Obama "NAFTA not so bad after all"

[AAjax]

"The general campaign is on, independent voters are up for grabs, and Barack Obama is toning down his populist rhetoric - at least when it comes to free trade.

In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.

"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy."

Link to full story

Well, it seems that Mr.Change is coming out of the closet with this and FISA and showing his true corporate oriented colors. You cant blame him, Im sure he dosent even remember saying that it was a mistake. But Im sure that's what whoever he was pandering to for votes wanted to hear at the time. What a showman.

 

[NoStateofMind]

He's just another politician. Unfortunately some are blind and cannot see this.

 

[First]

Good. NAFTA is on the whole a net benefit to the United States, as is free trade generally.

 

[soccerballtux]

He said he's about change all along. Especially when it comes to changing his opinion on things.

 

[JJChicken]

Change we can believe in! Muahahahahahahahhaha

 

[nageov3t]

While campaigning in Ohio, Mr. Obama has harshly criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement, which many Ohioans blame for an exodus of jobs. He agreed last week at a debate with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton that the United States should consider leaving the pact if it could not be renegotiated.

On Monday, a memorandum surfaced, obtained by The Associated Press, showing that Austan D. Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago who is Mr. Obama?s senior economic policy adviser, met officials last month at the Canadian consulate in Chicago.

According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama?s protectionist stand on the trail was ?more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.?

Campaign officials said the memorandum inaccurately described Professor Goolsbee?s comments, as well as Mr. Obama?s position.

?At no point did anyone in our campaign convey to anyone that there had been any backing away from Obama?s position on Nafta,? a campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, said Monday...

In the debate in Cleveland, he agreed with Mrs. Clinton that he would leave Nafta unless it was renegotiated in terms more favorable to American workers...

?There was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about Nafta.?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03.../politics/04nafta.html

"The story's just not true."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/p...2008-03-03-nafta_n.htm

 

[Dari]

Did anyone here read the article or just the title? I believe he said he would do things unilterally if they did not renegotiate. In this article, it simple says that he will renegotiate NAFTA and that he won't do things unilaterally. Obama never said he would unilaterally reopen NAFTA as the article says. He (and Clinton) said they would unilaterally end NAFTA if Canada and Mexico did not agree to renegotiate portions of the pact that was unfavorable to Americans.

It's too early for this crap.

 

[bamacre]

More flexibility. Obama will be known as Rubber Man.

 

[RichardE]

At least his answer to his flip flop wasn't a mcsame "No, I never said that, you are mistaken". Rare to see a politician man up to a flip flop.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: RichardE
At least his answer to his flip flop wasn't a mcsame "No, I never said that, you are mistaken". Rare to see a politician man up to a flip flop.

I submit that it is questionable that pandering (in effect lying) to get what you want has anything with being a man. So sad that we cant seem to expect better, demand better.

:disgust: "But he's better than McCain" :disgust:

 

[yllus]

Canada won't mind if we reopened NAFTA. Suffice it to say if that happened, the U.S. might be paying a hell of a lot more for our oil in the future.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
He's just another politician. Unfortunately some are blind and cannot see this.

Prove it. Show me one person. The only people who are calling Obama the messiah are those who are against him. Maybe ya'll will get lucky and McCain will flip-flop on the Iraq war. Don't hold your breath though.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
He's just another politician. Unfortunately some are blind and cannot see this.

Prove it. Show me one person. The only people who are calling Obama the messiah are those who are against him. Maybe ya'll will get lucky and McCain will flip-flop on the Iraq war. Don't hold your breath though.

Prove he's just another politician? You are kidding right? You must be part of the blind I mentioned.

Lying to get votes is what a normal politician does, and in this case, what Obama does. I never mentioned him being the "messiah" but you did. Funny that you seem to add to every post I make

Regardless though, when/if he is referred to as the "messiah" its because you and countless others fallow him blindly even after he lies. IMO you guys are fallowing the pied piper and that doesn't end well.

1) Telecom immunities

Source

In October, 2007, Obama pledged that if the FISA bill contained an immunity provision for telecoms, he would not only oppose the bill, he would help block it through a filibuster. This week, he voted for the bill, telecom immunity provisions and all.

More

Even more

2) Campaign finance

Source

In November, 2007, Obama issued a written pledge to opt into the public campaign finance system for the general presidential election, if the Republican nominee also did so. John McCain immediately accepted the pledge, which acceptance Obama acknowledged in writing in November 2007. After he became the Republican nominee, McCain opted into the public finance system (as he pledged to do), but Obama broke his pledge and opted out.

More

Even more

3) Decriminalization of Marijuana

Source

While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

More

Even more

4) Gun Rights

Obama, disagreeing with the D.C. government and gun control advocates, declares that the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to individuals, not just the "well regulated militia" in the amendment. In the next breath, he asserts that this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local "common sense" restrictions on firearms. Does the draconian prohibition in Washington fit that description? My attempts to get an answer have proved unavailing. The front-running Democratic presidential candidate is doing the gun dance.

More

Like I said, he's a normal politician doing business as usual in Washington. You're blind and can't see it. Now run away with your tail between your legs and continue your willing ignorance.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: RichardE
At least his answer to his flip flop wasn't a mcsame "No, I never said that, you are mistaken". Rare to see a politician man up to a flip flop.

I submit that it is questionable that pandering (in effect lying) to get what you want has anything with being a man. So sad that we cant seem to expect better, demand better.

:disgust: "But he's better than McCain" :disgust:

Ah so he should have followed the typical politicians game of deny deny deny? Ah I got it, he was going to be wrong no matter what he did!


"I don't care what he does, Ima find wrong in it!" :disgust:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Good. NAFTA is on the whole a net benefit to the United States, as is free trade generally.

Yep.

Originally posted by: yllus
Canada won't mind if we reopened NAFTA. Suffice it to say if that happened, the U.S. might be paying a hell of a lot more for our oil in the future.

Yep. Western Canadians would be very happy to see NAFTA reopened, I am sure.

Originally posted by: Dari
Did anyone here read the article or just the title? I believe he said he would do things unilterally if they did not renegotiate. In this article, it simple says that he will renegotiate NAFTA and that he won't do things unilaterally. Obama never said he would unilaterally reopen NAFTA as the article says. He (and Clinton) said they would unilaterally end NAFTA if Canada and Mexico did not agree to renegotiate portions of the pact that was unfavorable to Americans.

It's too early for this crap.

The Pubs are playing an interesting strategy in the post-primary lull. They're trying to make the unwashed masses think as if Obama already is President, and that way dump off the economy and other incumbent mess on him and the Dems, instead of on them where it belongs. In the meantime, they're pushing McCain like a populist, an irony if ever there was one. Hillary better step in to clean up this mess she made.

 

[Vic]

PC Surgeon: what about all the Bush lovers that still believe the Republicans are the fiscally responsible small government party? What about their followers who continue to vote for them, election after election, despite their true big government and corrupt fiscally irresponsible ways?

Your messiah argument is either straw man, or you acting willfully ignorant of political reality. If ALL politicians are liars, then the best any voter can hope to do is go with the politician whose lies they like best. Or at the very least, the one whose lies appear less harmful.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Vic
PC Surgeon: what about all the Bush lovers that still believe the Republicans are the fiscally responsible small government party? What about their followers who continue to vote for them, election after election, despite their true big government and corrupt fiscally irresponsible ways?

Your messiah argument is either straw man, or you acting willfully ignorant of political reality. If ALL politicians are liars, then the best any voter can hope to do is go with the politician whose lies they like best. Or at the very least, the one whose lies appear less harmful.

Republicans are no better or worse than the Democrat side, they both are just as guilty of pandering/lying to get more "centrist" votes.

As I said before and I'll say again, I haven't as of yet called Obama a "messiah" or the like. But I do see where people get the idea because you guys are continuing to support Obama throughout his lies, changing the word 'lies' into "flexibility" in his defense. You guys ripped up Hillary for her "flexibility" but fail to see it in who you support. Not only are his supporters (followers?) blind, but even in the face of the facts you willingly turn away from it. That's why people use that term "messiah" and I'll be damned if it doesn't fit.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: RichardE
At least his answer to his flip flop wasn't a mcsame "No, I never said that, you are mistaken". Rare to see a politician man up to a flip flop.

I submit that it is questionable that pandering (in effect lying) to get what you want has anything with being a man. So sad that we cant seem to expect better, demand better.

:disgust: "But he's better than McCain" :disgust:

Ah so he should have followed the typical politicians game of deny deny deny? Ah I got it, he was going to be wrong no matter what he did!


"I don't care what he does, Ima find wrong in it!" :disgust:

Um, I go for option C, sticking to his stated campaign stance, having a backbone and living up to the expectations of the voters.

Very sad that you did not even think of that option. We have set our standards quite low indeed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Vic
PC Surgeon: what about all the Bush lovers that still believe the Republicans are the fiscally responsible small government party? What about their followers who continue to vote for them, election after election, despite their true big government and corrupt fiscally irresponsible ways?

Your messiah argument is either straw man, or you acting willfully ignorant of political reality. If ALL politicians are liars, then the best any voter can hope to do is go with the politician whose lies they like best. Or at the very least, the one whose lies appear less harmful.

Republicans are no better or worse than the Democrat side, they both are just as guilty of pandering/lying to get more "centrist" votes.

As I said before and I'll say again, I haven't as of yet called Obama a "messiah" or the like. But I do see where people get the idea because you guys are continuing to support Obama throughout his lies, changing the word 'lies' into "flexibility" in his defense. You guys ripped up Hillary for her "flexibility" but fail to see it in who you support. Not only are his supporters (followers?) blind, but even in the face of the facts you willingly turn away from it. That's why people use that term "messiah" and I'll be damned if it doesn't fit.

You're ignoring political reality.
Personally, I applaud this particular move by Obama, as a hardline stance against NAFTA (as Hillary promised) might have cost him my vote. The price of gas is already bad enough as it is.
Some other issues I'm less pleased about, but in every case his stance even after the alleged flip-flops has been more in line with my views than has his opponent.
For example, McCain is a strong proponent of FISA, a hardline drug warrior, and would scuttle the collective right in the 2nd amendment thus making the individual right weaker.
As far as the campaign finance issue goes, I applauded Obama for that, as I feel the public campaign finance system is a scam that strengthens the 2-party system and should be eliminated.

And BTW, why do the dittoheads still support Bush when he never even tried balance the budget or reduce the size of govt?

Your charges are unfounded. You're playing the typical right-wing "Do as I say, not as I do" game. These guys actually hailed Bush as Moses in the 2000 election.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: RichardE
At least his answer to his flip flop wasn't a mcsame "No, I never said that, you are mistaken". Rare to see a politician man up to a flip flop.

I submit that it is questionable that pandering (in effect lying) to get what you want has anything with being a man. So sad that we cant seem to expect better, demand better.

:disgust: "But he's better than McCain" :disgust:

Ah so he should have followed the typical politicians game of deny deny deny? Ah I got it, he was going to be wrong no matter what he did!


"I don't care what he does, Ima find wrong in it!" :disgust:

Um, I go for option C, sticking to his stated campaign stance, having a backbone and living up to the expectations of the voters.

Very sad that you did not even think of that option. We have set our standards quite low indeed.

Some people think that the reason they can't effect their desired change into government is because we no longer live in a democracy. Not so. The reality is that you're one lone voice in 300 million.
I expect my candidate to serve the will of the people, and not some ideological fantasy. You're demanding the opposite.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
You're ignoring political reality.

It's only a reality because we as a people allow it to be. If it were only sheep that will vote for McCain and Obama, I wish there were mirrors in the voting booths so you all can see your wool.

And I don't know why you bring up Bush and McCain, I don't think I've ever seen PC Surgeon support either one.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
I expect my candidate to serve the will of the people, and not some ideological fantasy. You're demanding the opposite.

And supporting immunity for the telcoms was serving the will of the people? Demonizing Iran is serving the will of the people? Keeping marijuana laws is serving the will of the people?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic
You're ignoring political reality.

It's only a reality because we as a people allow it to be. If it were only sheep that will vote for McCain and Obama, I wish there were mirrors in the voting booths so you all can see your wool.

We're all sheep. Everyone of us. There are IMO no human endeavors more cynical than politics and government. Well... maybe add religion to that list.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: RichardE
At least his answer to his flip flop wasn't a mcsame "No, I never said that, you are mistaken". Rare to see a politician man up to a flip flop.

I submit that it is questionable that pandering (in effect lying) to get what you want has anything with being a man. So sad that we cant seem to expect better, demand better.

:disgust: "But he's better than McCain" :disgust:

Ah so he should have followed the typical politicians game of deny deny deny? Ah I got it, he was going to be wrong no matter what he did!


"I don't care what he does, Ima find wrong in it!" :disgust:

Um, I go for option C, sticking to his stated campaign stance, having a backbone and living up to the expectations of the voters.

Very sad that you did not even think of that option. We have set our standards quite low indeed.

So your ideal candidate would be one that sticks to his goals and ideas no matter what, whether new information comes out or maybe he takes a different look on it? I imagine you fully support our current president than. The current problem we have with politics is people who make choices based on ideologies or sets of beliefs they think they should have because of there self described label. Instead of weighing the issue with constant updating information they instead ignore this information and follow there "gut instinct" which is usually the same as the playbook of there current ideologies.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic
I expect my candidate to serve the will of the people, and not some ideological fantasy. You're demanding the opposite.

And supporting immunity for the telcoms was serving the will of the people? Demonizing Iran is serving the will of the people? Keeping marijuana laws is serving the will of the people?

Apparently so. Just look at the platforms of the candidates. The only one taking heat on these issues is that one that is not absolutely firmly in favor of them.