CTV stands by Obama story and names Obama aide who called re: NAFTA

[ruggerson]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Talking_to_Canada.html

CTV stood by, but tweaked, its story yesterday, suggesting that an Obama aide had spoken not to the Ambassador but to the Consul in Chicago, and naming the aide, economist Austan Goolsbee.

Both Obama's campaign and the Canadian government continued to deny the substance of the conversation -- the notion that Goolsbee was suggesting that Obama's tough talk on Nafta wasn't entirely heartfelt.

But their blanket denials yesterday seem to have been based on the relative technicality that the conversation was with the Consul, not the Ambassador. I updated my post on the subject yesterday to include this quote from the embassy spokeman, Tristan Landry:

"Canada has diplomatic representatives posted in the US, including Chicago. These representatives are actively talking to decision makers, including those involved in all campaigns, about the whole range of Canada-U.S. issues. Our economic relationship and trade often come up in these meetings but in none of our conversations has any campaign adviser ever signaled that a candidate would say things that they didn't mean or that we should disregard," he said.

(more)

ABC is on this as well:

"ABC News' Jennifer Parker spoke to Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economics professor, Thursday who would not confirm or deny that he had a conversation with Georges Rioux, the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago. Rioux, in meetings this week in Ottawa, would also neither confirm nor deny any conversation took place. Both men did say that they know each other.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/more-on-that-ca.html

[rocktivity]

1. Politico: Politics' answer to TMZ.

:eyes:
rocknation

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. thank you

[Marie26]

3. Austan Goolsbee - U of Chicago neocon

WHY does Obama have U of Chicago economic advisers? Has anyone here read the "Shock Doctrine"? This is EXACTLY what Naomi Klein was talking about. Leaders promise populist, liberal reforms to the masses, while their U of Chicago economic gurus ram through free-market free-trade Friedmanism. I have no doubt that this conversation took place - Klein outlines a pattern in which leader's economists would warn/whisper to multinationals/free trade partners that their campaign rhetoric was just bread & circuses to appease the masses.



Obama's 3 Right-Wing Economists

by fairleft, Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:54:42 PM EST

To wake some of you up from your dreams, let's take a look at each of Obama's three chief economic advisors.

Obama's Right-Wing Economist Asshole #1: AUSTAN GOOLSBEE

Here's a start, some narrow right-wing economics from chief Barack Obama economic spokesman Austan Goolsbee, on trade (emphasis added throughout):

Austan Goolsbee (BARACK OBAMA): "I'm a University of Chicago economist and no one is ever going to be more in favor of open markets and free trade than an economist, so you would presume I'd be for anything that has the words 'free trade agreement' in it and all I'll tell you is this: I do believe there's no one more in favor of open markets than me . . ."

Spoken like a true DLC neoliberal 'all economists are Milton Friedmanites' asshole, right? Here's more Goolsbee news by way of ronkseattle, noting first that the top economic spokesman for and senior policy advisor to Obama is the DLC's Senior Economist.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/3/145442/8316

Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" re: Chicago School of Economics: a must read -
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/29/82036/7662

[Straight Shooter]

7. Why, indeed.

He's a Chicago pol. That network sticks together. They're as tight as ticks on a deer's hind end.

[Marie26]

26. Great

The same U of Chicago that gave us Milton Friedman and the necons. Can't wait to see Obama's Cabinet.


George Will column praising Goolsbee -

"The University (of Chicago's) economics department has been adorned by the likes of Milton Friedman, George Stigler and Gary Becker, each a Nobel laureate, each a conservative by virtue of his inclination to expect more utility from markets than from government interventions therein. ...

"Globalization" means free trade and various deregulations that supposedly put downward pressure on American wages because of imports from low-wage countries. Goolsbee, however, says globalization is responsible for "a small fraction" of today's income disparities. He says that "60 to 70 percent of the economy faces virtually no international competition." America's 18.5 million government employees have little to fear from free trade; so do auto mechanics, dentists and many others.

Goolsbee's rough estimate is that technology -- meaning all that the phrase "information economy" denotes -- accounts for more than 80 percent of the increase in earnings disparities, whereas trade accounts for much less than 20 percent. This is something congressional Democrats need to hear from a Democratic economist as they resist trade agreements with South Korea and such minor economic powers as Peru, Panama and Colombia.

Economics is the only academic discipline that in recent decades has moved in the direction that America and much of the world has moved, to the right. Goolsbee no doubt has lots of dubious ideas -- he is, after all, a Democrat -- about how government can creatively fiddle with the market's allocation of wealth and opportunity. But he seems to be the sort of person -- amiable, empirical and reasonable -- you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302003.html

[Straight Shooter]

35. IIRC, George Will has also praised Obama. Mercy me, I wonder why ..... n/t

[flyarm]

9. shhhhh don't ask the Obamaites serious questions about their candidate...

they turn into monsters..and eat you alive!

many disappearing people in these parts lately...i think many have been eaten alive..and gone missing..this is not Democratci underground any longer..it is Obama underground..so watch your step..they don't take kindly to serious questions or serious debate..it is the new democratic party platform,you are with us or against us..or as one told me yesterday .stfu..

ok now proceed at your own peril..

fly

[Kashka-Kat]

11. OMG, I fear you are absolutely correct... thnx for posting

I just started reading "Shock Doctrine." It's truly astounding once we start connecting the dots.

[LiberalAndProud]

16. I haven't read Shock Doctrine.

Does it really identify University of Chicago by name? If this story has any merit at all, Senator Obama would be well advised to jetison Austan Goolsbee post-haste.

[Marie26]

25. More than by name

The U of Chicago economics is the focus of the entire book. Friedman taught at the U of Chicago, preaching radical free-market polices, free trade, privitization & the gutting of unions and social programs. (This is known as neoliberalism). His disciples at the U of Chicago became known as the "Chicago Boys" - and they spread around the world, inflicting their policies on one 3rd world country after another. They specialized in creating an economic "shock" to the country (inflation, coups, etc.) in order to weaken the country enough that they had to accept the poison pill of privitization. Once unions were dissolved/tortured, the free trade/free market shock could be administered, and the nation's resources could be privitized & sold to US multinationals.

Friedman actively advised Pinochet, & his economists assisted in the coup & became the economic advisors for the regime. U of Chicago economic advisors assisted genocidal dictators in Indonesia, assisted junta torture in Venezuela, promoted the imprisonment of Bolivian union leaders in order to implement their shock therapy. Klein's point is that Freidmanites don't care about freedom or democracy - in fact they will try to strangle democracy in order to protect corporate interests.

I really, really urge everyone to read this book. It will change the way you see the world. You will never be confused again. Once you see the pattern, it all falls perfectly into place. One of her points is that the "Chicago Boys" will attach themselves to both liberal and conservative regimes - and will often take advantage of leaders who aren't knowledgeable about economic issues by convincing the leader that their way is the ONLY way to run a country. Leaders will preach populism to their people, but will listen to their U of Chicago economic advisors. I'm starting to think that Obama is the neoliberal Manchurian candidate.

You Tube video on the Shock Doctrine - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kieyjfZDUIc

[flyarm]

31. Thank you Marie..i cross posted your post here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2941079&mesg_id=2941501

of course the obamaites will argue..

fly

[LiberalAndProud]

34. Thank you, Marie. Forewarned is forearmed.

I'm going to read it. I don't have more faith in one candidate over the other, though. Senator Clinton's cronies do not inspire any more or any less confidence than this culprit.

[Marie26]

42. I understand

They both seem to be in favor of free trade, whatever they might tell Ohio. Candidates will focus on the bells & whistles, the rhetoric & promises, but if you really want to know what they'll do, look at their advisors. Whatever Bush may have said in 2000, he had neocon war hawk advisors, so you could be pretty sure we'd end up in a war. In the same way, we should look at their economic advisors to really see what kind of economic policy they'd follow in office. That's one of the points that Klein made - look at the economic gurus to see how a leader will govern. Certainly the corporations & big money are paying attention to that, even if voters don't. I don't even know who Hillary Clinton's economic advisors are, which is sort of embarrassing. So, I looked it up & was really pleasantly surprised. It's much less scary! Clinton's top economic advisor is Gene Sperling. He seems to be a liberal & is an advocate on children's issues, education and global poverty. Cong. Barney Frank is also an economic advisor to the HRC campaign.

Clinton's top economic advisor - Gene Sperling

"Gene B. Sperling is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. He served in the Clinton administration as the President's National Economic Adviser and Director of the National Economic Council. Mr. Sperling was the third person to hold the role of chief economic adviser in the White House, following Robert Rubin and Laura Tyson.

Mr. Sperling, who served as either National Economic Adviser or as Deputy NEC Director for all eight years, was called by Mr. Clinton "the MVP" of the economic team. As Director of the NEC, Mr. Sperling was responsible for coordinating domestic and international economic cabinet members. Mr. Sperling coordinated the President's Social Security and debt reduction efforts, and played a key role in such initiatives as the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and technology literacy initiative.

Articles:
Global Warming Insurance Policy Is Worth Premium: , January 2, 2008
Consumers Can't Hang on Forever as Trouble Brews , November 29, 2007
Warrren Buffett: The Rich Need to Pay More Taxes , November 15, 2007
Bush Health-Bill Veto Leaves Needy Kids Stranded , October 31, 2007
Rising-Tide Economics , September 10, 2007
New Evidence on Old Idea That Works for the Poor , August 31, 2007
`Compassionate' Bush Fails Children on Health: Gene Sperling , August 10, 2007
Private-Equity Guys Can Learn to Pay More Tax , June 29, 2007
Housing Bust Got You Down? Here's Another Dud , June 4, 2007
Children's Health Care Can't Wait for the Fixes , February 23, 2007

http://www.americanprogress.org/experts/SperlingGene.html


"Gene B. Sperling
Senior Fellow for Economic Policy and Director of the Center for Universal Education

Former national economic adviser and coauthor of the Council report "What Works in Girls’ Education." Current work examines ways to extend education to displaced children and those living in emergency situations.

Expertise:

Economic policy; international education assistance.

Author: "The Pro-Growth Progessive: An Economic Strategy for Shared Prosperity"
"What Works In Girls' Education?: Evidence And Policies From The Developing World"
“A Better Way to Fight Global Poverty: Broadening the Millennium Challenge Account,” Foreign Affairs (coauthor, March/April 2003);
“Educate Them All,” Washington Post (2002);
“Toward Universal Education: Making a Promise, and Keeping It,” Foreign Affairs (September/October 2001);
“The Developing World’s Quiet Crisis,” Financial Times (2001).
"The World’s Shame for Doing Too Little in Darfur" Bloomberg op-ed

http://www.cfr.org/bios/bio.html?id=9151

[LiberalAndProud]

43. This is why I love DU.

Thanks again. I just got a some education.

It would seem that the CTV did us a very big favor. If Obama is elected, the fire will be a little hotter when we hold his feet to it.

[Usrename]

30. Sure, it’s historically accurate. The book explains a lot (everything).

The Ford Foundation, University of Chicago, CIA, World Bank, IMF, and US and international business concerns (such as ITT, Ford, GM and Mercedes-Benz) conspired to promote fascism, terror and economic devastation in South America. Not to mention the human costs. Similar to what they are doing in Iraq today, except without the overt use of the US military.

The history of Chile and the "Chicago boys"

...

Unfortunately, Chile has been the site of revolution and experimentation for over 30 years now. From 1964 to 1970, President Eduardo Frei led a "revolution in liberty." From 1970 to 1973, Salvadore Allende embarked on a "Chilean road to socialism." From 1973 to 1989, General Augusto Pinochet and his military regime conducted a "silent revolution" (so-called because the free market quietly brought about drastic social change). After 1990, Chile has returned to democracy, but it will be a long time recovering from its experiments.

...

... It is now a matter of historical record that the CIA helped organize their opposition to Allende. A massive campaign of strikes, social unrest and other political subversion followed. In September 1973, the CIA helped General Pinochet launch a military coup in which Allende was killed. The Pinochet government claimed he committed suicide; his supporters claimed he was murdered.

The new government immediately began privatizing the businesses that Allende had seized, as well as reversing his other socialist reforms. But Pinochet did not have an economic plan of his own, and by 1975 inflation would run as high as 341 percent. Into this crisis stepped a group of economists known as "the Chicago boys."

...

The Chicago boys were a group of 30 Chileans who had studied economics at the University of Chicago between 1955 and 1963. During the course of their postgraduate studies they had become disciples of Milton Friedman, and had returned to Chile completely indoctrinated in free market theory. By the end of 1974, they had risen to positions of power in the Pinochet regime, controlling most of its offices for economic planning.

...

In March 1975, the Chicago boys held an economic seminar that received national media attention. Here they proposed a radical austerity program — "shock treatment," they called it — to solve Chile's economic woes. They invited some of the world's top economists to speak at the conference, among them Chicago professors Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger. Unsurprisingly, they gave the proposal their highest praise. The plan called for a drastic reduction in the money supply and government spending, the privatization of government services, massive deregulation of the market, and the liberalization of international trade.

This was not solely the Chicago boys' plan. It was also formulated by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, who made the program a precondition for future loans to Chile. The IMF and World Bank would make similar conditions of other developing nations around the world, but none would implement their program as thoroughly and completely as Chile. Interestingly, the World Bank now holds Chile up as an example to be emulated by the rest of the Third World. Considering Chile's huge debt and interest payments to the World Bank, it is not difficult to see why. The debt, devastation, inequality and exploitation that the IMF and World Bank bring to Third World countries in the name of "neoliberal development" is another story in itself. Brazil and Peru are two other notable examples — but Chile remains the worst.

...

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=67&pst=1120219&archival=&posts=10

This is a very condensed overview, and it's probably difficult to follow until you read Shock Doctrine. That book really ties it all together in undeniable fashion.

But it covers some 20 to 50 years of events. I'm not sure how it relates to Obama. Someone has probably asked him what he thinks of the "Chicago Boys."

I think I remember this coming up before, and there was a video interview of him responding to this stuff. It should be here on DU somewhere, IIRC.

[Marie26]

41. Goolsbee is a Friedman admirer

He actually wrote a eulogy for the NY Times upon Friedman's death.

A Charismatic Economist Who Loved to Argue -

"One of Mr. Friedman’s major impacts on economics was in establishing a basic worldview. ... That view now holds sway throughout much of the profession.

When we heard the news at the University of Chicago that he had died, we actually stopped arguing and were quiet for a moment. It was a most extraordinary event for Chicago economists. Each of us seemed to contemplate Mr. Friedman’s legacy for ourselves. After that bit of calm, the argument resumed. It was, perhaps, just what the old man would have wanted."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/17/business/17milton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

From his CV of published articles, he seems to oppose taxes on the wealthy or corporations as a drag on the market.:

"It's Not About the Money: Why Natural Experiments Don't Work on the Rich," in Does Atlas Shrug? The Economic Consequences of Taxing the Rich, J. Slemrod, ed., 2000, 141-158. Russell Sage Foundation and Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

"Taxes, Organizational Form and the Dead Weight Loss of the Corporate Income Tax," Journal of Public Economics, vol. 69, July 1998, 143-152.

"What Happens When You Tax the Rich? Evidence from Executive Compensation," Journal of Political Economy, April 2000, vol. 108(2), 352-378 (concluding that higher taxes on the wealthy results in revenue losses)

"The Impact and Inefficiency of the Coporate Income Tax: Evidence from State Organizational Form Data,"Journal of Public Economics, 88(11), September 2004, 2283-2299.

"Investment Tax Subsidies and the Wages of Capital Goods Workers: To the Workers Go the Spoils?" National Tax Journal, LVI (1, part 2), March 2003, 153-166.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/austan.goolsbee/website/research/vitae.htm

IMO one of the most important questions for Obama, or Clinton, is whether they adhere to Keynsian or Friedmanite economics. It's pretty clear that Obama's top economic advisor is a Friedmanite. What's even more troubling is that all of his top three economic advisors seem to hold free-market positions. http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/obamas-economic-advisers/ I'd be curious to see that interview, if anyone has a link.

[ContinentalOp]

33. Ugh, this sucks.

I think this CTV story sounds like bullshit but why oh why would Obama have a Chicago School guy as an economic adviser. This is not good.

[GoldieAZ49]

36. It is disappointing, why hasn't more of this kind of info come out before now?

[flyarm]

44. ahhh because maybe this is planned to have a neo liberal now? to finish the job...

why have no questions been asked by the media of Obama..have you ever seen this reich wing media go so soft on any liberal..or democratic candidate??

where were all the questions about Rezko? still to this day????????

oh yeah and if you or i had a guy who had a federal and FBI investigation going on help us buy a house and split property ..while your wife was on the commission that decided if it was legal..and we ran for city clerk..do you not think serious questions would be asked by your local media??..

this guy has gotten a free ride..and it is almost telling to me why!

he is their candidate..dressed as ours!

fly

[Alhena]

4. This story is going nowhere in light of this quote ...

from the Canadians:

"Canada has diplomatic representatives posted in the US, including Chicago. These representatives are actively talking to decision makers, including those involved in all campaigns, about the whole range of Canada-U.S. issues. Our economic relationship and trade often come up in these meetings but in none of our conversations has any campaign adviser ever signaled that a candidate would say things that they didn't mean or that we should disregard," he said.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

24. debunked: "CTV, far from standing behind it, is rapidly backing away from it."

Anatomy of a smear: Obama and NAFTA
February 28, 2008 Posted by Mark Kleiman at The Reality-Based Community


....Just one thing, though: the story reeks of fish, and CTV, far from standing behind it, is rapidly backing away from it. The original account vaguely mentions "Canadian sources." The follow-up, which includes denials from Obama and from the Ambassador, gets a little more specific: now the source is said to be "a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy." But suddenly that source isn't so sure he had it right in the first place: "He has since suggested it was perhaps a miscommunication."

Swiftly switching gears, CTV now claims to be pursuing, not a conversation between a senior Obama staffer and the Canadian Ambassador, but a phone call between Austan Goolsbee — not a staffer but an academic at the University of Chicago who has been advising Obama — and someone (unnamed, of course) in the Canadian Consulate-General in Chicago.

Since we have no evidence for any of this save the word of CTV, and since CTV can't get its story straight, anyone who claims to believe the story — that is, McCain and his odd bedfellows Marsh and Johnson — ought to be presumed to be in bad faith. It might be true, but there's no reason for any fair-minded person to believe that it's true.

Is it possible that Goolsbee — like most economists, a free trader by instinct — tried to say something calming to someone he knew at the Consulate General in Chicago? Sure. But so what?

more at the link
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/the_wayward_press_/2008/02/anatomy_of_a_smear_obama_and_nafta.php

[leftofcool]

5. So the denial

is not that the conversation never took place, but the substance of the conversation?

Left of Cool

[TwilightGardener]

6. This story is weak. They can't get their own details right, and now we're

talking about some economist affiliated with the campaign who talked to some low-level Canadian putz in Chicago? Does it get less important than this?

[Zueda]

8. Why are they now trying to push the same meme...

but with completely different facts?

[ruggerson]

10. ABC is now on this story - Obama aide will not confirm or deny conversation

[golddigger]

12. Obama is so busted...Mr. Just words, just speeches. David Axelrod's

media creation.

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. Another media creation in the WH. But it's just fine with some here.

Why is that? :shrug:

[ProSense]

13. Why are Hillary surrogates putting so much effort into proving a bogus story is true?

It's no secret that Obama has opposed NAFTA since the 90s. It can't possibly come as a shock to Canada this month that Obama opposes NAFTA!

What is CTV trying to prove that he's against stricter environmental, labor and safety standards?

This is a stupid story and anyone who claims to believe it is either gullible or disingenuous.

If that isn't enough, read this.

[ruggerson]

15. I haven't seen any news story showing a "Hillary surrogate" pushing this

[ProSense]

37. Taylor Marsh and Larry Johnson:

Taylor Marsh

Larry Johnson

[carlotta]

17. I'll tell you why it's important

It's because Obama claims to oppose NAFTA--even said in the debate that he would be willing to scrap it if Canada and Mexico didn't agree to new terms more favorable to the U.S.

If this story is true and his senior economic advisor was behind the scenes telling Canada that this was just "campaign rhetoric" and that they have nothing to worry about should Obama be elected, it means that Obama is LYING to the American people to get elected.

Get it?

[axordil]

18. Or it could mean

That BOTH campaigns have been telling the Canadians not to hear things that haven't actually been said.

There's actually pressure on the other side of the border to re-examine the treaty, by the way. It's not like either Obama or Clinton are promising to blow it up on Inauguration Day, either, but if you just listen to the TONE of their speeches, not the actual words, you might walk away with that impression.

It wouldn't surprise me in the lease if there were people associated with both campaigns reassuring the Canadians that the intensity of the rhetoric shouldn't be misinterpreted. And it wouldn't surprise me if someone in Harper's conservative government decided to twist that in a way to make the Democratic candidates look bad.

I don't think either Obama or Clinton are lying. But then, I also don't think they've been saying what some people here think they've been hearing.

[UALRBSofL]

22. Prosense, For you to make a statement like that after I have read a ton of your posts

That insinuates similar dealings about Hillary Clinton, you have some nerve to post "Why are Hillary surrogates putting so much effort into proving a bogus story is true"? I'm much different then you because I can post to you and say I give the Obama camp the benefit of the doubt about this article and any other media article making accusations about Obama or Clinton. The thing I look at is the sources of the article, is there any real proof other then (he-said she-said) which is no real proof, and is the media source reliable, not just a republican rag or drudge, etc.

[ProSense]

38. BS! Hillary lied about making statement supporting NAFTA,

Here is the video: Hillary Clinton in support of NAFTA

Here is the relevant segment of the debate transcript

Are you going to deny that?

[Justyce]

23. Obama hasn't opposed NAFTA since the 90s....

And even now, he doesn't want to get rid of it, just amend it. He's said he believes in free trade. He voted to expand NAFTA and voted for a free trade agreement with Oman, etc.


Here's a post about this subject: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4628724&mesg_id=4628724


Frankly, I'm concerned about both of our nominees on this issue, but Obama more so. I hope they take a stronger stance and actually intend to do something to fix it if elected.

[ProSense]

39. The Peru agreement is not the Clintons' horrible NAFTA bill.

Stop trying to change the subject!

[papau]

28. what is bogus - Obama's staff tells folks to not worry about what he says because they do not

expect it to pass - saying he will be like a liberal Republican - pointing to Obama's Patriot Act and its 5% cut in corporate taxes and to his speeches calling for less regulation for corporations.

Seems the "most left" candidate isn't all that left in his heart - just left for political purposes.

But now we are stuck with him.

[ProSense]

40. No, what's bogus is jumping for joy over an illogical story and citing a RW news organization's

defense of its now debunked story as the truth.

[AtomicKitten]

19. This story was debunked and you are now officially beating a nonexistent dead horse.

[IntravenousDemilo]

20. The thing you have to understand about CTV...

...is that it's not the CBC. CTV is owned by Bell Globe Media, and though they claim journalistic impartiality, they are notorious shills for the Harper Conservatives.

This news should be viewed through that filter.

[Kokonoe]

21. Sounds like someones opinion of an opinion of a phone

...errr did someone say it was an overseas call.

[cooolandrew]

27. So who do I trust the Canadian embassy or MSM. Hmmm tricky one ???

[indimuse]

29. obama and his campaign are slimy ...

liars!

[PurityOfEssence]

32. Experience: Clinton's MUCH better at being on both sides of an issue...

I'll take what's behind door number three, Bob...