Hold me closer, NAFTA Dancer …
posted at 11:40 am on February 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
First Barack Obama promised that we would unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA to change trade across the Canadian and Mexican borders. Then Canadian broadcaster CTV reported that Obama aide Austan Goolsbee secretly assured Canada that Obama had engaged in populist rhetoric to exploit the “protectionist sentiment” in the Midwest. Obama at first said that Goolsbee had been “misquoted”, but then later acknowledged that he used “overheated rhetoric” on trade issues in order to drum up votes in the Rust Belt.
Where does Obama really stand, then? In the spot where he can laugh at the bitter, small-town clingers who bought his populist pap:
President Obama warned on Thursday against a “strong impulse” toward protectionism while the world suffers a global economic recession and said his election-year promise to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement on behalf of unions and environmentalists will have to wait.
Obama made the comments as he stood with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper during his first trip abroad as president. The two pledged cooperation on efforts to stimulate the economy, fight terrorism in Afghanistan and develop clean energy technology.
In a joint news conference, Obama said he wants to find a way to keep his campaign pledge to toughen labor and environmental standards — and told Harper so — but stressed that nothing should disrupt the free flow of trade between neighbors.
“Now is a time where we’ve got to be very careful about any signals of protectionism,” the president said. “Because, as the economy of the world contracts, I think there’s going to be a strong impulse on the part of constituencies in all countries to see if we — they can engage in beggar-thy-neighbor policies.”
Once again, this is an expiration date I can respect, but I’m hardly the target audience for Deadbeatonomics. The people who elected Obama did so while buying into his protectionist posing. NAFTA and CAFTA are two big shibboleths among this crowd, and they finally had someone in the White House that would make major changes and block globalization — or so they thought. It took Obama all of four weeks to abandon his pledge to the populist masses, without any serious pressure from our NAFTA partners, whose assessment of Obama was much more on target than that of these voters.
And Obama made Canada his first foreign visit, underscoring the importance of free trade with our North American partner. I’d call that a clear repudiation of his campaign rhetoric.
I’m actually encouraged by this move, not surprisingly. The last thing we need is another Smoot-Hawley move, and Obama’s warning about protectionism shows he understands that. He has already signaled that any “Buy American” Porkulus restrictions (which got greatly watered down) will get ignored in its implementation.
Of course, given the nature of Obama’s campaign promises, we’re more likely to like the expiration dates than Obama’s supporters. I wonder how many will be left after another month of reversals.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Ever seen a drunk driver on an interstate on icy roads?
That is this administration. From one position to the next – each day. No wonder the markets are in chaos.
lorien1973 on February 20, 2009 at 11:41 AM
And now for a month’s worth of media whorage, informing a breathless public that Ogabe has proven yet again to be an economic genius and visionary.
2010 elections? We’ll be lucky to make it that far; this fud has no idea what he is doing.
Bishop on February 20, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Yep. Just give us the rules and we can get back to business.
genso on February 20, 2009 at 11:45 AM
That’s an apt analogy. Well done.
kybowexar on February 20, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Da bama went to Canada first because he knows that America will be up in arms when he goes to Mexico with his stimulous package for them [ie. open borders/amnesty].
DannoJyd on February 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM
“These are my principles. If you don’t like them …. I have others.”
Techie on February 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Ed you missed the real story behind this Canadian trip.
According to CBS morning news (4 a.m.) the important part of this invasion of Canada by Barry was that he was received as a “rockstar”. CBS’s words, not mine. The NAFTA mumbo jumbo is only for little minds.
Limerick on February 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM
I think you are giving him too much credit. I predict action soon to start a trade war.
Vashta.Nerada on February 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Bread and Circus. The filthy liar will throw out something else to change the focus. In case you haven’t noticed, Obama is not a multi-tasker. His already corrupt administration only does one thing at a time, makes excuses, and moves on.
highhopes on February 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM
His supporters believe that any criticism of Obama is noise from a right-wing attack machine. The media has people believing that attacks against Republicans are signs of corruption whether those attacks are valid or not, but any criticism of a Democrat is just partisanship and dismissible with a wave of the hand.
JohnJ on February 20, 2009 at 11:50 AM
A bunch of fools, from the left to the right (Buchanonites who voted for him), thrown under the bus.
“One more win for Obama” statement by getalife in 3, 2, 1..,
The followers are blind, unthinking, with the attention span of gnats.
Entelechy on February 20, 2009 at 11:50 AM
For your title and caption – I salute you with my out-loud laughter!!!
Now I’ll try to actually read the post, which unfortunately will sober me up pretty quickly, I’m afraid . . .
kamasm on February 20, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Uncertainty is the biggest problem for the market.
the_nile on February 20, 2009 at 11:50 AM
yup, always cast dispersion at the opposition when in fact you are the one challenged by that which you spew.
Case in point: Obama’s criticism of McCain’s decision to suspend the campaign and go to DC to work on the Poulson Panic bill. Obama railed at how McCain would have to do more than one thing at a time and that there is no reason why he can’t keep campaigning.
what a joke of a student body president we have
gatorboy on February 20, 2009 at 11:51 AM
…but all he has to do is keep the media in his crotch and the fools fooled.
Entelechy on February 20, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Uh, Can-a-duh
Christien on February 20, 2009 at 11:52 AM
“W” made a lot of mistakes. Although he was a social conservative, it would be difficult to see any light between him and the biggest spending liberal Democrat, but he is a good and decent man, who spoke his truth, from his heart. I’ll take him any day, over the liar that now sits in the Oval Office.
Star20 on February 20, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Any word whether he stabbed Sarah Palin (and the American economy) in the back re: Natural Gas Pipeline? Apparently, there is a competing project to bring NatGas from Northern Canada down to the “lower 48.” I wouldn’t doubt for one second that Obama would side with the Canadiens and sell out Alaska/America.
BPD on February 20, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Oh, and he also encountered one big protest sign that said: “Please STOP cigarette smuggling from the U.S. to Canada.”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/obama-the-ex-sm.html
Maybe there is a teeny tiny bit of hope left
gatorboy on February 20, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Can’t trust a liar. Political expediency will trump any rules you think exist. Try basing a coherent business model on that. Everything he says and every action he takes reinforces a business enviorment of anxiety and apprehension.
a capella on February 20, 2009 at 11:57 AM
U.S. trade policy reminds me of a joke I heard about a hotel that had to charge $40 a room to make a profit but they were only charging $35 dollars. The manager said it was OK he would just make it up on volume. We don’t engage in free trade now, instead we advocate for the competition.
Some people may want protectionism, but most of us just want the government to start playing to win with our trade partners. Lets rework our tax system into a value added tax system that the WTO would have no grounds to resist. Lower our tax on business, but eliminate the loopholes that are legion, if you can afford the lawyers and accountants to take advantage of them. Once we get our financial house in order we can start to pressure the nations that peg their currency to ours to maintain cheap imports. Those steps are in no way anti-free trade, but they will make us much more competative.
DFCtomm on February 20, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Yes,Hopey was in my country,Canada!
Gack,Hurl,and Spew!
I’m thrilled,NOT!!!!!!!!!!
And, I’m sure the liberals in Canada had a collective
mesmerizing kumbya orgasim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
canopfor on February 20, 2009 at 11:57 AM
The only expiration date I’m interested in is the one on Obama’s term of office.
IrishEi on February 20, 2009 at 11:58 AM
A better question is how many are left standing at this point?
Ferris on February 20, 2009 at 11:58 AM
I had my weekly plasma donation yesterday and, as I was laying there being siphoned, a couple of the nurses were getting jumpy because the CBC wasn’t using closed captioning for the presser and they wanted to know what HE was saying. I was content to merely roll my eyes and go back to reading Tony Blankley’s piece from the other day.
You wouldn’t believe how many people were excited that they were in the same country as Obama!!! *gag*
landshark on February 20, 2009 at 12:02 PM
I agree with you. I feel fondly toward Bush even now because he did what he thought was right, and usually had the guts to carry through even though facing heavy opposition. I didn’t agree with some of his policies though, and his stubborn streak, that I admire, would send my blood pressure thought the roof.
DFCtomm on February 20, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Mr. Ed.
I am not.
Obama can not be trusted.
Everything he does, everything he says, everyone with whom he is associated, all of his surrogates, his posse, his cult followers should raise your level of suspicion.
Giving him ‘the benefit of doubt’ (doubting your own judgment) is a mistake.
You know who this guys is, you know what he will do, trust your instincts.
Skandia Recluse on February 20, 2009 at 12:03 PM
I think you are giving him too much credit. I predict action soon to start a trade war.
Vashta.Nerada on February 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Your instincts are correct. During the campaign, Obama spoke out of both sides of his mouth. No one really knew what he actually believed, unless your were like some of the obsessive ones who actually read about him and watched the videos from his past of things he did and how he voted.
It is becoming more and more apparent that Obama isn’t just “screwing up” but his decisions are calculated. Remember, he is a student of Saul Alinski and others.
It’s hard to just say ‘I didn’t vote for him, he’s all yours, now watch the biggest mistake you’ve ever made in your life.’ The policies this man is enacting in this country will change it for years to come. The 2010 election could make a difference, but it won’t be enough. We all know that once a ‘program’ is made law, it is almost impossible to get rid of.
Pray, donate to the GOP and volunteer.
jcheney on February 20, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Sri Lanka closes its International Airport due to air raid. The hits just keep coming for our clueless leader.
genso on February 20, 2009 at 12:07 PM
While I am surrounded by liberals at my office and in my personal life who are coming to this realization (Obama essentially lied to them), it doesn’t fix the fact he’s in office. Or, as pointed out above, even if it’s a subject conservatives would agree on, it still means he’s a liar.
LastRick on February 20, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Hard to draw a bead on a zig-zagging target. I believe that every human being has a well of credibility from which they can draw. How long before his well is completely dry? Or…will the MSM refill it with their tears?
SKYFOX on February 20, 2009 at 12:13 PM
The Canadians can have him, after all he’s probably just as much a Canadian citizen as he is an American citizen.
johnsteele on February 20, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Another illustration of that saying, “I know he’s lying because his lips are moving”?
BuckeyeSam on February 20, 2009 at 12:16 PM
When you add up all the things Obama has said over time on almost any issue, like “yes, we have to change that first thing” and “no, it’s not practical to change that right now,” throw ‘em all in an Obamaspeak to English translation computer…you get…”present.”
RBMN on February 20, 2009 at 12:18 PM
The Canadians can have him,
johnsteele on Feb 20,2009 at 12:14PM.
johnsteele:Umm,NO!
We have enough Liberal(your choice of dispairaging word)as
it is!
canopfor on February 20, 2009 at 12:18 PM
When it comes to Obama’s ability to imulate Bill Clinton’s rhetorical BS, he’s earned his pay grade. Clinton was a master at saying just what his audience needed to hear in one state or country, and a totally “preach” the opposite in another. I’m sure there’s an “ism” here somewhere?
Rovin on February 20, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Why?
He’s either lying now or he was lying before. Which do you prefer?
lorien1973 on February 20, 2009 at 12:21 PM
“preach” = “preached”
Rovin on February 20, 2009 at 12:22 PM
FIFY
MarkTheGreat on February 20, 2009 at 12:23 PM
MexiAmreriCanada!
Johan Klaus on February 20, 2009 at 12:23 PM
“It’s good to be here in Iowa, uh, Ottawa!”
~Uhbamuh
Christien on February 20, 2009 at 12:24 PM
So beggar-thy-neighbor policies will only be implemented within the United States.
Or is it “bugger-thy-neighbor”?
topdog on February 20, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Hey Ed,
If you can use the “Tiny Dancer” moniker for this post, when Obama goes over seas, can we use “Madman Across the Water” for that post?????
Rovin on February 20, 2009 at 12:26 PM
That Newsweek mag caption should have read “we’re all screwed now!”
larvcom on February 20, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Does anyone actually know how many days he’s actually been at the White House? Seems to me he touring like a gypsy and livin’ like a rock star. WHO THE HECK IS MINDING THE STORE?
Oh nevermind, Grandma Nancy and Grandpa Harry,
ChicagoBlues on February 20, 2009 at 12:33 PM
LMAO, I’d prefer CRAZY TRAIN
ChicagoBlues on February 20, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Thank goodness for “V Chip”. I teach my youngsters not to lie – and as soon as I see The Messiah on TV with his lips flapping, I hit “edit” so that my daughter can’t hear. I still remember Mrs. Messiah cracking, “This is the first time I’ve been proud of my country.” Well we’ve come a long way – now moms like me won’t let their kids listen to this country’s president.
Cinday Blackburn on February 20, 2009 at 12:42 PM
“I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he’d bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”
Hillary Clinton
jcheney on February 20, 2009 at 12:42 PM
He has a re-election campaign to run!
Johan Klaus on February 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM
If you watch obama closely, he stutters when he is lying, just watch him and what he says and that will tell you a bunch. He also must have flunked his public speaking course, you never say ah or um in a speach.
workingforpigs on February 20, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Did anyone else see the sign the canadian was holding up that said “After God, It’s Obama” on the news? There is a little bit of buzz about it, but its mostly on left-wing websites, where they use it to point out how much more warmly The One was accepted compared to Bush.
What happened to the trinity? I wish I knew the two-part equivalent of the word trinity so I could make a cool pun but I don’t know if there is one and if there is I have never heard of it.
Joe Caps on February 20, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Those now enamored with HopenChange are losing their drunken highs and after inflation, stagflation and PC socialization not to mention staggering debt and taxes, their hangover and the subsequent flaking off could start to look like the sheets of glass and metal coming off the World Trade Center as the Obama ivory tower comes crashing down in a heap of who knows what.
I wonder what the Presidents approval rating looks like now minus the left bias?
Speakup on February 20, 2009 at 12:56 PM
The stupidity of many of my fellow Canadians is astounding. They treat Obama like some kind of messiah while ignoring his two-faced lies. They fall for “hope and change” without any regard for what his nafta flip flop policies could do to the already struggling economy.
Back in the campaign when it was discovered that he was indeed talking out of both sides of his mouth a billboard went up on the main highway just north of me “Canadains love Obama – why do you want to hurt him Mr Harper?” How moronic…like it was our Prime Minister that was lying and trying to dodge it.
Paradox Drive on February 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM
There should be no rules. The free market is self regulating when left alone
Libertarian Joseph on February 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Great…then just tell us that.
genso on February 20, 2009 at 12:58 PM
I am lol. but the government just wants control. Does not matter if the free market can do everything better. That’s why you’re seeing talk of natonalizing the banks and oil. Power.
Libertarian Joseph on February 20, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Um, i pulled the lever for Obama fully expecting almost all of his current stance reversals. I pulled it knowing the populist crap was wrong and understanding only a true radical would stick with it. You assume too much about who voted for Obama. We are not all die hard liberal trade protectionist democrats. I just couldn’t pull the lever for McCain after he went and picked princess owes back taxes I MEANNNN Holy of Holies, She who is most high, Sarah Palin, peace be upon her.
ernesto on February 20, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Alot of protectionists voted for Ron Paul thinking he was a protectionist because RP kept talking down to NAFTA and a bunch of other pseudo-”free trade agreements” but what RP really wanted was simply no government intervention in international trade. So kinda like free trade with everyone. That’s a good policy.
Libertarian Joseph on February 20, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Smart money will always bet on the EXACT opposite of whatever comes out of obama’s mouth.
Yes, all those internet rumors are being proven correct. Sucks don’t it?
jukin on February 20, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Bank of America down 25% today to $2.92
Citi down 29% today to $1.79
Obama admin. silent. Geithner???
JiangxiDad on February 20, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Gold at $1000/0z.
JiangxiDad on February 20, 2009 at 1:16 PM
You know some of these banks will survive, so I’m thinking of picking five that look like they will make it, with government help, and buy $1000 dollars worth of stock each. If I lose it will be $5000 which is a bad, but not terrible, but if just two or three come thought and in a few years fight their way back to $20 a share it be a nice profit.
DFCtomm on February 20, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Gold & Silver are awesome.
Libertarian Joseph on February 20, 2009 at 1:24 PM
IMHO, if I was going to invest in financials, I’d prob. look for those NOT receiving gov’t help. But my stock picks aren’t doing well these days(other than precious metals) so don’t listen to me.
JiangxiDad on February 20, 2009 at 1:26 PM
DJIA is ripping through support right now…. the 7000-7500 support goes back over a decade…. a substantial break of this support could be technically catastrophic… the next level of price support appears to be 3000.
BPD on February 20, 2009 at 1:29 PM
By that the Caliphate will have imposed a 120% capital gains tax. Plus, Dhimmis/infidels won’t have access to the stock markets….gambling and all that….
BobMbx on February 20, 2009 at 1:40 PM
At the moment not many people’s picks are so you have a lot of company… I just keep thinking in 20 years it will go up so now is a good time to get in and dollar cost average. Of course being told my job just got eliminated will make putting into the retirement account a bit dicier.
Bunsin on February 20, 2009 at 1:45 PM
On second thought, maybe you’re right. But it’s not an “investment,” it’s a bet, like on a race, but where there are only two horses.
If you buy C here at 1.80 or so, I’d guess that the odds of wipe-out are better than 50%. But I could be wrong. Even at 50/50, it’s a better bet than Lotto or a game, and even blackjack.
As long as you look at it as entertainment (i.e. gambling), maybe it’s fun. Hmmm.
JiangxiDad on February 20, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Ever hear of Lithium? Worldwide supply is limited in total quantity, it is not renewable, it is abundant in only a few places on the planet, with 50% of known deposits in one country (Bolivia).
Trading tip: I hear there’s going to be a run on lithium sometime soon. Buy low, sell high. Now’s the time.
BobMbx on February 20, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Never really have thought about that. But batteries/cars, get it. Interesting.
JiangxiDad on February 20, 2009 at 1:54 PM
All those facts about lithium are true, but I guess my sarcasm was too thick.
Why are we investing (as a country)in lithium ion technology? To get us off of the addiction to Middle East Oil, and with it, the Middle East turmoil.
Which resource does the above quote apply to? Oil or lithium? Or both?
Investing in lithium ion battery technology puts right back in the position we are in right now…dependent on unstable regions for our energy needs.
Great choice, Obamster.
BobMbx on February 20, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Sorry Bob. I was thinking that I’d take a pass if the sole supplier is in Bolivia and the supply is limited, but didn’t want to be rude to you.
I’m sorry for patronizing and being an ass.
You were way ahead of me.
Good comment man.
JiangxiDad on February 20, 2009 at 2:04 PM
you do realize domestic oil doesn’t solve that problem either right?
However, those investigating battery technologies have much more of a chance of coming out with a breakthrough in the materials currently necessary than the oil companies. The oil companies know theres 200 more years of business to be had under the earth, they arent going to give that up.
ernesto on February 20, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Obama staff most likely paid the canadians in the crowd to hold up his support signs. They would have had to pay them in canadian dollars though since US currency is now worthless. Imagine that Canadian dollars worth more than US, sad sad world.
workingforpigs on February 20, 2009 at 2:10 PM
I wonder how may illegal aliens obama will fly in when he gets back from Mexico.
workingforpigs on February 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Can Americans now flee to Canada and request Sanctuary?
workingforpigs on February 20, 2009 at 2:14 PM
JiangxiDad,
I wasn’t throwing darts at you, and I apologize if you thought I had. I was being sarcastic towards the policy of lithium technology investments.
Yes, I know the domestic oil capacity doesn’t meet our current energy needs. The whole idea of energy investment such be based solely on the idea of being energy independent, and not simply shifting that reliance to another foreign geographic location. That’s just dumb.
Secondly, there isn’t enough lithium on the planet to satisfy the demand of the Ipod/Blackberry/Cellphone industry over the next 10-20 years.
Back to oil, as un-attractive as it is to drill for more oil domestically, it is required if for no other reason than to bridge the gap between now and some nebulus time in the future when gasoline is no longer in demand.
How do we get from today to the day when we just zip along in our _______ powered cars? Oil. That’s how.
I can’t wait to get off oil. For full disclosure, the only reason I have for that is to get our asses out of the Middle East, stop handing them trillions of dollars to fund their….well…whatever the hell it is they’re doing with it.
I’d like nothing more than for the US to thumb it’s nose at OPEC as the last oil tanker leaves the Persian Gulf headed our way. It would de-fang the peace-loving Islamists, Chavez, and Putin (or whoever their surrogates may be).
But, once we find some way to power our transportation system with, oh, electricity, where will the enormous supply of needed electrons come from? Coal? Solar? Wind? Nuclear?
I suggest we invest in electrical generation capacity now. I tend to favor nuclear, because I’m more than familiar with it. At the same time, invest heavily in technology that uses domestic resources only, whatever that may be. Lithium is not the only choice for batteries, and I agree that breakthroughs in technology are necessary, but lets move away from lithium at the start, since we don’t really have any.
BobMbx on February 20, 2009 at 2:28 PM
That might have been the most reasoned response ive ever gotten here on HotAir…congrats.
The only point i’d make is that oil demand dropping precipitously isnt something we’re going to wait for…its something we’re going to have to create our damn selves. Freight infrastructure and battery tech is the way to go. Power generation with a reliance on nuclear is probably already in the works, as our energy secretary is a hardcore academic who has spent time advocating for nuclear energy. Plus the new grid is getting started thanks to the stimulus.
In terms of batteries, nanotech is the name of the game. In all honesty, we still rule nanotech, and we’ll need to continue that. Nano-scale anything is possible, we just need to be pumping ALOT more money into R&D. And no one here give me any crap about the market determining who gets R&D money the market isnt thinking long term. Im talking 40 year time frames. No market it thnking that long term, and thats why we have government.
ernesto on February 20, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Libs don’t trust the gov’t when it’s in Rep. hands, and vice-versa. Forget for a moment who’s right or who’s wrong. Americans don’t have confidence in their gov’t. There will be no progress (using that term neutrally) until the former situation changes. The only remaining question will be if it changes, and how that’s accomplished. I can assure you that it will not change under this President.
JiangxiDad on February 20, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Thats a fair assessment. There are things both parties can do to help deal with that situation though. Republicans can and should make some concessions on the “all spending is bad spending” rule and realize that research grants are a political as well as policy winner…remember how many times McCain told that idiotic bear research joke? It didnt go anywhere for a reason…most people agree with the idea of federal research. At the same time, democrats can and should make some concessions on the “all corporations are bad corporations” and make a very public cutting of corporate tax rates to international levels a priority. As well as taking a more common sense view of gun laws, and “social justice”. Upending all sorts of legal structures for the sake of a few uberfairies or ethnic groups would go a long way.
Theres lots of work to be done building a 21st century society. It’ll take concessions on both sides but it is surely doable. This is america for crying out loud. Civic progress is why we’re on this earth.
ernesto on February 20, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Wow. ok.
JiangxiDad on February 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM