Osama bin Laden he would act.
This is neither a controversial nor surprising opinion. what is surprising is that the right wing does not support it.
5. congressive | March 3rd, 2008 at 7:39 pm
On Friday, Republican John McCain said the desire by his Democratic presidential rivals to renegotiate the terms of NAFTA would jeopardize crucial military support from Canada.
Hey, the Canadians might pull their troops from Iraq… oh wait.
This one is such a weird debate to me. Obama wants to renegotiate NAFTA to benefit AMERICANS instead of the one-way gravy train out of the U.S. and the right wingers complain. Now a story leaks that he’s not going to gut the thing, just fine tune it, and the right winger complain because he’s not REALLY going to gut it.
Weird.
6. LosMechanista | March 3rd, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Deleted - off topic.
7. Rich | March 3rd, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Holy crap batman- Five troll posts in a row and not one on topic. I thought I was in the wrong thread and had to scroll back up. Nope sure enough, this thread was about the Golden Boy bashing NAFTA in public and privatley telling the Canadian’s he was just kidding. Obama’s camp claimed he never said that, now we have a memo showing a big old fat juicy lie. Oopsie. I wonder what else Obama is saying for you lib boners to swallow hook line and sinker while knowing full well he is just playing you for votes?
8. Michael | March 3rd, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Notice nothing from the libs about Obama’s duplicity on NAFTA. All they can do is change the subject.
9. dual_citzen | March 3rd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
“congressive” - just an FYI regarding your comment, ‘Hey, the Canadians might pull their troops from Iraq… oh wait.’.
If you didn’t know we’re (Canada) in southern Afghanistan right not with a substantial (in Canadian Military terms) commitment until 2011.
10. congressive | March 3rd, 2008 at 8:14 pm
dual, you see, there’s the problem. Afghanistan is not Iraq. Not even close. Not even a little. Not even a teeny tiny bit. This teeny tiny little mix up has caused the deaths of… oh, you get it.
Canada wisely stayed out of Viet Nam, and wisely stayed out of Iraq. Kudos to them for knowing the difference between bluster and lies, and true danger.
I think the “crucial military support” McCain speaks of is that Canada’s government doesn’t file war crimes charges against the U.S. government.
But in no way was my intent to denigrate the Canadians. They “get it.”
Back ON topic - this just in:
The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.
No story here. Move along, folks.
11. phil | March 3rd, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Leo,
Indeed Obama may do well to remember that his words have real implications. With respect to your blogging, we readers may do well to remember that when it comes to political opinion you, Leo, are a dope.
Best Regards,
Phil
12. Eric T | March 3rd, 2008 at 8:30 pm
If there was a real protectionist running, and had good plans to bring wages up. I’d be out there supporting him and encouraging everyone I could to vote for him. But since Obama is just B.S and leftist trickery. I’m not going to even think of taking a chance with it. Obama “Change” is clearly not the change the American workers are hoping for.
Wages really do need to come up, you gotta work 70 hrs a week to make what they made in 40 hrs years back. Meanwhile some pencil pusher that ain’t ever broke sweat with 9-5 hours is taken down 6 digit pay, telling you why you need to work for less.
We need to tie wages to inflation or something. Oil or bank interest goes up, wages go up.
13. Michael | March 3rd, 2008 at 8:39 pm
From Forbes:
The Canadians are saying the reported incident never happened.
14. Diana Powe | March 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Deleted - off topic.
15. Amanda | March 3rd, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Finally, something might stick to Obama, even though the Canadian Embassy in Chicago is now saying they didn’t mean to imply the Senator suggested that he was faking his angst towards NAFTA just for votes.
Americans would lose a lot by opening up NAFTA for renegotiation, more than any candidate, inlcuding Senator McCain and President Bush have talked about as of yet. Read my story:
http://blogs.ci-fi.net/ajdipaol/
As usual, Senator McCain is right to stick up for NAFTA and call for more trade agreements.
16. Michael | March 3rd, 2008 at 9:51 pm
I can see no reason that Canada would deny that the Obama camp said it was just rhetoric if they had. Most Canucks would be glad to hear that Obama wasn’t going to mess with NAFTA. So I think they Canadian Embassy is telling the truth. And if they are, I agree with you that Obama will likely abrogate the treaty completely causing great damage. But nobody has proved the rumored remarks that he really did mean what he said about NAFTA so I think he does. All the figures I’ve seen on the effects of NAFTA have been positive yet many workers blame it for their current conditions. I grew up in Michigan and I remember how strenuously the union members, many in my family, fought automation every step of the way. The car companies offered training to those who would be willing to learn how to operate the new machines but few took the opportunities. The rest had to retire (if they could) or got laid off. Guess what they blamed? Automation. The plants went to automation to improve productivity, thereby reducing the cost per unit which allowed them to stay competitive with other car companies and stay in business. I sense a lot of this is going on with NAFTA. Much of the industry is old and needs to be streamlined to compete. NAFTA provides the incentive.
17. Mortimer | March 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Wow, you mean Obama’s pathetic pandering over NAFTA is going to cause WW 3? Why not solar system or galaxy shattering? I’m sure right now Canada is dusting off those surplus B-29s they have mothballed in Yellow Knife for the surprise counterstrike if Obama is elected. You theo-neo-whatever the other blogs and AM bigmouths sayo-cons have a nasty habit of over dramatizing things a wee bit, or forgetting that you aren’t perfect.
18. Joe | March 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Leo (aka Hack): “Obama, like most liberals, has a nasty habit of thinking that he lives in a vacuum, and that his rhetoric is shielded from consequence by the mere presence of good intentions (remember his rhetorical foray into Pakistan?). ”
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSISL24645020080131?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
Damn! Those bastard liberals say the damnest things! Oops. Bush DID send a couple of missles into Pakistan.
19. LiberalMind | March 3rd, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Deleted - off topic.
20. NeoClown | March 4th, 2008 at 12:56 am
First Obama was caught in the Rezko real-estate deal which shows either criminal intent, or stupidity. Obama admitted that it was a bone-headed thing to do, but then he tells us all about his superior judgment skills and how he’ll handle that 3 am phone call.
Now we have Obama telling Ohio voters one thing about NAFTA, while making backroom deals with Canadian officials. This shows criminal intent, stupidity, and a nasty ability to sell out the American worker.
The only thing we know for sure about Obama, is that we don’t need, or want him in the White House.
21. LiberalMind | March 4th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Deleted - complains about comment policy.
22. LiberalMind | March 4th, 2008 at 3:05 am
“Deleted - off topic.”
Synonymous with “Too much facts…head will explode…..”
23. Rich | March 4th, 2008 at 3:48 am
Here is a timeline of events on the matter I lifted from Democratic website MYDD-
2/26/08 – CTV reported that a senior member of 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. [CTV, 2/27/08]
2/26/08 – “Late Wednesday, Obama campaign said the staff member’s warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made. ‘Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn’t intend to keep,’ the spokesperson said.” [CTV, 2/27/08]
2/27/08 – “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.” [CTV, 2/29/08]
2/27/08 – Goolsbee: Canada’s consul general in Chicago contacted him ‘at one point to say ‘hello’ because their office is around the corner.’ [ABC, 2/29/08]
2/27/08 – Goolsbee: “I am not confirming or denying any meetings with anyone,’ Goolsbee told ABC News, directing queries to Bill Burton, Obama’s campaign spokesperson.” [ABC News, 2/29/08]
2/27/08 – “ABC News spoke to Goolsbee, Thursday, and who denied calling the Canadian embassy in Washington, or calling Rioux, but would “neither confirm nor deny” whether he had spoke to Rioux about Obama’s NAFTA rhetoric.” [ABC News, 2/29/08]
2/27/08 – CTV: “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, 2/29/08]
2/27/08 – CTV: “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.” [CTV, 2/29/08]
2/28/08 – Burton: ‘The news reports on Obama’s position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama’s consistent position on trade. When Senator Obama says that he will forcefully act to make NAFTA a better deal for American workers, he means it. Both Canada and Mexico should know that, as president, Barack Obama will do what it takes to create and protect American jobs and strengthen the American economy — that includes amending NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards. We are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy.” [TPM, 2/28/08]
2/28/08 – Burton: “It’s telling that the Clinton campaign’s closing argument is based on a story run on a Canadian television station that’s already been debunked by the Canadian Embassy.” [ABC, 2/29/08]
2/28/08 – Burton: “Again, this story is not true. There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade. The only flip-flopping on NAFTA has come from Sen. Clinton, who talked about how good it was for America until she started running for President,” [ABC, 2/29/08]
2/28/08 – Sen. Obama: “The Canadian government put out a statement saying that this was just not true, so I don’t know who the sources were.” [CTV news, 2/29/08]
2/28/08 - Rice: “The Canadian ambassador issued a statement that was absolutely false. There had been no contact. There had been no discussions on NAFTA. So we take the Canadians at their word…period.” [MSNBC, 2/28/08]
2/29/08: Sen. Obama: “Our office has said the story is not true. It’s important for viewers to understand that it was not true.” Anchor: “So, completely inaccurate, did not happen, end of discussion.” Sen. Obama: “It did not happen.” [WKYC TV, 2/29/08]
2/29/08 - Goolsbee: “It is a totally inaccurate story…I did not call these people and I direct you to the press office.” [New York Observer, 2/29/08]
2/29/08 – Burton: ‘This story is not true. There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.’
24. Freedom1 | March 4th, 2008 at 5:54 am
Barack Hussein Obama is a liar.
25. dual_citzen | March 4th, 2008 at 7:52 am
“congressive” - ahhh….now I see where you’re coming from….thanks for clarifying…..I get it.
26. OhioOrrin | March 4th, 2008 at 8:04 am
4 NAFTA fallacies:
A) Free Trade/Globalization existed BEFORE NAFTA, as it would AFTER NAFTA. Since the US is the world’s largest consumer market (in $), global companies will always seek to export their goods/services to here regardless of NAFTA.
Also, no NAFTA does NOT equal no bilateral trade agreements which we had BEFORE NAFTA as we would after NAFTA.
B) Import tarriffs are one of the few CONSTITUTIONAL means for the Fed govt to raise revenue. The Constitution is NOT subordinate to the WTO.
C) Manufacturing profits roll over in the economy 4 + times while service sector profits just once. Therefore 4 times as many service sector jobs must be created to offset lost manufacturing jobs. And this doesn’t even count the lost benefits which, as we now know, many NAFTA jobs do not have.
Also, domestic manufacturing, even downsized, remains the largest employer of scientists & engineers both of which are critical occupational & educational needs nationally.
D) NAFTA remains a small piece of a much larger puzzle. The European Union (EU) has been completed and the same “free-traders” now seek the North American Union (NAU). This free-trade facade hides a much larger adgenda which BOTH PARTIES SUBSCRIBE TO.
Search - North American Union (NAU), Amerio, Tri-lateralists.
Educate yourself…because “they” won’t.