Obama campaign mum on NAFTA contact with Canada

[AlonzoMourning23]

Despite repeated requests, Barack Obama's campaign is still neither verifying nor denying a CTV report that a senior member of the team made contact with the Canadian government -- via the Chicago consulate general -- regarding comments Obama made about NAFTA.

Allegations of double talk on the North American Free Trade Agreement from both the Obama and Clinton campaigns dominated the U.S. political landscape on Thursday.

On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama's campaign called the Canadian government 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.

During a candidates' debate Tuesday, both Democratic party leadership contenders -- Obama and Hillary Clinton -- suggested they would opt out of the North American Free Trade Agreement if core labour and environmental standards weren't renegotiated.

The CTV exclusive also reported that sources said the Clinton campaign has made indirect contact with the Canadian government, trying to reassure Ottawa of their support despite Clinton's words. The Clinton camp denied the claim. The story caught the attention of Republican front-runner John McCain on Thursday.

"I don't think it's appropriate to go to Ohio and tell people one thing while your aide is calling the Canadian ambassador and telling him something else," McCain said, referring to Obama. "I certainly don't think that's straight talk."

On Thursday, the Canadian embassy in Washington issued a complete denial.

"At no time has any member of a presidential campaign called the Canadian ambassador or any official at the embassy to discuss NAFTA," it said in a statement.

But on Wednesday, one of the primary sources of the story, a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy, gave CTV more details of the call. He even provided a timeline. He has since suggested it was perhaps a miscommunication.

The denial from the embassy was followed by a denial from Senator Obama.

"The Canadian government put out a statement saying that this was just not true, so I don't know who the sources were," said Obama.

Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government -- who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp -- have reconfirmed their position.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said in question period Thursday that Canada should take advantage of any openings to renegotiate NAFTA.

"Why won't the prime minister take the lead here, exercise some sovereignty and bring about some change here that would be good for workers?" he asked.

However, Harper had a warning to anyone contemplating renegotiation of the trade deal.

"If a future president actually did want to open up NAFTA, which I highly doubt, then Canada would obviously have some things we would want to discuss," Harper said.

But Harper also noted that assertions made in the heat of political campaigns should be taken with a grain of salt. During the federal election in 1993, former prime minister Jean Chretien threatened to back out of NAFTA's precursor -- the Free Trade Agreement, which was signed by the Tories in the 1980s.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080229?hub=Politics

[4Reaganomics]

If this was McCain snooping around, I feel it would be on the front of every paper.

After Rezko, Ayers, a church supportive of Farrakhan....nobody is surprised nor are they affected by this report.

He represent "change", whatever that is

[Drocket]

Despite repeated requests, Barack Obama's campaign is still neither verifying nor denying a CTV report that a senior member of the team made contact with the Canadian government -- via the Chicago consulate general -- regarding comments Obama made about NAFTA.

I'm trying to figure out this sentence. Obama's campaign DID deny the original report of meeting with Canadian officials, as did the Canadian officials he supposedly met with. If that's what this sentence is saying, then they're wrong/lying.

This seems to be a more complex accusation than that - that Obama's campaign isn't confirming or denying meeting with Canadian officials regarding the denial of the original non-existent meeting. In which case - what? I don't even really understand what they're trying to get at here, except that they're trying to make it sound bad for Obama.

Either way, I think enough time and ink has been wasted on this non-story...

[preservanation]

As far as Obama contacting Canadian officials, they both deny it.
Before they come up with some proof it is a non-story, agreed.

Ending NAFTA would be a disaster to the Canadian and Mexican economy.
Never happen.
Hillary and Obama have no idea what they are talking about.

[Drocket]

There's really no way NAFTA is going to be going anywhere, but I do think it's pretty realistic that some parts of it might be renegotiated, which is what both Clinton and Obama are talking about. I doubt that any renegotiation is going to have a meaningful impact on Canada, though - their environmental and living standards are as high or higher than ours already. Mexico, though, would need to make some 'upgrades'.

I think this would be a good thing, both for us and, eventually, for them.

[4Reaganomics]

I would appreciate it if you could tell me what you know about international trade. Do you favor protectionism? If so could you please tell me what type of change in NAFTA you would support, what evidence you have behind your theory, and which economists and trade models support your theory.

Thank you

[Drocket]

No, I don't favor protectionism. The primary changes I would support in NAFTA would be a required minimum wage and some basic environmental protection requirements. Nothing too major - to start with, not even anywhere up to the existing levels we have in the US (which I generally consider a bit low anyway.) As I said, Canada really wouldn't be affected by such requirements since they already have rather high standards in those areas. The primary effect would be on Mexico. Mexico really can't afford to pull out of NAFTA, so assuming the demands aren't TOO major, they'd more-or-less be forced to accept them.

The goal, ultimately, isn't so much to cut off our trade with Mexico so much as force an improvement Mexico's economic conditions, which would ultimately benefit both sides. For us, a livable minimum wage in Mexico means less incentive for companies to move there, as well as fewer illegal immigrants searching for a better life. For them, a required minimum wage means improved living conditions and a stronger economy. Companies that have already moved to Mexico aren't going to move back just because they have to pay their workers maybe $1/hour more than they do now, since it'll still be cheaper than the US, as well as they already have multi-million dollar investments in plants there. Then in a few years you bump that up a bit more, and a bit more, until finally the US and Mexico are on a roughly equal playing field.

I support similar requirements for trade with China, and frankly anywhere.

[cronic]

hmmm, what could we do?

Maybe punish instead of reward companies for taking their businesses out of the country, resulting in the crippling of our own people due to their job loss and more crappy cheap foreign products!

IMO
Ya.. that would be a good place to start

[bishop]

the democrats' campaigns have definitely taken a noticeably retarded turn lately... the only reason why all this he-said, she-said about nafta is going on is obviously because they're campaigning in ohio.. babble from the campaigns about this topic didn't happen to any comparable degree when they were campaigning here in the northeast.

clinton said she wouldn't get out of nafta in a debate, and only a fool would buy this "renegotiate" line.. and, obama is equally full of it when he says that he'll do the same on his campaign's website. so there you have it - they both promise to "renegotiate" nafta. neither would remove it, neither would alter the status quo. there is nothing to debate other than retarded gossip about he-said, she-said... these politicians sure know how to play their fools..

[gambit88]

I thought the ctv stories turned out to be false

[preservanation]

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (AP) - 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.The memo obtained by the AP was widely distributed within the Canadian government. It is more than 1,300 words and covers many topics that DeMora said were discussed in the Feb. 8 "introductory meeting" between himself, Goolsbee and the consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux.

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 said. "On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement." 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. Canada supports NAFTA and does not want to see it interrupted.

The Canadian memo said that when Rioux "asked whether we could expect to hear more of this as the elections progressed, Goolsbee thought not. In fact, he mentioned that going forward the Obama camp was going to be careful to send the appropriate message without coming off too protectionist.

"As Obama continues to court the economic populist vote, particularly in upcoming contests like Ohio, we are likely to see a continuation of some of the messaging that hasn't played in Canada's favour
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8V5OLP00&show_article=1

[4Reaganomics]

I hate politicians

Free trade economics is widely supported in Academia. It probably has the greatest consensus behind it out of all economic policy.

Every comprehensive study and model shows that the gains always outweigh the losses in free trade, yet politicians target the losers and bank on the rest of the country being blind to the harm protectionism causes

Thus, it gains them the losers votes and the rest of society is too stupid to care

It is a damn shame that society lets politicians get away with this