Views expressed in guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media.
Visit the complete Guest Column archives.
Obama’s Canadian Kerfuffle
Guest Column | By Jonathan D. Strong | March 5, 2008
That an Illinois senator would come out so strongly against free trade with Canada is remarkable for its ignorance.
Barack Obama’s campaign seemed to be humming along. Mainstream media journalists were swooning over him like a pre-teen girl at a boy band concert. They even hailed him as “messianic” because of his uplifting speeches. However, this past week Obama seems to have made his first significant stumble caused by none other than America’s quiet and polite neighbor to the north. It’s rare for Canada to make the news in America, and when it does, it’s usually headline news in Canada.
Canadians are often peeved over America’s ambivalence towards its northerly friend. Like a little brother fawning for attention, Canadian politicians will often engage in mindless anti-Americanism for the sake of headlines and short term political advantage. Yet, this recent incident could be stunningly revealing of Obama’s character, and may be the best news for Hillary in weeks.
The kerfuffle began when Canada’s CTV News revealed that an Obama campaign aide had reassured Canadian diplomats in the Chicago consulate that his rhetoric over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was merely campaign speak, and should not be taken seriously. The Obama camp was quick to deny the story, but evidence has surfaced that indicates Obama’s team did exactly what CTV News originally reported.
CTV now reports:
The Canadian memo supports what CTV News reported exclusively last week: that Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee assured Canadian officials that the senator's tough talk on the North American Free Trade deal should not be taken seriously by the Harper government.
The memo states specifically that Goolsbee “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”.(Ibid)
That an Illinois senator would come out so strongly against free trade with Canada is remarkable for its ignorance. The San Fransisco Chronicle has labeled Obama’s and Hillary’s rhetoric against NAFTA as a “jihad” not “supported by the evidence”. The editorial board states further:
But is NAFTA solely to blame for every economic setback? No. And is repealing it, as both candidates came close to doing in a debate last week, the best remedy? No.
More relevant factors include the competition from China, other booming Asian economies, a revived European Union and India. Also, Detroit's auto industry which once ruled the upper Midwest is on the decline partly as a result of its own poor decisions.
The Canada-US Auto Pact was the precursor to NAFTA that began in 1965. The agreement increased trade between the two countries dramatically and has contributed to immense commercial and industrial activity between the two nations. Since NAFTA was signed in 1993, the economies of all three countries have increased by over 30% each, the U.S. economy growing the most by 38% between 1993 and 2003. (source)
Illinois alone enjoys over $28 billion in trade per year with Canada, of which almost $2 billion is agricultural products while motor vehicle parts and automobiles accounted for over $1 billion. (source) Canadians made 383,000 visits to Illinois spending $141 million in 2006. Between 2004 and 2005, trade between Illinois and Canada grew by 22%. (source) So why would Senator Obama want to put this vital relationship at risk?
The truth is, he doesn’t, which is why he arranged for Canadian officials to be reassured that his threats were merely campaign doublespeak. This is tremendously revealing about Obama’s character and tactics. For the junior senator from Illinois to be running on a platform of “hope” and “change”, the Canadian kerfuffle will appear as politics as usual to most Americans yearning for honesty and integrity in Washington D.C.
Obama should also keep in mind that NAFTA specifically covers trade in energy (i.e., oil). This is particularly important when considering that Canada exports 1.7 million barrels of oil per day to the U.S., and Mexico sends 1.2 million barrels per day. (source) Like it or not, Canada and Mexico may hold the trump cards when it comes to any “re-negotiation” of NAFTA.
The double-speak from Obama reveals that at best, he was pandering to voters in Ohio and at worst, he outright lied about his true position on trade. That’s not the kind of campaign most Americans, I suspect, are hoping for.
The original article can be found at http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Jonathan D. Strong blogs at http://strongconservative.blogspot.com
Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.
0 Comments | Post a Comment
