You know something’s up when The Wall Street Journal editorial board gives President Obama “three cheers” for anything. You really know something’s up when it praises him for lying to voters during the campaign.
But Gigot & Co. are willing to overlook a little cynical manipulation by Democrats—when it works in favor of the the page’s globalist/corporatist agenda.
This one’s about free trade, surprisingly enough—an issue the people have been manipulated on for years because they overwhelmingly oppose it, but the elite do not.
Obama, campaigning for Rust Belt votes, said this about NAFTA:
“I will make sure that we renegotiate… I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage…” He differentiated himself from his current secretary of state by arguing that he had been a consistent opponent of NAFTA while she had occasionally seemed to favor the agreement.
But his campaign adviser winked at the Canadians, telling them Obama was just blowing smoke by catering to what people actually wanted:
Perhaps we should call this Austan Goolsbee’s revenge. Recall that last year the Obama economic adviser had told a Canadian diplomat to ignore Mr. Obama’s Nafta campaign rhetoric; the candidate was merely pandering to Big Labor. When that disclosure became news, Mr. Goolsbee was banished to the campaign’s isolation ward for imperfect spinners. Now we know Mr. Goolsbee — not the candidate — was the one telling the truth.
Now, no dice. Of course, the middle of a recession or depression is not the time to go upsetting the balance of trade. But does anyone really believe Obama wasn’t just cynically trolling for votes on that issue, that he really planned to renegotiate NAFTA?
I don’t think so. The WSJ edit page apparently feared Obama would keep his word.
Lucky for them, he’s a politician.
As to Americans "overwhelmingly" opposing free trade... The CNN poll says that "51 percent of Americans view foreign trade as a threat to the economy". That sounds like well within the margin of error.
The CBS poll shows how much it matters what question is asked. 66% of Americans think trade is good for the US economy vs 23% think it is bad. But 60% think "trade restrictions are necessary" vs 28% think "free trade must be allowed".
Personally I think that many Americans oppose free trade because politicians have not had the courage be honest about their support for it. Respect to McCain and Clinton for being a shade more honest.
#1 Posted by Chris Corliss, CJR on Fri 24 Apr 2009 at 05:22 PM
But does anyone really believe Obama wasn’t just cynically trolling for votes on that issue, that he really planned to renegotiate NAFTA?
You know, with all the bullshit trivialities that this rag brought up during the campaign to club McCain/Palin/Clinton over the head with, there was not even one mention of Obama's dishonest pandering and Goolsbee's private backpedaling during the campaign.
Oh, sure, there were lots and lots of “Obama is our populist hero” for his attacks on NAFTA and free trade in general and a couple of mentions here and there of the NAFTA-gate “non scandal” but this, like nearly every other substantive criticism of Obama during the campaign was either ignored or attacked by the flacks around here during ht campaign.
Journalist heal thyself!
#2 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 24 Apr 2009 at 05:29 PM
To the Editor:
Your motto states, "Strong Press, Strong Democracy." But isn't there a point when the press crosses the line? At what point is the press no longer simply reporting, and begins to make news, becomes the news, and influences the outcome of elections and polls?
I am a student of history, and I have read dozens of historical newspapers, especially from our colonial and early national period. Papers then did not pretend to be impartial or fair. They represent some of the worst mud slinging found in American Journalistic history.
Should we just give up and acknowledge what everyone already knows: That the battle lines have been drawn and most publications and news organizations have clearly positioned themselves on one side or the other? Or should we demand more?
Barack Obama may be the first President of the United States that was anointed by the press. Sometime before last summer, after setting up Hilary Clinton, and then tossing her aside, the press settled on Mr. Obama. From that point on, few mainstream media outlets seriously questioned him on his economic, socialist agenda, lack of a record in the Senate or in the Illinois legislature, and went to war on any and all opponents of Mr. Obama's candidacy. Sarah Palin is a perfect example. Whatever your political position, Governor Palin actually had a true and impressive executive record. Barack had none, but you would not have known it by reading the press.
Barack Obama criticized President Bush's spending, and yet, during the campaign Senator Obama proposed spending more money than both of Bush 43's administrations. In the first 100 days of his administration, President Obama has spent more money than every administration that preceded it, combined. That is more money than the cost of the Cold War, World Wars I & II, Vietnam, Korea, the Space Program, Johnson’s War on Poverty and all of the wars of the 19th century combined.
It does not take an economist with a PhD. to realize that this will cause inflation serious enough to ruin pension accounts, saving accounts and the value of the dollar, and yet at President Obama’s 100 day press conference, he was asked about how he felt about his accomplishments. None of the reporters bothered to question those accomplishments. President Obama answered no serious questions about his first 100 days. He was virtually given an opportunity to provide the press with his interpretation of his accomplishments, and that interpretation went unquestioned.
So my question stands: Does our press core serve the people of this country, or a party?
Eric Munhall
San Marcos, CA
#3 Posted by Eric Munhall, CJR on Sat 2 May 2009 at 04:18 PM