Obama Denies Assuring Canada on NAFTA

The all-powerful, all-knowing Associated Press. Annoying, isn't it?

I don't know but this seems like a brand new version of "The Canuck Letter."

The substance of the allegation against the Obama campaign is either true or a dirty trick by the Clinton campaign.

But who's to say it is not a dirty trick by the McCain campaign?

Or a dirty trick by the Conservative Canadian Government.

====

According to Canadian news I just now watched, it's the Canadian Government Conservative Party acting like morons.

And they're so good at it too. Our comrades to the north had better get their heads screwed on straight again and vote those goddamn Tories the hell outta there...!

====

@greenpagan
If the opposition Liberals were not in complete disarray, these bumpkins would be out on their butts already I'm quite sure. Apparently they are waiting for their moment....

This is wholly unsubstantiated, and I encourage you to remember it. Just because a member of Obama's staff may or may not have made such a statement, doesn't make it accurate. It's quite possible that his economic adviser went out on a limb to convince the Canadians to support him, stating something that Obama would actually not agree to.

This is, in short, meaningless.

Why do you think they waited until the night before the election to release it?

Why do you think they waited until the night before the election to release it?

Then it must be a Clinton smear job!

Once again, I have to disagree, Eric. Obama is for the people, not the Corporations. If I'm proven wrong after he gets elected, you can taunt me and tell me "told ya so" all you want, but unless it is proven that he does not mean what he says, then I'm going to keep supporting him.

You and I agree on many issues, we disagree on who is willing and able to make the changes that need to be made.

You obviously have not been following this thread or the story.

Jesus Christ. Where the hell did you copy and paste that swill from? Are we supposed to believe that is more credible than the AP? Some anonymous poster? Eh? WTF?

Nice long post Eddie but CTV news seems to have jumped the gun and not checked their facts.
The Harper government has now admitted this is very much bogus according to cbc news - I would post a link but it is not on their website yet.

*with a compleat lack of irony, Spooky whittles his quill, carefully flattening the tip and then, with one deft flick of his wrist and pocket knife, splits the nib and dips the pen into the well. *

Dear Senator Obama, please do your best not to be seen with a plastic water bottle ever again. Do you not trust the folks around you to clean a glass well enough for you? Are you afraid of poisoning? Is it a germ thing? If it's a germ thing, I dig. I gotta germ thing myself but trust me on this one, wipe the glass out yourself and if you gotta, pour it yourself but the visual impact of your drinking from a plastic bottle will soon have the same impact of a president smoking a cigarette. So, how are Michelle and the girls? I hope this letter finds them well and I look forward to your holiday fruitcake as much as you look forward to mine.

Yours truly, Spooky

(Pst, there's a little ! button ...)

You! Back under your bridge!

Don't vote for a liar, vote for Hillary??? That makes no sense.

The more info that comes out about this, the further it gets debunked. Come on, don't buy into this political muck-raking. The fact is that every time they try to dig up dirt on this guy, he comes out clean.

He's just playing the dishonest, low populism of the Sonofamillworker for political gain in Ohio. IOW, pandering. Doesn't really matter what the Obama campaign told the Canadians or didn't tell them.

You're against him no matter what, Bill. You don't like where he stands on the issues. The fact is he wrote about NAFTA needing reform in his book, "The Audacity of Hope", so, he's actually not changing his position or pandering. Reforming NAFTA has always been a part of his platform.

Of course it doesn't matter to you what he said to the Canadians, you aren't going to vote for him either way. But for those of us who are planning to vote for him, it matters very much. If this story had turned out to have legs, it would have very much affected my view of him.

The fact is he wrote about NAFTA needing reform in his book, "The Audacity of Hope", so, he's actually not changing his position or pandering. Reforming NAFTA has always been a part of his platform.

Thank you for pointing that out. I have been wondering where the anti-NAFTA stuff had come from. Hadn't heard of it until the Ohio debate.

It's also listed in his issues on his website. Has been for quite some time.

Which "Issues" section is it under? I've looked as several and haven't bumped into it yet. Could you link to the "page" specifically?

It's under Economy

It says:

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.

It might be short and sweet, but it's been there the entire time.

Thanks. Short indeed! Know if he's upset with CAFTA too?

Has this been an issue pushed out there by Unions and stuff too? Or has there been some "groundswell" that's been building?

If you click to view the full plan on the economy page, you will find this in a .pdf:

Fight for Fair Trade: At 7 percent of Gross Domestic Product, our trade deficit has never been higher. Barack 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 (CAFTA) 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. Obama will fight for stronger protections for U.S. intellectual property, and – in the case of China in particular – an end to an artificially devalued currency that puts U.S. companies at a perpetual disadvantage.

Thank you. I probably wouldn't have found that, though a "CAFTA site:www.barackobama.com" google search seems to get it even in the PDF, now that I think of it.

Say one thing comes to mind. Would "stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies" also apply to our subsidies, such as corn and the like? I've forgotten precisely which crops are involved, but I think there are some foreign countries that we harm significantly by our subsidies (not to mention the impacts on our own markets).

Yeah, I'm not sure about the subsidies. That would be a question for Obama. I'd be interested in the answer as well.

Kevin, all of that about Obama wanting to renegotiate NAFTA to tighten up the environmental and labor practices standards is all well and good but that's not what he was pandering about in OH. That pander was aimed directly at appealing to voters whose jobs feel threatened by globalization and you're never, ever going to get around that without massive tariffs on foreign imports -- iow, protectionism. That's what the unions are all about and that's what Obama was appealing to in OH no matter the ultimate disingenuousness of that appeal.

I disagree. He has never said he is against globalization. I happen to be against it, and that's not one of the issues on which I agree with him. In fact, he has said that globalization is a reality, is inevitable, and is a good thing. Again, I disagree with him. I would love it if I heard him say that he would try to stop globalization, but he has not ... not that I've heard. If you've got a quote from him in which he condemns globalization, I'd be happy to see it, or hear it.

I'd highlight another thing that is somewhat under the radar (in debates and such at least). Part of the policy is to project our notions of civility upon other nations, in other words to help improve their labor and environmental policies.

He has mentioned that, and it's a fundamental aspect of these trade agreements. It addresses humanitarian concerns as well as economic concerns. Making sure the regulations are just as hard to comply with in Mexico/Canada would indeed "level the playing" field a bit! Of course, since the majority of Mexicans are already operating under our labor laws, it's a somewhat mute point ;) Just want to mention it because it gets clouded over by the protectionist and pandering aspects, and is worth contemplating as well. It's key as a reason for NAFTA/CAFTA support, disagreement, or detail of renegotiation for that matter.

My guess is that it's the main thing that would be "stiffened" in NAFTA adjustments, or made to appear so. It would be hard to "renegotiate" NAFTA into something that becomes "protectionist".

@sirmonkey
Just FYI, Canadian labour laws are if anything more 'humanitarian' than those of your country as to benefits and workplace safety, and wages are comparable.

Unfortunately the general effect of NAFTA has been to lower rather than raise standards when harmonizing (as they call it) our national standards. Canada's public health care is considered as a barrier to so-called fairness and has been under considerable threat ever since NAFTA, for example. Real fairness could just as easily mandate raising the standard for Mexican and American workers but it doesn't.

On the environment, the latest round of NAFTA has brought American and Canadian citizens higher allowable levels of pesticides in food crops in order to harmonize with Mexican standards. Mexico is forced to accept GMO corn they don't want as of January this year - it's hard to imagine they see that as improvement.

It doesn't have to be this way of course. Unfortunately, much of the negotiations are conducted by committees made up mainly of CEOs of multinational corporations and almost no input comes from elected representatives of any of our countries. I think the results speak for what's wrong with the process, if not the idea of NAFTA.

Part of the policy is to project our notions of civility upon other nations, in other words to help improve their labor and environmental policies.

Projecting US notions of civility on other nations does not necessarily constitute improvement.

Muchas gracias! Good insights. Didn't know any of that from the Canada point of view and I'm surprised that a trade agreement could subvert US environmental law.

Say, a friend's US employer chose to reincorporate in Canada for tax purposes. Does this make sense as far as you know? Is it true that businesses find tax cheaper and regulations easier when based in Canada (and retain only satellite presence elsewhere, such as the US)?

I was lumping NAFTA and CAFTA together, and it turns out that policy is more anti-CAFTA related as stated in Obama's info, though I know I've read/heard it elsewhere:

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 (CAFTA) that fail to live up to those important benchmarks.

Also, from some remarks he made showing view on SKaFTA, Mexican trucks, and unions:

We're not going to stop globalization in its tracks, but we shouldn't be standing idly by while American jobs are shipped overseas. It's time to put Main Street ahead of Wall Street when it comes to trade. The only trade agreements I believe in are ones that put workers first - because trade deals aren't good for the American people if they aren't good for working people. That's why I opposed CAFTA. That's why I oppose the South Korea Free Trade Agreement. That's why I voted to block Mexican trucks from entering this country. And that's why we need to amend NAFTA.

We're ready to take the offense for organized labor. It's time we had a President who didn't choke saying the word "union." We need to strengthen our unions by letting them do what they do best - organize our workers. If a majority of workers want a union, they should get a union. It's that simple. We need to stand up to the business lobby that's been getting their friends in Congress and in the White House to block card check. That's why I was one of the leaders fighting to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. That's why I'm fighting for it in the Senate. And that's why we'll make it the law of the land when I'm President.

Side joke: I can't help but picture Dan Akroid in the movie Tommy Boy wrapping up the statement... how does it go? "I make car parts for the American working man, because that's who I am, and that's who I care about." Dang I miss Chris Farley :( Anyway, he goes on to explain that "What the American working man doesn't know, is what makes him th American working man."

@sirmonkey

Say, a friend's US employer chose to reincorporate in Canada for tax purposes. Does this make sense as far as you know? Is it true that businesses find tax cheaper and regulations easier when based in Canada (and retain only satellite presence elsewhere, such as the US)?

According to our reich-wing government goodness no! Our corporate taxes are so high we can hardly drag a business into the country. /sarcasm

Honestly, I couldn't say what the advantage is - probably depends on what province and what industry. There are lots of incentives if your business is what they're looking for, which is probably the same for many places in the US and at this point nobody is likely being any too picky. I would expect most of our regulations are pretty similar - although some air pollution standards are tougher down there than here.

I do love "Tommy Boy" [ ♪ Fat guy in a little coat...... ♫♪ ]

And I love this too:

We're ready to take the offense for organized labor. It's time we had a President who didn't choke saying the word "union."

Actually most of what you quoted really speaks to me. Obama has a lot of fans up here :-)

[ Still catching breath from laughter... ]

Yeah, was software company not manufacturing. Think you're right, could have been province specific break or even export related, hard to tell. Maybe there's a town called "Canada" in India that I don't know about?

I'm not a supporter of his, just pulling up facts/statements where I can and sharing, but I'm happy to help. I'd be throwing in my criticisms on stuff if I knew much about this issue or had a strong opinion! I'm generally a free market kind of guy. Kevin found most of it for me/us above.

Turns out most of Tommy Boy was filmed in Canada, if I recall correctly from the bonus features! It wasn't Sandusky, Ohio or whereever. Outsourced an entire middle America town! Hmm.

[ Lookout for that Guarantee Fairy there in Canada. "Build model airplanes", says the fairy... next thing ya know the change is missing from your dresser and your daughter is knocked up! I've seen it a hundred times. ;) ]

Turns out most of Tommy Boy was filmed in Canada, if I recall correctly from the bonus features! It wasn't Sandusky, Ohio or whereever. Outsourced an entire middle America town! Hmm.

Oh yeah - all your comedy is outsourced to us now. ;-)

I did just put up a seed with some good background on NAFTA here: Parsing the Great Ohio NAFTA pander is you're in the mood.

CNN was reporting the Canadian memo that sounded fishy. They've since reported the corrections.

In this case, the neo-cons in Canada blowing smoke as per usual.

If I had to guess, it would be:

(Unemployment or Underemployment) + Globalization = Resentment

After all, it's easier to blame a law that empowers corporations to externalize their costs abroad than it is to challenge the highly successful (profit-wise) multinational business model itself.

What I don't understand is if some factory worker in Ohio wants to shut down the free market system in order to keep his job, why limit it to Canada and Mexico? Why not cut off all trade with, say, Illinois? Should Colorado enact tariffs to shrink its trade deficit with California? Or is this really not about jobs moving, but rather American nationalism?

Furthermore, most of the people complaining about free trade are working in industries that only exist because of free trade. They benefited, but now their willing to harm all the rest of us (by making us pay much hire prices for often lower quality products) by shutting down the system that gave them their jobs in the first place.

There is only a 5% unemployment rate in the US economy though, and it's been stable around that level for years and years. NAFTA went into effect 14 years ago.

There is only a 5% unemployment rate in the US economy though, and it's been stable around that level for years and years.

True, and NAFTA isn't a big issue for a lot of Americans. Note how late it came up in a meaningful way in the election process. But Ohio's worse off than the rest of the country, as of quite recently. Underemployment is a critical factor here, as well. A lot of lifetime union members are bitter about Ohio's weakening as a manufacturing stronghold.

Besides: let's not forget that Clinton used to be on the board for Wal-Mart, now the largest employer in Ohio. Surely Ohioans must have great affection for their once-boss-lady.

Viewed from the north of the border it appears the US does as it pleases regardless of trade deals (see today's Globe and Mail story: Lumber Limbo) so American opposition to NAFTA is a bit puzzling. I think that as Belarius said, anti-NAFTA or anti-free trade is largely anti-globalisation; perhaps as it relates to job losses it is also a bit more anti-Mexican?

In Canada, it treads on the (always sensitive) sovereignty nerve as it relates to loss of the ability of our government to legislate on our own behalf - for example generic drugs are less available than they once were because our patent laws are 'harmonized' to suit the US pharma lobby.

As of the last round of talks, standards for pesticides in produce are now 'harmonized' to allow higher levels as permitted in Mexico. Suddenly our supermarkets are flooded with hydroponic tomatoes .... from Mexico. Presumably full of chemicals AND transported here in eco-fiendly trucks.

Personally, I think these are issues with the globalisation ideology more than NAFTA itself however, the deal was spun as the answer to the "new global economy" and the North American rebuttal to the EU. A lot more people than Obama are rethinking that whole idea... just not the Canadian PM.

Personally, I think these are issues with the globalisation ideology more than NAFTA itself however, the deal was spun as the answer to the "new global economy" and the North American rebuttal to the EU.

Certainly, globalization has been a topic of overt political debate in Europe for some time now. While it's been an important issue in America for years, it has rarely been discussed as a general phenomenon: instead, we tend to focus on symptoms like outsourcing and intellectual property violations abroad. Sooner or later, Americans are going to have the face the fact that globalization isn't just a disparate list of political complaints. It's a broad phenomenon with worldwide consequences and is driven in no small part by America's consumption economy. It's not just "them" (corporations, politicians, etc.) but "us" (as consumers) as well.

I'm not setting this up as an anti-globalization rant - I'm just concerned that America isn't directly discussing this issue at all, at the political level. This is a conversation America needs to start having, instead of doing things like playing pin-the-tail-on-the-NAFTA.

I think I heard/read some decent stuff from Cato institute on it. Might be worth a shot if you're a classical liberal type.

In Canada, it treads on the (always sensitive) sovereignty nerve as it relates to loss of the ability of our government to legislate on our own behalf - for example generic drugs are less available than they once were because our patent laws are 'harmonized' to suit the US pharma lobby.

That is why it isn't actually free trade, and is a perfectly valid reason to be against NAFTA or the various WTO deals. They are not, however, the reasons most of the anti-NAFTA anti-WTO crowd have for their opposition.

@Belarius

I'm not setting this up as an anti-globalization rant - I'm just concerned that America isn't directly discussing this issue at all, at the political level. This is a conversation America needs to start having, instead of doing things like playing pin-the-tail-on-the-NAFTA.

Agreed - thinking back it seems to me that globalization / NAFTA / free trade were sold to the public as a revolutionary solution to all our problems. Unfettered markets were supposed to end world hunger, third-world poverty and national conflict - sort of like how Bill Gates talked about windows 95 back in the day. Ha ha.

Well, that's a lot to expect from an operating system or a trade deal. I think we need to stop expecting that a one-size-fits-all solution actually will fit all. Life is complicated - you don't get to have one idea, commit to that and stop thinking. Freer trade can be a good thing - to perpetuate my lame win95 analogy, there are some bugs with our current version and there are work-arounds. Anyway trade is just part of the economy; it turns out we still need government to do things. We need to have trading partners - Canada and the U.S always will have trade - but not necessarily be bound to over-restrictive, unfair agreements. I think that's all Obama is really addressing and that's nothing for anybody to get their knickers in a twist about. @Brian White

That is why it isn't actually free trade, and is a perfectly valid reason to be against NAFTA or the various WTO deals. They are not, however, the reasons most of the anti-NAFTA anti-WTO crowd have for their opposition.

The anti-trade voice tends to harp on a pretty strident nationalistic string - a predictable backlash, but unfortunate for making the rational case against these anti-democratic deals. We saw how the protesters against the last NAFTA summit were fitted for tin-foil hats in the media.

I'm not sure what 'actual' free trade would be or if such a thing is even possible in our non-Utopian world. To my mind protectionism isn't always a bad thing - that is likely where we socialists part company from you libertarians.

Hopefully the next version of NAFTA will be as good as Windows Vista ;)

Considering that Canada & Mexico (together) provide us the most oil, I would expect the US to keep whatever pressure on ya that we can for prices! So do we buy it from you at less than market prices?

Seeing all of our jobs going south to the US which has states that have a "right to work" law that allows them to work for peanuts.

I don't understand what you mean.