Senior Obama official Austan Goolsbee made the NAFTA call?

Make of this whatever you want....someone??? isn't telling the truth.


However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.

<snip>

On Thursday, the Canadian embassy in Washington issued a complete denial.

"At no time has any member of a presidential campaign called the Canadian ambassador or any official at the embassy to discuss NAFTA," it said in a statement.

But on Wednesday, one of the primary sources of the story, a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy, gave CTV more details of the call. He even provided a timeline. He has since suggested it was perhaps a miscommunication.

The denial from the embassy was followed by a denial from Senator Obama.

"The Canadian government put out a statement saying that this was just not true, so I don't know who the sources were," said Obama.

Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government -- who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp -- have reconfirmed their position.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080

Anatomy of a smear: Obama and NAFTA (CTV backing away from claim)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4818359&mesg_id=4818373

I called CTV yesterday and although they would not give out the names of their sources, they did assure me that they would stand by the story. My first thought was that it was all BS but I had to ask myself what CTV stood to gain by lying and I couldn't come up with anything. I can think of many reasons why the embassy might lie or at least deny it.

Left of Cool

it'd be incorrect. He's a war enabler and a * crony. Motives? Plenty there.

you would be correct. I am not sure that he was the one. I tried to get this out of CTV but they would not tell me who gave them the story.

Left of Cool

have no bearing on OUR election, and he isn't even the nominee

That in itself makes me suspicous of this story

There is no advantage for his campaign to do this

Also, I have no doubt OUR media would pick this story up in a minute, and so far nothing

not hearing a peep from our media. They'd be all over it. I think either Olbermann or Abrams came out last night and mentioned it, only to claim it's b.s.

"no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue"


DOESN'T THAT MEAN EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS, WHETHER IN CANADA OR CHICAGO, OR MARS?

What they are doing is trying to spread doubt through innuendo, without verification or proof

In the past 8 years there have been stories produced from "reliable sources" that turned out NOT correct.

You indicate that what would CTV gain by lying? I am sure they believe the story is true, or they would not put it out. I just want confirmation. It is possible that CTV's sources may not be as accurate as they assume, or perhaps hearsay

I would also throw the same point back at you, what would the Obama campaign gain by this:

1. Doesn't make sense he would contact an international source when he isn't the nominee, and Canada has no bearing on OUR election
2. Denying the charge, knowing that if it was a lie, it WOULD COME BACK AND BITE HIM

but Canada does have a stake in our elections. A very large one.

Left of Cool

Chicago School of Economics

If you wonder why that has any bearing on this discussion, RUN, don't walk, RUN and buy Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" and see the influence those "economic advisors" coming out of the Chicago School of Economics has.

Oh,...

Austan Goolsbee, the senior economic advisor to Barack Obama, hails from the
Chicago School of Economics

"no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue"

the unnamed journalist decided to add, "...but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago"

The Obama camp is very clear on this, that NO CONVERSATIONS ON NAFTA TOOK PLACE

They stand to preserve credibility. If they back down, they back down and admit they ran an explosive but false story. They're playing the TruthOut gambit: dig in your heels, and hope that either something somewhat reminiscent of your story actually occurs, or that something comes up and knocks this out of the news cycle, leaving it as an unresolved affair.

This is standard questionable journalism to provide "doubt":

"Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters."

Here is what the Obama campaign says by THEIR ACCOUNT:

THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN SAID POINT BLANK, "no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue"

the journalist decided to add, "...but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago"

So please educate me, if someone says "no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue"


DOESN'T THAT MEAN EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS, WHETHER IN CANADA OR CHICAGO, OR MARS?

It also bothers me that CTV does not specifically name the writer of the article: "CTV.ca News Staff

To discuss NAFTA is where the word-play comes in. They may have called for something else, but discussed it. ;)

Journalists have bogus sources sometimes. It happens. CTV is starting to look like TruthOut here.

Not much of a story there.

Well, this makes it all more interesting. Two weeks ago he was the subject of another story here that never got legs: supposedly Goolsbee was on Kudlow & Co. reassuring the financial pundits that Obama's economic proposals were merely "campaign promises." The problem with this? Both times it was posted here was without a link, and one was never provided by the OP in either case. Here is my response to the second posting of this story, along with links to the first posting and my link to the Kudlow/Goolsbee interview which did not show any such statement on Goolsbee's part.

So either Goolsbee is being set up as the goat in a typical political smear, or he's running around telling all and sundry that Obama's economic policies (that Goolsbee is advising him on) are merely "campaign rhetoric." Since the first story that appeared TWICE here was never substantiated and should have been easy to prove if it was true, my guess is that this second story is yet another political smear job.

And please don't tell me "there's no smoke without fire." I will accept the possibility that the second story has a hint of veracity to it when I see any proof that the first story does.

It's really a very simple matter. Either he did or didn't make the call. His refusal to deny making the call sends up quite a warning flare, doesn't it?

But from your own story, it looks like CTV is giving itself an out:

But on Wednesday, one of the primary sources of the story, a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy, gave CTV more details of the call. He even provided a timeline. He has since suggested it was perhaps a miscommunication.

From my POV, it looks like Goolsbee is either a goat or an idiot. Let's find some proof of the first claim from my post above, then I'd give more credence to this one.

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.