NAFTA-Gate Festers On

Painman

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
3,728
29
86
Globe and Mail Article

'NAFTAgate' began with remark from Harper's chief of staff
ALEXANDER PANETTA

The Canadian Press

March 5, 2008 at 8:53 PM EST

OTTAWA ? If the Prime Minister is seeking the first link in the chain of events that has rocked the U.S. presidential race, he need look no further than his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, The Canadian Press has learned.

A candid comment to journalists from CTV News by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's most senior political staffer during the hurly-burly of a budget lock-up provided the initial spark in what the American media are now calling NAFTAgate.

Mr. Harper announced Wednesday that he has asked an internal security team to begin finding the source of a document leak that he characterized as being "blatantly unfair" to Senator Barack Obama.

What is now a swirling Canada-U.S. controversy began on Feb. 26, when the usually circumspect Mr. Brodie was milling among droves of Canadian media on budget day in the stately old building that once housed Ottawa's train station.

Reporters were locked up there all day, examining the federal budget until they were allowed to leave once it was tabled in the House of Commons at 4 p.m.

Since the budget contained little in the way of headline-grabbing surprises, some were left with enough free time to gather around a large-screen TV to watch the latest hockey news on NHL trade deadline day.

Mr. Brodie wandered over to speak to Finance Department officials and chatted amiably with journalists ? who appreciated this rare moment of direct access to the top official in Mr. Harper's notoriously tight-lipped government.

The former university professor found himself in a room with CTV employees where he was quickly surrounded by a gaggle of reporters while other journalists were within earshot of other colleagues.

At the end of an extended conversation, Mr. Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada.

Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.

Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.

"Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room.

"He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.

They said that Mr. Brodie sought to allay concerns about the impact of Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's assertion that they would re-negotiate NAFTA if elected. But they did say that Mr. Brodie had no recollection of discussing any specific candidate ? either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama.

CTV News President Robert Hurst said he would not discuss his journalists' sources.

But others said the content of Mr. Brodie's remarks was passed on to CTV's Washington bureau and their White House correspondent set out the next day to pursue the story on Ms. Clinton's apparent hypocrisy on the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Although CTV correspondent Tom Clark mentioned Ms. Clinton in passing, the focus of his story was on assurances from the Obama camp.

He went to air on Feb. 27 with a report that the Democratic front-runner had given advance notice to Canadian diplomats that he was about to engage in some anti-NAFTA rhetoric, but not to take it too seriously.

The report wound up on YouTube and caused an uproar in the U.S. race ? influencing the final days of the critical Ohio primary, with every indication it will also play a role in the upcoming Pennsylvania vote.

Mr. Obama has been pilloried by his opponents and faced the most aggressive questioning of his heretofore smooth-sailing campaign.

Clinton used the story to cast him as a double-talking hypocrite ? winking and nudging at Canadians while making contrary promises to American voters.

Republican nominee John McCain ? who proudly dubs himself a straight-talker ? has also seized on the incident to paint the Democratic front-runner as anything but.

When Mr. Obama's campaign and the Canadian government denied the allegation, a leaked document was obtained by The Associated Press written by a Canadian diplomat. It chronicled a conversation between Obama economic adviser Austan Goulsbee and diplomats at Canada's Chicago consulate.

The Obama aide has challenged the wording of the memo and says it characterized the conversation unfairly. A government official said that memo was initially e-mailed to over 120 government employees.

Mr. Harper has rebuffed opposition requests to call in the RCMP and also investigate the source of the original tip that led to the CTV report that triggered the diplomatic tempest. But a team of internal security agents has begun an investigation that will see dozens of bureaucrats and political staff questioned about their knowledge of the leak.

"This kind of leaking of information is completely unacceptable. In fact, it may well be illegal," Mr. Harper told the House of Commons.

"It is not useful, it is not in the interests of the government of Canada ? and the way the leak was executed was blatantly unfair to Senator Obama and his campaign.

"Based on what (investigators) find, and based on legal advice, we will take any action that is necessary to get to the bottom of this matter."

NDP Leader Jack Layton is asking Mr. Harper to call on the Mounties to find out how the leaks occurred, and whether the Security of Information Act or any other privacy legislation was breached.

"There can be no doubt about it: the leak from within the Canadian government has had an impact now on the American elections," Mr. Layton said Wednesday.

"That is about the worst thing a country could do to another country ? to have an effect on their democratic process. . . If Mr. Harper isn't willing to call in the RCMP that confirms our suspicion that this was intentional."

Mr. Layton said Canadians would never accept Americans interfering in our elections, and we shouldn't tamper with theirs.

He said the incident is far more serious than another one last year in which the government called in the RCMP.

A temporary employee at Environment Canada was arrested in his office and marched out in handcuffs for allegedly leaking details of a government climate-change plan to the media.

Mr. Layton said that's small potatoes compared with inflicting political damage on one of the three contenders to lead the world's biggest superpower, and Canada's neighbour and largest trading partner.

"He's unwilling to treat it with the level of serious attention that he did when there was a junior bureaucrat at environment. . . He called in the RCMP on that one."

(Bolding is mine)

Olbermann covered this on his show last night - T00bage

:Q

:confused:

Well, if this is true, then the Clinton campaign just got hoisted upon its own petard, and the Senator from the Great State of New York gets to spend the rest of the primary campaign coated with shit.

Her recent string of lovefests with McCain, throwing a fellow Dem completely under the bus, isn't helping.

It should really come as no surprise why some Dems are proclaiming refusal to vote for this Liebermanesque, possibly even Rovian, figure.

I report, You decide. *shrugs*
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
The Clinton campaign has denied this. They have offered blanket immunity to any Canadian officials who could provide names of any initiators or recipients of such contacts.

link

Obama is the one going around denying his campaign ever met with Canadian officials about his posturing on NAFTA, only to be called out for either not knowing what his senior economic adviser was doing or misleading people about it.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,302
1
0
Until you have some proof that someone from the Clinton campaign said these things, you're just slinging the same kind of mud that was slung at Obama.

IMO, the Obama NAFTA story had little effect on the Ohio primary anyway. Obama supporters want to think that it did because they refuse to accept the fact that Ohioans just preferred Clinton.

Let's face it, both candidates were telling Ohio voters what they wanted to hear, and will most likely fail to live up to those promises after elected. That's politics. Get over it.
 

Painman

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
3,728
29
86
Like I said. I report, you decide. I'm not purporting the G&M article as true, just letting P&N know that it's out there, because it'll be in the news cycle from here on out.

As for the McCain vs. Obama qualification remarks, I'm gonna hold her feet to the fire on that one. You can criticize a fellow Dem on policy, but you never elevate a Republican above a fellow Dem in an intra-party debate. That's just heading off the reservation.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Looks like the Canadians are second-guessing their interference in the primaries with their backing of Clinton. Hopefully Obama continues a strained Canada-US relation. He should remember this well.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,806
6,362
126
Hehe, "blanket immunity". Too bad no such thing is required in the first place.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
This story was almost interesting the first time it was posted.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,999
308
126
Reconciling NAFTA imbalances is an issue that non-Latinoes aren't bent out of shape over. It is obvious the support whom she was aiming.
 

bl4ckfl4g

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2007
3,669
0
0
Yes he would have lost anyways

Ohio has a big number of racists. My kids live there and it is very apparent.

Also I saw the exit poll where 1 out of 5 (20%) Ohio voters said race was a large factor in who they voted for and of those, 80% voted for Hillary.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Another Clinton, another "Gate" scandal.

She's got more egg on her face than Bill got...well, you get the idea. :laugh:
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Yes he would have lost anyways

Ohio has a big number of racists. My kids live there and it is very apparent.

Also I saw the exit poll where 1 out of 5 (20%) Ohio voters said race was a large factor in who they voted for and of those, 80% voted for Hillary.

I used to live in a suburb of Cleveland. I dunno if the area has change in the past 25 years but when I lived there my experience backs up the statement in bold. There was literally 1 black student in my middle school.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Yes he would have lost anyways

Ohio has a big number of racists. My kids live there and it is very apparent.

Also I saw the exit poll where 1 out of 5 (20%) Ohio voters said race was a large factor in who they voted for and of those, 80% voted for Hillary.

Um, 80% of 20% of OHs who think race matters voted for Clinton. Meanwhile 90% of 100% of blacks voted for Obama. Careful throwing around the race card, it might boomerang.

Unless you are implying that whites voting for a white candidate because she's white is racist while blacks voting for the black candidate because he's black is not racist.
 

bl4ckfl4g

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2007
3,669
0
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Yes he would have lost anyways

Ohio has a big number of racists. My kids live there and it is very apparent.

Also I saw the exit poll where 1 out of 5 (20%) Ohio voters said race was a large factor in who they voted for and of those, 80% voted for Hillary.

Um, 80% of 20% of OHs who think race matters voted for Clinton. Meanwhile 90% of 100% of blacks voted for Obama. Careful throwing around the race card, it might boomerang.

Unless you are implying that whites voting for a white candidate because she's white is racist while blacks voting for the black candidate because he's black is not racist.

I assume that black voters were asked the same question in the election poll. I am just restating the results of the exit poll. 20% of the voters said they voted based on race. 80% of those 20% voted for Hillary. 20% is alot of people.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Yes he would have lost anyways

Ohio has a big number of racists. My kids live there and it is very apparent.

Also I saw the exit poll where 1 out of 5 (20%) Ohio voters said race was a large factor in who they voted for and of those, 80% voted for Hillary.

Um, 80% of 20% of OHs who think race matters voted for Clinton. Meanwhile 90% of 100% of blacks voted for Obama. Careful throwing around the race card, it might boomerang.

Unless you are implying that whites voting for a white candidate because she's white is racist while blacks voting for the black candidate because he's black is not racist.

I assume that black voters were asked the same question in the election poll. I am just restating the results of the exit poll. 20% of the voters said they voted based on race. 80% of those 20% voted for Hillary. 20% is alot of people.

No, that's not all you did. You flat out stated "Ohio has a big number of racists. Secondly, the poll indicated 60% of those who thought race mattered voted for Clinton, not 80%. I was relying on your numbers in my first post. So 40% of the "racists" voted for Obama. For the record, including race as one of many factors in your decision doesn't make one a racist. I understand perfectly well why blacks would vote for Obama in such overwhelming numbers and it doesn't make them racist, it makes them pragmatists. Here's the best chance that ever existed for a black president, and he just so happens to have mass appeal. Given the current field, I can't see how they'd want to support anyone else.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: senseamp
Yawn. Damage to Obama is done :)

You act as though you wouldn't care if you came to find out Hillary's camp made up the entire thing. Her total lack of integrity and honor doesnt faze you one bit, does it?!

bah...
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: senseamp
Yawn. Damage to Obama is done :)

You act as though you wouldn't care if you came to find out Hillary's camp made up the entire thing. Her total lack of integrity and honor doesnt faze you one bit, does it?!

bah...

yep, Senseamp has proven to be as bad as the GWB knob-slobbing trolls.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,806
6,362
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
NAFTA-Gate exposed as fraud.

This could spell big problems up here for the Minority Conservative government. Only recently they were Polling as clear front runners, which would likely trigger an election, but now this controversy(as well as some others) pops up and likely changes everything.