Barack Obama has now flipped (or is it flopped) on trade, telling Fortune magazine’s Nina Easton that NAFTA is not as bad a deal as he made it sound while campaigning in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania:
“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.
Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,” he answered.
At the HuffPo, David Sirota is not exempting Obama either, but still thinks he could be “solid on trade” — by which Sirota means protectionist. Could he be? Obama has been double-talking the issue for months, claiming that NAFTA was bad for the country, but saying that he would not try to repeal it. On the other hand, actions can speak louder than words — and Obama’s actions as a candidate have not been free trade:
He issued a statement supportive of the agreement with Peru, but skipped the vote. He told the Wisconsin Fair Trade Coalition that he opposes not only the South Korea trade agreement, but also the Colombia and Panama accords.
But the sudden return of Austan Goolsbee, Economic Adviser of Mystery, who had been demoted when word leaked that he was reassuring the Canadians that Obama was in fact just pandering to protectionist sentiment among the bitter, clingy voters, suggests re-opening NAFTA is not something on which Obama plans to spend any political capital.
Lefties like Sirota will have to accept that trade is among the increasing number of issues where Obama will be moving more toward the middle — or to a position so muddled that no one can discern what it is, thereby avoiding scrutiny. That is Change You Can Bet On.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
or to a position so muddled that no one can discern what it is, thereby avoiding scrutiny.
That’s it. That’s his deal.
He speaks about change and working together. Then he talks as if he supports both sides of an issue. Finally, he says things like “I’m not an idealogue so I’ll evaluate facts on the ground before I implement a plan.” His supporters assume he really believes in the side they themselves believe in, or that he’ll magically make a solution somewhere in the middle.
Taxes, Iraq, meeting with dictators, trade, education, Israel, healthcare. He is going to do something, by golly, and it is the very thing you like.
see, you guys are worried about nothing.
Sirota is a typical American light weight socialist. And his disappointment with Obama will grow even further.
I am telling you, BHO is pragmatic and will support anything what is beneficial to USA.
BTW that Austan guy seems to be a supporter of free trade too…
Of course Jesus-like features get a little blurred by perceived inconsistencies and political pandering, but who was thinking otherwise? Besides the few panic stricken GOPpers who invented that Obama supporters are the cultists… I make my choice for BHO consciously , realizing tha he has human shortfalls etc.and he is the one chance this year to beat neocons out of power…
No republican for me, this election, nope. I will wait until GOP will purge themselves of Bushtardism and neoconservatism to give them another chance with my ballot…
Last month I started saying whatever I needed to to gain power. Yup. Guess who’s in charge of ordering coffee when we run out now, bitches.
I am telling you, BHO is pragmatic and will support anything what is beneficial to USA
The thing is, Sashal, people have very different definitions of what is beneficial to the USA. People who are against NAFTA, against the WoT, for high taxes believe those things are beneficial to the country. Saying “I’ll do the beneficial thing” isn’t enough.
I am telling you, BHO is pragmatic and will support anything
what is beneficial to USAthat benefits his presidential aspirations.Whew! For a few months there I thought Obama was a real threat to our security and way of life. As it seems to be turning out, he associates with Rezko-sleaze-types abundantly, speaks hypocritically about just about everything, doublespeaks inconistently…in other words, he is simply more of the same old liberal Democrat shit, just as stinky, loose, and hard to clean up as any recent Democrat prez. I wonder if he cheats on his wife?
I also wonder if he will suggest lifting the ban on offshore drilling and ANWR, which I think will clinch this election for anyone with the balls to speak truth to green weenies?
true MayBee, and one concept of “beneficial” I already know, which will not change much with McCain
OK.
Seriously.
Just who the hell is this O! guy?
I don’t have a clue, and he seems intent on keeping it that way. I have never seen a more contradictory politician in my life.
So far, my overall impression is that O! is so full of crap, that I can smell it through my computer screen.
“lifting the ban on offshore drilling and ANWR, which I think will clinch this election for anyone with the balls to speak truth to green weenies?”
Add shale oil and nukes to that.
It used to be, especially in local politics, that the candidate went to each special interest or identity group and told them what they wanted to hear in order to get elected. Even if those things all contradictory they never got reported as such.
Bill Clinton took that national and was glib enough to pull it off with the help of the MSM.
Obama isn’t that glib in “off the cuff” remarks so he is trying this new approach, say everything flip and flop so much that everyone will find something they like. Will it work? Not for me, but who knows
I am telling you, BHO is pragmatic and will support anything
what is beneficial to USA that benefits his presidential aspirations.that helps buy fruit for his children.And Karl, he didn’t “flip” … this is simply more “change” you can believe in.
So he’s taken a wider stance?
And, sashal, just for you BOLSHEVIKS!!!
looks , like GG is unhappy too: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/19/obama/
sashal, the far lefties are absolutists. No deviation from teh Narrative™.
Roboc, tell me something I don’t know….
OT, but perhaps I’m not the only one who would find this amusing. I like to share:
Sorry, but I can’t stop myself:
CHANGE!!
OK, I’m done now:
HOPE!
O!
Who else are Greenwald or Sirota gonna vote for?
Heh. Now you know how WE feel, bitches!
From sashal’s Gleen link:
One wonders how the “true conservative” doesn’t consistently pass out from chronic hyperventilation.
Cabana boy! STAT!!
I think the “Change” Obama speaks about, is his propensity to “change” his mind.
If Clark gets SecState, will he try again to start a war with Russia?
Incidentally, I was originally tapped to work on the Denver Post’s blog with Sirota. Evidently they didn’t like it when I introduced myself at the initial meeting as “a stay at home dad” rather than rattle off my resume like Sirota did. Not enough gravitas.
Also, I mentioned that I’d like to bring Billy Jack into the mix. Guess making the move to new media is incremental with old media types like the Post, which is why they gave their readers boring socialist retreads like Sirota. Even ran a little story on his move to Colorado — with a pic of his wife and dog.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
That Sirota has a forum at all is a testament to the staying power of loudmouthed and longwinded mediocrity.
Sad to say it’s fora, since I saw him on C-span not less than a week ago and again on FNC a couple of days after that.
– I want you to all know, and I wants to be perfectly clear about this, because you know some people take the position that America has gone down some wrong paths on certain issues, and I don’t intend to make those same sorts of mistakes….I mean there are times when you have to do the less popular thing even if it doesn’t sit well with some because people need to know you’re going to look out for their interests, no matter where the chips fall, and I certainly intend to do that as well, but at the same time you have to give people hope, without real hope people just won’t believe in what you’re trying to accomplish…..So I need the support of the people, and I know that, because people want change, and you can’t give them real change without that key ingredient hope to go with it, they just won’t support what you want to do…..so the future for America I want to accomplish, the path I want to take us down is focused on the audacity of hope, like I wrote about in my book, and change, hope and change, but hope comes first so you’ll be hearing me talk a lot about the hope for the future and you’ll see my campaign has a plan, and that plan is to sit down and seriously think through every issue and come up with an approach to discuss ways to go to deal with all of those important issues, and when people see I have a plan to discuss an approach, then that will give them the hope they need to support me in the change I want to accomplish, and thats the key…. A plan to discuss an approach to change, and the hope people need to help me get it done. Thats what I’m saying. Bitches.
– Yo. You got anymore of those little waffles things?
Yeah, Sdferr. Well, that’s how careers are built.
But I’m content to suffer in obscurity, so long as I can make dick jokes.
And provoke the occasional platypus to wonder at its eggs, metaphorically spkng, of course.
– Obama seems to be building his career by starting at the top and working his way down, and he doesn’t even have dick jokes to fall back on.
Ah, the new politics is so changed.
[…] Election Season” Obambi has, once again, changed positions, this time on NAFTA. Turns out he is really for it, AFTER he was against it: “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,†he conceded, after I […]
Barack Obama trades his stance on NAFTA
It’s just a wide stance, and that toe-tapping is not a code to the protectionists.
[…] poor, poor man is discovering that in terms of issues and personnel, Obama is not nearly so full of Changeyness as the fringe Left had hoped after their […]
Besides the few panic stricken GOPpers who invented that Obama supporters are the cultists… I make my choice for BHO consciously , realizing tha he has human shortfalls etc.and he is the one chance this year to beat neocons out of power…
No republican for me, this election, nope. I will wait until GOP will purge themselves of Bushtardism
Bushtardism?
You know sasha, I always thought that you woke up every morning and had a piping hot cup of Bush-hate to keep you going. But now that you’re using scientific terms like Bushtardism, and after reading the rest of the comment, I realize that your positions are well thought out and based in fact and not emotion.
I truly believe that if every American thought like you, inside of 5 years we’d all be subsisting on our own boogers and urine.
Yeah, well it’s getting closer to election time, and if Obama gets the Presidency he’ll have to preform for his puppetmasters. So he better be retacting his words,before preformance time comes around. When asked about the CFR, Obama didn’t even know whether he was a member or not. Well he is and so is McCain. And both of them will push for NAFTA, the SPP,and the NAU. Just watch and see. Ron Paul, even though supposedly is no longer in the running, still gets my vote. He’s the only Candiate (besides Dennis Kucinich) that I think is honest and would actually work for the getter good of America and her people.
[…] is the new “overheated.” Posted by Karl @ 9:09 am | Trackback SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Yes, DC, there is a right to […]
[…] against sugar cane ethanol and the fact that Obama was conveniently absent from voting on the free-trade agreement with […]