• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

NAFTA attacks...yikes

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have ratcheted up their attacks on NAFTA, but senior members of their campaign teams have told Canadian officials not to take the criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.


CTV.ca News Staff

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama participate in a debate at Cleveland State University in Cleveland on Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2008. (AP / Carolyn Kaster)

The Democratic rivals have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers' jobs.

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards."

Sources also told CTV News that the Clinton campaign made indirect contact with the Canadian government, trying to reassure Ottawa that Clinton supports NAFTA despite her remarks. However, on Wednesday night, a Clinton staffer denied that any such conversation had taken place.

During Tuesday's debate, she said that as president she would opt out of NAFTA "unless we renegotiate it."

Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Wednesday that the candidates' criticisms of NAFTA were misguided.

"(They) should recognize that NAFTA benefits the U.S. tremendously," he said. "Those who speak of it as helpful to (just the) Canadian or Mexican economies are missing the point."

Liberal MP and finance critic John McCallum told Canada AM that the U.S. pulling out of NAFTA "would be a disaster for Canada."

But he added, "I hope and I believe that it's politics, because they're in a high-stakes contest. I believe after this nominee is decided, this issue will go away."

John Fortier, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise institute, said that in an effort to gain votes in the anti-NAFTA state of Ohio, each candidate might find themselves "locked-in" to their pledge to renegotiate NAFTA.

"Last night, both candidates really locked themselves in to at least doing some serious renegotiation," Fortier told Canada AM. "But how serious they are and what the changes (will be) . . . that's another question.

"But I don't know how Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton can get out of last night's very clear pledge that they are going to use the opt-out (clause) as a threat to do some serious renegotiation."

Crucial primaries in Ohio and Texas are just one week away.

During Tuesday night's debate, each candidate was quite specific about using the six-month opt-out clause in NAFTA, to pressure Canada and Mexico into renegotiating the deal.

The March 4 primaries are seen as vital for each candidate, but particularly Clinton. It's expected that without a decisive win in both Texas and Ohio, she has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination.

Clinton once had a large lead in each state, but recent polls are showing the candidates as close to even, with Obama surging ahead.

Early polls show that there is a strong possibility of a Democrat in the White House in January 2009.

Obama, in particular, is surging in popularity throughout the U.S. and some polls give the Illinois senator an almost double-digit lead if he were to run head-to-head against the expected Republican candidate, John McCain.

With a report by CTV's Tom Clark in Washington
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
.........But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards."

I think the key factor is Labor and Environmental Standards. Canada's Standards are the equal of, if not superior, to those of the USA. The Mexican end of NAFTA, on the other hand, is in serious trouble.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
So they're saying one thing to Americans, but then telling the Canadians that they're just BSing? These are individuals worthy of your vote?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

Anyone who votes for this clown after a statement like this is seriously deficient. :shock: :roll:

Just goes to show that Dems are not interested in honesty or substance.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
So they're saying one thing to Americans, but then telling the Canadians that they're just BSing? These are individuals worthy of your vote?
Although I don't believe ANY politians are truly ever honest{Kevin Sorenson exempt} it bothered me this came to light.....what I'm wondering is this true or not?Theres so much backstabbing going on in your election...do you believe that an Obama aid leaked this :???: :???: If so why? What good would that Obama :???:
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
Sandhusker said:
So they're saying one thing to Americans, but then telling the Canadians that they're just BSing? These are individuals worthy of your vote?
Although I don't believe ANY politians are truly ever honest{Kevin Sorenson exempt} it bothered me this came to light.....what I'm wondering is this true or not?Theres so much backstabbing going on in your election...do you believe that an Obama aid leaked this :???: :???: If so why? What good would that Obama :???:

If you have 10,000 widgets, and 15,000 customers demanding your widgets, you're in the right spot. If you are in the opposite condition, you are hurting. Consumers have been on both ends many times. Manufacturers too.

At one point in U.S. history, there were only 13 colonies/states and a very small customer base. An inventor could only market a few different widgets each year. Inventors needed a bigger customer base and they certainly didn't need employees. Most everyone were farmers.

NAFTA is intended to expand marketing to larger customer bases which should help the consumers in the U.S. and manufacturing as well. The problem is right now it is flattening the blue collar work force with wage reductions.

It is not much different than Toyota building assembly plants here. Blue collar folks think this is great and those working in those assembly plants want more sales and more security. They could care less that research and development, CEO salaries, engineering and other high paid positions as well as manufacturing of parts occurs across the water, taking from the U.S. economy.

There is a whole bunch of piracy going on in China right now as well. Knock offs for products invented here. That hurts all the way around. It only makes the NAFTA situation worse. It hurts the innovaters and the work force here.

If Mexican standards were close or better than U.S. standards, NAFTA would be the best thing since sliced bread. Your Canadian standards and wages are more aligned with the U.S.'s. To me, that is the difference.

This whole ordeal has been experienced over and over again throughout U.S. history. Before immigration was blocked, foreigners were coming in by the boat loads and taking jobs here. Most notably in my mind were the Chinese who built the west to east railroads allowing the gold out of California to go to the greedy little grubbers back east. (did you ever notice that the "mid-west" is in the eastern side of the U.S. ?) :)
Then there was the industrial revolution and unionization and the blue collared workers all got salaries for all, no discrimination to foreigners etc. and everyone got high salaries.

So instead of importing the foreigners and sharing their meager earnings here in the U.S. economy (they have to have housing and food etc), industry is using their labor outside of the U.S. and their meager earnings stay outside as well. That is a negative to NAFTA.

Unless we are all on the same page with everything equal, things cannot be equal. We could go back to the same thing the original 13 colonies did and take in Mexico etc. That is not going to happen.

I don't see a solution and I don't see NAFTA achieving what it was intended to achieve.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mrs.Greg said:
Sandhusker said:
So they're saying one thing to Americans, but then telling the Canadians that they're just BSing? These are individuals worthy of your vote?
Although I don't believe ANY politians are truly ever honest{Kevin Sorenson exempt} it bothered me this came to light.....what I'm wondering is this true or not?Theres so much backstabbing going on in your election...do you believe that an Obama aid leaked this :???: :???: If so why? What good would that Obama :???:


Every two years the American politics industry fills the airwaves with the most virulent, scurrilous, wall-to-wall character assassination of nearly every political practitioner in the country - and then declares itself puzzled that America has lost trust in its politicians. ~Charles Krauthammer
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
Although I don't believe ANY politians are truly ever honest{Kevin Sorenson exempt}

We agree on something!

Well except the Sorenson part, I doubt he is honest either (I trust none of them), but being a conservative he might accidentally do something that is in the best interest of his Country!
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Mrs.Greg said:
Although I don't believe ANY politians are truly ever honest{Kevin Sorenson exempt}

We agree on something!

Well except the Sorenson part, I doubt he is honest either (I trust none of them), but being a conservative he might accidentally do something that is in the best interest of his Country!
:) To know Kevins a conservative I'm guessing you goggled him {cha ching Kola}What Kevins profile didn't tell you he belongs to the Baptist church in Killam and has probably never told a lie in his life....hes the most honest person I've ever met in my life,his wife is a nurse and a great co-worker of mine.He raises cattle on his farm not too far from our place....he truly is an honest polititian and one I'm proud to know. I have another good friend thats a politian here in Alta.....wouldn't put him in Kevins catagory.


So who do you think broke the above news? Do you think Obamas aid did this? If so,what good would it do his campagne??
 

Steve

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg
Do you think Obamas aid did this?

more then likely the Mexicans who know that they will not have Obama's full support of NAFTA to protect their trade policies leaked the information..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Just 16% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters believe the North American Free Trade Agreement—NAFTA—is good for America. Fifty-five percent (55%) say the trade agreement negotiated by the Clinton Administration is bad for the nation.

By a 53% to 14% margin, voters believe that Obama opposes NAFTA while there are mixed perceptions on where Clinton stands. Thirty-five percent (35%) believe she favors NAFTA, 31% believe she opposes it and 34% are not sure. This issue is critical in Ohio that has lost thousands of manufacturing jobs. Politically, these lower-income voters have generally been supportive of Clinton throughout the primary season.

Clinton still leads among voters who earn less than $60,000 a year. Obama leads among higher income voters.
 

Steve

Well-known member
OldTimer
voters believe that Obama opposes NAFTA


Then his stance is working.. if Obama's base doesn't like NAFTA,.. then like any liberal politician he needs to play to his base... and Obama is doing that..

but like any liberal politician.. Obama needs others to WIN.. so this leak works well for him.. it quiets his rich donaters.. and the Hispanics..

But what I would like to know is who is getting lied to...

If Obama is lying to the liberal base.. and is not going to fix NAFTA,.. then I think he is a scum.. but they will still worship him.. :roll:

If Obama is lying to the Mexicans... well they can back out of NAFTA as well ... oh well that won't help our world opinion.. Rolling Eyes but the fact is he is running for president of the USA,.. not Mexico,.. nor the world..

if Obama is lying to get money from wealthy liberal donors .. :lol: :lol: :lol: oh well again... they can just pretend it is a tax..

If Obama is lying to get the Hispanic vote.. I think they will feel they were lied to again by the Democratic liberals. (nothing new here)..

But no matter what some one is lying... my vote is with the politician... :lol: :roll: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think the last nationwide polls I saw- showed that the majority of the folks in the country (something like 55%)- both Repub and Dem- felt that NAFTA has been bad for the country and feel it should be repealed and/or renegotiated....
Also many in Mexico feel the same as the populace did not gain from it, as they were promised - just the rich elitist few that run that country....

And since NAFTA was never ratified as a treaty by 2/3 majority of the Senate (as required by the Constitution for treaty's)- it simply is a Presidential (Clinton) agreement that probably could be repealed by Executive Order of the President- or just a majority vote of Congress and the Presidents signature......
 

Steve

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
So...... do any of you Dems care that your candidates are lying for votes? Does it matter to you?

By their lack of a credible response it looks as if the liberal democrats don't care if their candidates are up to the same old political tricks and lies as long as they can speak well and offer a great message of hope and change.. :roll: :roll: :roll: :wink: :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Steve said:
Sandhusker said:
So...... do any of you Dems care that your candidates are lying for votes? Does it matter to you?

By their lack of a credible response it looks as if the liberal democrats don't care if their candidates are up to the same old political tricks and lies as long as they can speak well and offer a great message of hope and change.. :roll: :roll: :roll: :wink: :roll:

How do we know "Hope and Change" isn't a lie too? Maybe we are supposed to "hope" he "changes" and quits lying?
 
Top