Email List
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
'NAFTA-Gate' Began with Remark From Harper's Chief of Staff
OTTAWA - If the Prime Minister is seeking the first link in the chain of events that has rocked the U.S. presidential race, he need look no further than his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, The Canadian Press has learned.
A candid comment to journalists from CTV News by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's most senior political staffer during the hurly-burly of a budget lock-up provided the initial spark in what the American media are now calling NAFTAgate.
Mr. Harper announced Wednesday that he has asked an internal security team to begin finding the source of a document leak that he characterized as being "blatantly unfair" to Senator Barack Obama.
What is now a swirling Canada-U.S. controversy began on Feb. 26, when the usually circumspect Mr. Brodie was milling among droves of Canadian media on budget day in the stately old building that once housed Ottawa's train station.
Reporters were locked up there all day, examining the federal budget until they were allowed to leave once it was tabled in the House of Commons at 4 p.m.
Since the budget contained little in the way of headline-grabbing surprises, some were left with enough free time to gather around a large-screen TV to watch the latest hockey news on NHL trade deadline day.
Mr. Brodie wandered over to speak to Finance Department officials and chatted amiably with journalists - who appreciated this rare moment of direct access to the top official in Mr. Harper's notoriously tight-lipped government.
The former university professor found himself in a room with CTV employees where he was quickly surrounded by a gaggle of reporters while other journalists were within earshot of other colleagues.
At the end of an extended conversation, Mr. Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada.
Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.
Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.
"Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room.
"He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."
Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.
They said that Mr. Brodie sought to allay concerns about the impact of Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's assertion that they would re-negotiate NAFTA if elected. But they did say that Mr. Brodie had no recollection of discussing any specific candidate - either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama.
CTV News President Robert Hurst said he would not discuss his journalists' sources.
But others said the content of Mr. Brodie's remarks was passed on to CTV's Washington bureau and their White House correspondent set out the next day to pursue the story on Ms. Clinton's apparent hypocrisy on the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Although CTV correspondent Tom Clark mentioned Ms. Clinton in passing, the focus of his story was on assurances from the Obama camp.
He went to air on Feb. 27 with a report that the Democratic front-runner had given advance notice to Canadian diplomats that he was about to engage in some anti-NAFTA rhetoric, but not to take it too seriously.
The report wound up on YouTube and caused an uproar in the U.S. race - influencing the final days of the critical Ohio primary, with every indication it will also play a role in the upcoming Pennsylvania vote.
Mr. Obama has been pilloried by his opponents and faced the most aggressive questioning of his heretofore smooth-sailing campaign.
Clinton used the story to cast him as a double-talking hypocrite - winking and nudging at Canadians while making contrary promises to American voters.
Republican nominee John McCain - who proudly dubs himself a straight-talker - has also seized on the incident to paint the Democratic front-runner as anything but.
When Mr. Obama's campaign and the Canadian government denied the allegation, a leaked document was obtained by The Associated Press written by a Canadian diplomat. It chronicled a conversation between Obama economic adviser Austan Goulsbee and diplomats at Canada's Chicago consulate.
The Obama aide has challenged the wording of the memo and says it characterized the conversation unfairly. A government official said that memo was initially e-mailed to over 120 government employees.
Mr. Harper has rebuffed opposition requests to call in the RCMP and also investigate the source of the original tip that led to the CTV report that triggered the diplomatic tempest. But a team of internal security agents has begun an investigation that will see dozens of bureaucrats and political staff questioned about their knowledge of the leak.
"This kind of leaking of information is completely unacceptable. In fact, it may well be illegal," Mr. Harper told the House of Commons.
"It is not useful, it is not in the interests of the government of Canada - and the way the leak was executed was blatantly unfair to Senator Obama and his campaign.
"Based on what (investigators) find, and based on legal advice, we will take any action that is necessary to get to the bottom of this matter."
NDP Leader Jack Layton is asking Mr. Harper to call on the Mounties to find out how the leaks occurred, and whether the Security of Information Act or any other privacy legislation was breached.
"There can be no doubt about it: the leak from within the Canadian government has had an impact now on the American elections," Mr. Layton said Wednesday.
"That is about the worst thing a country could do to another country - to have an effect on their democratic process. . . If Mr. Harper isn't willing to call in the RCMP that confirms our suspicion that this was intentional."
Mr. Layton said Canadians would never accept Americans interfering in our elections, and we shouldn't tamper with theirs.
He said the incident is far more serious than another one last year in which the government called in the RCMP.
A temporary employee at Environment Canada was arrested in his office and marched out in handcuffs for allegedly leaking details of a government climate-change plan to the media.
Mr. Layton said that's small potatoes compared with inflicting political damage on one of the three contenders to lead the world's biggest superpower, and Canada's neighbour and largest trading partner.
"He's unwilling to treat it with the level of serious attention that he did when there was a junior bureaucrat at environment. . . He called in the RCMP on that one."
© 2008 The Globe and Mail
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
62 Comments so far
Show AllGod, how I loathe that persistent "-gate" suffix. Will it never be put to rest?
Okayokayokay...
Okay...Americans, howz about this:
First, let bygones be bygones!
Second, we Canadians won't interfere with your internal affairs, if you don't interfere in ours.
Promise?
Ah, the classic lets divert the discussion ploy. Ie, lets talk about anything other than the obvious truth that both Clinton and Obama will a) say anything to progressives to get the nomination, and b) hades will freeze over before either actually takes an ACTION that would follow through on this talk.
If you think electing either Obama or Clinton will lead to NAFTA being renegotiated such that its fairer to American workers, I've got some beachfront swampland in FL I'd like to sell you.
"This is about the worst thing a country could do to another country - to have an effect on their democratic process..."
Good advice! Maybe the US should heed it and keep their noses out of any number of countries they're determined to make our in our image. The world needs change for the positive, not in our image.
NAFTA and CAFTA should be renegotiated, but this won't necessarily hurt the Canadians, our great neighbor to the north, but renegotiation could help US workers and the underpaid and otherwise oppressed workers in the other signatories.
Certainly, this incident should be investigated by the RCMP. We're quite capable of underhandedly influencing our own elections, thank you!
I'm sorry, COMarc.... you may see me as naive, but I still see Obama as being different from Clinton and the other compromised corpo-crats. There was a time a few months ago, when I even thought I could bear with Hillary and support her in the general election, if necessary, but not anymore. She sickens me, almost more than Bush does.
I'm still believing in Obama, but if Clinton is the nominee, I'm going full-time Green.. and/or outside the system.
Is anyone really surprised that the Tory's would rather have a Republican as the next pres of the usa? Harper, like bush, was born with a silver spoon up his arse; neither of their parents did well at raising children.
As for the '-gate' suffex... how about stupidgate, dubyagate, dumbassgate, perfect descriptions of journalists who use that ending to a word.
Interesting how Obama was the only one named on Tues eve in time for vote, when it was Clinton's people making comment - especially in Ohio, an anti-NAFTA hotbed.
Then ooops, my bad reporting.
What a crock !
When taken in context with all the other feces Hillary was spewing, bludgeon her with it.
Welcome to Hillaryland.
I always thought her tirade against hope--the one she tried to pass off as humor, was a real insight into her character--as one of petty jealousy, harboring resent, and overwhelming selfishness that she would mock another's efforts to inspire others. That was a turning point for me, because not only did she cruelly mock, with a crude cynicism, she dismissed it as fostering false hope of change. Do people really want a leader who advocates against hope and change? That was the deciding moment for me. Prior to that I considered Edwards, then Nader, but Clinton's scary behavior, unstable personality, race-baiting and fear-mongering drove me into the Obama camp in opposition to the Bush-Clinton dynasty.
I agree, the timing was fortuitous. However, we're getting back what we so freely dish out, interference in other country's affairs. With considerably less severe consequences. Yes, Hillary is a Republican in drag, but one look at the Democrats in Congress, and you do have to wonder just how much difference that makes.
kathyodat
You need to look at who Obama has in his campaign to make this believable. Under the smooth talk are a bunch of corporate sharks waiting to get their hands on power. Take a look and you will see.
Okeee... Big_Money strives to never slander any individual or organization, under any circumstances...
Harper clearly stated that he believes that Canadians can benefit and have a lot to learn from the Conservative movement in the US. He has of course "trimmed waste" from the budget by cutting funding from "liberal" causes. He keeps a tight lid on all of his MPs, and they aren't allowed to speak to the press without going through him. He recently "let go" one of his candidates here in Toronto, a candidate who was daring to speak on issues that matter to people here - poverty, aids, etc. He recently fired the head of the nuclear safety commission, for refusing to re-start an unsafe reactor, and actually referred to her as a "Liberal appointee". He appointed a Goldman Sachs executive to the head of the Bank of Canada, rather than any of the "heirs appearant". He recently threatened to sue the Liberal party for calling for an investigation into the audio tape which appears to show Harper admitting that he knew about a package of financial compensation offered to an MP in exchange for his crucial vote to bring down the government at the time.
And now this.
If the Canadian media hounded him about these things the way they did the Liberals over the "sponsorship scandal", I might not be so scared for our future.
Whew. There, did I make it through what I had to say without slandering anyone?
As far as im concerned, i support whistleblower leaks, although this one seemed carefully timed to cause political damage. What i am asking myself is, is there any factual basis on what the media says the leak contained?
This clamor for secrecy is in line with the patriotic fervor of the days we live in. Without whistleblowers like daniel ellsberg, mordecai vanunu and others, the world would be worse off.
NAFTA should be scrapped and a new agreement negotiated -- this time, involving labour and environmentalists.
This new "-gate" has to be read against the backdrop of Harpo's grandiose plans to make Canada an "energy superpower."
BeForKids. One of the many reasons I'm so strongly in support of Obama is that he is bringing in a lot of young people who are not happy with the Democrats in congress. If these younger people vote Democratic, they will likely stay Democrats the rest of their lives. And if Obama gets the presidency, they are more likely to stay involved, pay attention and vote out Democrats that are corporatists. We need a large influx of young people who are going to inherit this mess to get involved and pay attention. Clinton is the same old same ol'. The reason the old democratic guard is supporting Clinton is because they see that these young people will demand change. They don't want to let go of their corporate money masters. They cling to them like a security blanket of cash.
I also want to point out that, after reading Obama's book (Audacity) which I read last week just to learn more about how the man thinks, I realize that he has two young children whom he loves dearly. He seems like a nice family man. I think the reason people relate to Obama is the he is more like regular people than the other candidates. The Clintons are worth MILLIONS. They haven't had a normal day in their lives for 20-something years. They are out of touch. Which is why Clinton said NAFTA was a win for American... before she started campaigning in Ohio. It is why she voted for the war. It is why her so-called "experience" has only given us bad decisions.
Obama offers a path to change. Not so much in the Candidate himself. He is moderate, but open minded. But what he does bring to the political landscape is a huge number of younger, energetic (and less jaded) citizens who's time has come to get involved.
If Clinton is the candidate, and the person they were inspired by is "bloodied" out of the race... you really think all those young fresh voices are going to stay engaged?
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE... the difference is profound, strategic and long-term.
OK People help me on this..
Is he sayin that the bit about "don't worry about it" came from the Hitlery Camp?
Mistakes were made by all sides. Brodie should have been circumspect when he told reporters that Clinton's campaign advised Canadian officials that they should take her talk about reopening NAFTA with a grain of salt and not to worry about it. He should have known that mentioning such a coversation between the Clinton campaign and Canadian officials was going to directly place the Canadian government in the middle of the Democratic presidential race and somebody might perceive that as interference. Both Clinton and Obama shouldn't have to explain their campaign statements to any foreign government official and no foreign government should worry themselves about what politicians say during their election campaigns. It's politics afterall. Politicians will anything to win elections. What they do once they assume political office is the only thing that matters. The Canadian official who leaked the document alleging Obama's team had told Canadians that they would soon engage in anti-NAFTA rhetoric and not to worry about it placed his government at risk of being accused of interfering in the American election process and shuold be fired. As a sidebar here, I remember how Canadian politicians bitched about Ambassador Wilkins injecting himself in the 2006 election when the four party leaders talked about the United States and Canada's relationship with it during the election campaign. He knew it was all talk and should have kept his mouth shut. Canadian government officials should know that reopening NAFTA is all talk and should sit back and watch the show and not worry who says what. Harper was correct in saying that the leaked memo was unfair to Obama, but he's wrong for only insisting on an internal security review to discover the leaker when he called in the RCMP to investigate the leaker of his climate change plans. So everybody screwed up and everybody played politics. Mistakes were made all down the line, but in the end NAFTA-gate makes for great theatre and nothing more.
Though I'm completely not surprised at all that both Clinton and Obama were joking about the whole "NAFTA needs to be rethought" thing, I'd like to take a moment to address the "there's a real difference between the candidates" bullshit.
I came of political age toward the end of Clinton's second term, and I was so excited about Gore's environmental rhetoric that I drove 500 miles to vote in the 2k election. We all know what happened then. We also all know what the left wing of the corporate party has done (and, more notably, what they have not done) in the last 30 years or so.
It took me about two years to go from being "excited" about engaging in the political system to recognizing it for what it really is at anything but the municipal level: a diversion for the energies of people committed to changing the world. Obama will allow the next wave of young voters to get passionately excited about change, and then get jaded and disappointed when they realize the extent to which the system is rigged to screw us all over as corporate power squeezes the last drop of sweat out of our bodies and oil out of the ground. Clinton wouldn't really do much differently.
They'll all bitch and moan while peak oil renders NAFTA and its ilk little more than impotent window-dressings, and none of them will, at any time, give so much as a half of a shit about people like you and me.
I wonder if Hillary is boning Harper as revenge for Bill and Belinda Stronach...
We can credit Karlheinz Schreiber with giving us Mulroney and a leak from the PMO office seems so beyond question to anyone except maybe the people of Vermont who live right beside the Canadian border.
It all boils down to how much you trust Stephen "Schmiergelder" Harper and his bunch. Last night's Danny William's interview is the quickest way to get you up to speed:
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=2010
RE: - Mr. Brodie wandered over to speak to Finance Department officials and chatted amiably with journalists - who appreciated this rare moment of direct access to the top official in Mr. Harper's notoriously tight-lipped government.
This is an important point in that letting Brodie (or even his cabinet) chew the fat with reporters is something that is just not done. The idea that Brodie would be talking to reporters like this should be suspicious enough. Usually Harper doesn't let his staff and his MPs talk to reporters like this.
RE: - Although CTV correspondent Tom Clark mentioned Ms. Clinton in passing, the focus of his story was on assurances from the Obama camp. / He went to air on Feb. 27
RE: - When Mr. Obama's campaign and the Canadian government denied the allegation, a leaked document was obtained by The Associated Press written by a Canadian diplomat. It chronicled a conversation between Obama economic adviser Austan Goulsbee and diplomats at Canada's Chicago consulate.
So there was two leaks - the first by Brodie and the second one a memo when it looked like Obama was going to get off the hook. And Clinton did not seem to know that she was also implicated or she would not have jumped on the bandwagon to score points. If Clinton said that Obama was being unfairly railroaded, she may have lost Ohio, but the party would be stronger facing McCain. This helps Clinton in the short run but can damage her in the long run.
Can't remember whether it was Obama or Clinton who said during the TV debate that they were more concern with Mexico (with its lower worker and environmental standards) than with Canada (with its higher worker and environmental standards)? It would not take much to twist that into Canada having nothing to worry about.
RE: - NDP Leader Jack Layton is asking Mr. Harper to call on the Mounties to find out how the leaks occurred, and whether the Security of Information Act or any other privacy legislation was breached.
Seems that Layton and Harper have been having quite a few conversations over this you can click on all the dates on the calender starting Monday, March 3, 2008 and put Obama in the edit/find to find the exchanges.
This is the latest one. Note that when the Parlimentary Secretary for a Minister takes a question - rather than the Minister - it usually means that Harper doesn't want the Minister on record answering the question - especially if it involves denying knowledge.
Main Calender (bottom):
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?View=H&Parl=39&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=1
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the government's apparently effective interference in the U.S. primary process, the government certainly cannot be trusted to investigate itself.
Yesterday the government said that it was going to investigate the second NAFTA leak, but what about the first leak, the leak that actually caused this entire international incident, which in fact has now damaged Canada-U.S. relationships?
I think the Prime Minister needs to clear this up once and for all. Will he tell us who caused the first leak and will he call in the RCMP to investigate the second Obama leak?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I have already said in the House, this kind of leaking of information is completely unacceptable and in fact may well be illegal.
I can say that the Clerk of the Privy Council, obviously working with the Department of Foreign Affairs, is bringing in an internal security investigation on this. Based on what they find and based on legal advice, we will take any action that is necessary to get to the bottom of this matter.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we would have appreciated a clear answer of "yes, we will bring in the police". It is that serious. I think the Americans need to hear that we are serious about this issue.
No wonder we are facing a crisis of confidence in elected officials. We have an official opposition that will not show up to vote. On Cadman, we get half-truths half the time. When it comes to issues like helping out lobbyists, they can always count on the deputy press secretary to the Prime Minister.
My question to the Prime Minister is simply this: where is the openness and the "we'll get to the bottom of it" attitude that he tried to sell to Canadians during the last election? Where has that gone?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I could be plainer: we will take every step necessary to get to the bottom of this. The leak of this kind of information, for whatever reason by whomever, is completely unacceptable to the Government of Canada.
It is not useful, it is not in the interests of the Government of Canada, and the way the leak was executed was blatantly unfair to Senator Obama and his campaign. We will make sure that every legal and every investigative technique necessary is undertaken to find out who exactly is behind this.
xxxxx
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must be pleased that he was able to help his beloved Republicans. It seems his plan to interfere in the American presidential primaries has paid off. The Price? Damaging Canada-U.S. relations.
What about the leaks? The last time we had a leak in Ottawa, the government had an Environment Canada employee hauled off in handcuffs.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House who in the PMO is being investigated and why is Ian Brodie not one of them?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just answered this question and said very clearly that the government is very concerned about this leak.
The Clerk of the Privy Council, with the department, is fully investigating this leak. When the results are made, with legal advice, appropriate action will be taken, if required.
xxxx
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there were two leaks. Why is the Prime Minister's Office not investigating the one that came out of the PMO?
The Conservatives are masters of parsing words for their own benefit. Unfortunately, the first victim is often the truth.
Therefore, let me ask a very clear question. Did the Prime Minister's chief of staff leak information to CTV News about confidential diplomatic conversations concerning Senator Obama's position on NAFTA, yes or no?
You can bet there won't be as much coverage of these "corrections" on mainstream news as there was of the original reports.
I'm still wondering how many people in the right-wing Harper administration knew about this and whether it was deliberate. If it was not deliberate, it seems a little Keystone Kops-ish to me.
Hillary Clinton and her allies, domestic and foreign, are determined to steal this election for her by the progressive defamation of Barack Obama. He's already been converted by proxy to Islam. If it goes on much longer, we'll be treated to the revelations that he
is Osama bin Laden's cousin and an active planner of 9/11.
The day Clinton clinches the nomination, I'll go to work for Ralph Nader.
You take care of your Republican carbuncles and we'll take care of ours, eh?
Simple Sauce- so what? You are giving up? Yeah, that will solve the problem... As I have posted before, I am a member of the Green Party who is supporting Obama because he is bringing in new, energetic voters. If you don't realize that the only way to change the system is to change the system, then what do you propose? The only other option that I can see, and which I briefly considered, is to wait for the whole system to crash and burn and then start over. But I choose to look at this from 2 different angles as a duel strategy. 1) I am helping the Green Party grow by trying to get candidates elected locally so soon we can get candidates elected statewide and then nationally. 2) I am supporting the Presidential candidate that is bringing like-minded people in to the system where we will need them. It's common sense to me... but too many people on these forums have resigned themselves to calling people who actually want to create change as disillusioned or hoodwinked or stupid. Go ahead and give up if you want to but the honest truth is that we need you and we need the Obama supporters if we really want meaningful, lasting, sustainable change. Until we have the numbers to demand progressive change we will simply be seen as cynical, self-congratulatory spectators whose votes don't need to be won.
RE - I'm still wondering how many people in the right-wing Harper administration knew about this and whether it was deliberate.
See, that's the difference between you and me - I am so jaded with the antics of the Harper administration, I don't doubt that it was deliberate. You make a good point about us not knowing how many were in on it.
Today's question period (same link as above - but not up until tomorrow) you are more apt to find the information if you put nafta or leak into the edit/find. Right now the Liberals are accusing Harper of misleading the House with his earlier statements.
RE - Hillary Clinton and her allies, domestic and foreign, are determined to steal this election for her by the progressive defamation of Barack Obama.
Clinton played a dangerous game to get Ohio. The original leak inferred that BOTH Obama and Clinton were saying one thing in public and another in private concerning NAFTA. And I would have to be very naive to believe that they don't have a similar memo, like they had with Obama (second leak) but about Clinton. Then there is the Bill factor - think of all the correspondence between Canada and the US there was while Bill Clinton was in office and I am sure that Harper has someone combing through it as we speak trying to find something compromising concerning Bill and the then First Lady.
Jack Layton still seems to believe that both Obama and Clinton will be true to their word - or bent on doing everything in his power to insure that they are. Either way, this is Jack's video in support of both Obama and Clinton and transcripts of the letters he wrote to each of them:
Layton to Obama, Clinton: You have an ally with the NDP on NAFTA
http://www.ndp.ca/page/6236
Bob Rae is the foreign affairs critic for the Liberals and he is not too happy with what Harper's bunch. Though you have to take it with a grain of salt since Bob "the traitor" Rae figures that his appearance on Rick Mercer shows that he has nothing to hide so most of it is postering:
The Harper Conservatives Are Trying to Sink Obama
Senator Obama's campaign spends the day yesterday denying it, as does the Canadian Embassy. But CTV sticks to the story because "senior sources" in the PMO continue to confirm it. Tom Clark's original story also refers to the possibility of a McCain visit to Canada to reinforce his and Stephen Harper's love affair with free trade.
Leaks like this don't happen by chance, and they don't happen by accident. This is Republican International in action. The Harper government is so ideological and so tied to the Republicans that they will use any opportunity to throw a wrench into the Obama campaign.
http://www.bobrae.ca/en/The+Harper+Conservatives+Are+Trying+to+Sink+Obama
PMO stands for Prime Minister's Office. The follow-up "The cheapening of Canadian diplomacy" gets even nastier. I do get the feeling, though, is that Rae's purpose for most of his blogs is not to lose votes to human rights and immigration lawyer El-Farouk Khaki.
BEFORKIDS _ thanks for sanity check
realitychecker...
I suspect that Simple Sauce was just saying that he/she has lost hope in the current electoral process. It has become very undemocratic since only people with a ton of money can run, money corrupts the politicians, there's a lot of voting fraud, there's also a lot of misinformation, and the electoral college process is just a way to deny the popular vote. I think it's awesome that you are supporting Greens on the local level, and we should all work to change the corrupt electoral system.
In the meantime, there are many, many other ways to change the system outside the electoral process, such as building our own community-run institutions, like local organic gardens and co-ops (and boycotting the big box stores) and community-run educational programs, taking over city council meetings to force through demands, protests and sit-ins, or even refusing to pay taxes until the war budget is cut.
I spend a lot of time in Mexico, and I see a lot of this going on among the disenchanted communities... Some poor communities receive dirty water every three days in public hydrants outside of their house. They don't have faith in any politician to fix the system, so they are building their own water and electric outside of the government, creating community projects like rain cisterns and ecologically sustainable facilities to wash clothes, and refusing to pay for services until the government officials stop funneling money into their pockets. These efforts empower people even more than voting for a politician who's maybe a little better than the other politicians. There are a million ways to put far more pressure on a government that no longer serves its people. It just takes creativity and courage.
Everybody vote for whoever you want, but please work toward creative grassroots change as well. I believe that's the real key to change.
"Mr. Brodie wandered over to speak to ... journalists, who appreciated this rare moment of direct access to the top official in Mr. Harper's notoriously tight-lipped government"
Reality Check please!! NO ONE in Harper's government is allowed to "chat" with the press without express permission of HARPER...PERIOD
HARPER is a NEO CONSERVATIVE of the worst kind...this was intentional interference with the US Election process on behalf of the NEOCON REPUBLICANS whom he admires and imitates.
As a Canadian I am HORRIFIED...lest the USA interfere more in OUR DEMOCRACY
A few weeks ago,there may have been a 10% chance I would have voted for Clinton if she were to be the
democrat on the ballot in november, there is now no chance of that. Yesterday she was quoted as
saying that having Obama as her V.P. could be the way to go. Yet the day before that when asked if
she thought Obama was a muslim, she said "No, at least I dom't think so". I really think that Karl
Rove is on her payroll. The longer this goes on, the more she shows that she will do anything to win.
Shouldn't we assume that Harper's attitude on all this will be about as helpful as Florida's Republican Gov. Crist feeling sorry for the Democrats in his state not getting a delegate voice? Conservatives want to see Hillary as the American Democratic nominee. Yes, even conservatives from Canada. What a slap to real American citizens from up north.
Just yesterday, Harper said in the House of Commons, that Brodie had nothing to do with it. Lies, lies, and more lies from the asshole that is our prime minister. You see, you americans are not the only ones that are being led by a fundamentalist moron.
Having said that, i believe the leak was authentic.
The media morons who repeated this story with glee, ordinarily parse every statement and look for meaning in every gesture and expression of the candidates. Why wasn't this one fact obvious?
OBAMA HAS YET TO BE ELECTED, AND THE CANADIANS DON'T VOTE HERE. I find it totally implausible that he would rush to reassure them of ANYTHING at this critical juncture in the campaign. Are we to believe he is stupid?
Hillary Clinton is a fit wife for Slick Willie, both lack honor and intergrity.
canuckchuck wrote:
"...this was intentional interference with the US Election process on behalf of the NEOCON REPUBLICANS whom he admires and imitates."
what do you mean? I am greatly thankful that Harper's govt. has given us concrete evidence of our politicians talking out of two sides of their mouth!
I don't see how this is going to help the Republicans - they are so pro NAFTA that they don't even have to lie to the voters about it. Better lip sevice than no service.
obama is playing to the middle of the political spectrum because that is the only way he can get elected. lets "hope" he throws off the AIPAC yolk as soon as hes in the oval office. Obama and Billary WALMART Clinton are very different from each other. just look at what Barack has done before becoming a politician. He WORKED teaching others about law and the Constitution. BILLARY worked to stiffle workers trying to organize at WARMART. who do you think would be better for the average american worker? yes i say, there is a huge difference between the two. BILLARY WARMART CLINTON IS NOTHING BUT A REPUBLICAN LITE CANDIDATE. OBAMA ALL THE WAY BABY!!!
I like your enthusiasm, homeward-angel! And I agree with you. I think that's why he's being jumped.
ruscle, I wasn't including Obama with my comment about Hillary and the
congressional Democrats.
I have to laugh at Hillary comparing Obama to Ken Starr, when she's been acting like Karl Rove, willing to do any dirty deed to get ahead. Unfortunately it worked. I called her a Republican in drag. I apologize for insulting gays. She's Karl Rove in a pantsuit pretending to be a Democrat. I don't think she realizes how many people she has turned off by her dirty tactics. She's fooled some and lost many who actually are paying attention. She almost makes McCain look attractive. At least he wants to cut back on military toys although he also voted against banning the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. It will be a sad day for Democracy if she manages to extort the nomination, and I will again be outta there. Voting for Nader or whoever. NOT HER. Why should I vote for another corporate Republican? No thanks.
kathyodat
It grieves me to admit it, but the accumulating evidence makes it all too clear that I owe my Republican associates and acquaintances an apology. They were completely right about the Clintons. Just as a broken clock is right twice a day, they have been right twice in a decade -- once about Slick Willie and once about Wal-Mart Hillary.
realitychecker:
cheencheen made some great points about what I said and meant. I'm happy for you that you've found a reason to support a political party and a rationale for supporting a corporate candidate. I assume that your questions about "are you giving up?" and "the only way to change the system is to change the system" were rhetorical, but your comment about how "we" need people like me to create "sustainable change" within the national political system seems strange to me. I have no interest in participating in federal politics, nor state politics for the most part.
The democrats don't "need" anyone but their corporate donors and the people whose votes they buy with ads and bullshit rhetoric, just like the republicans don't "need" anyone but their corporate donors and the people whose votes they buy. Reform parties and candidates need votes, but more than that they need a political system in which private power (money) does not translate so readily into political power. That is not possible within the legal framework governing our system, with perfectly good reason. I'm not going to argue whether voting or political campaigning are meaningful, but I'll happily point out that the national political process is not the only way to effect change. You keep up your reform efforts, if it makes you happy, and I'll keep up the outside-of-the-system efforts that make me happy.
Latest - David Wilkins says that this "interference" won't affect relations between Canada and the US at all. So who do you like better - David Wilkins or Paul Cellucci?
And right now on Politics, Mulcair is saying that Harper is trying to keep this dragging on until the Easter break hoping that NAFTA-gate and the Cadman affair will both go away. Mulcair is also calling Brodie to step down and figures that the leaks were related - two parts of the same plan (click Thursday):
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/
RE: - Simple Sauce- so what? You are giving up? Yeah, that will solve the problem…
Reality checker - it depends whose problem you are talking about - Dem voters throwing in the towel and deciding not to vote for anybody does solve someone's problem. ;)
RE: - In the meantime, there are many, many other ways to change the system outside the electoral process, such as building our own community-run institutions, like local organic gardens and co-ops (and boycotting the big box stores) and community-run educational programs, taking over city council meetings to force through demands, protests and sit-ins, or even refusing to pay taxes until the war budget is cut.
Why do you assume that all this is completely outside of the electoral process? It would help, if you were planning to take over the city council meeting that you had someone from city council holding open the door to let you in. Even Monia Mazigh contacted both the Liberal MP in her riding (Marlene Catterall) and MPs from all all Federal Parties - most notably Alexa McDonough - to aid her in her grassroots effort to free her husband - Maher Arar. And even NDP MPs are among the ranks of Protesters at SPP meetings.
RE: - Reality Check please!! NO ONE in Harper's government is allowed to "chat" with the press without express permission of HARPER…PERIOD
Exactly! That is why this whole thing reeks to high heaven. I think that the horror is only beginning - that there is more to come. BTW - even though they believed quite different things, there is something about Chuck Cadman which reminds me of Wellstone. I don't know what Dona is up to, though.
RE: - Yes, even conservatives from Canada. What a slap to real American citizens from up north.
What do you think that those SPP meetings are about - they are about harmonizing Canada, the US and Mexico so that there is no longer any distinctions between the three countries. Who do you think that Harper got his marching order for this little operative from? It may be a slap in the face from the Harper administration, but where do you think Harper was getting his orders from? The Republicans could have released the same information but no one would have bought it. It is just most Americans don't know anything about Canada so, if this came from Canada, it would carry more weight - because why would those straight-laced Dudley-Do-Rights lie to us!
RE: - Just yesterday, Harper said in the House of Commons, that Brodie had nothing to do with it.
Was Harper talking about the first leak or the second leak - there was two of them and Brodie was the definite source of the first and the suspected source of the second. Oh, did you see today's question period! If you missed it ...
Er - don't kill me - it was the day before yesterday that Harper said that about Brodi having nothing to do with it not yesterday (scroll to bottom and click on date for transcript):
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?View=H&Parl=39&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=1
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Office meddled in American politics by leaking information to the Associated Press. Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister to fire the source of this interference, identified by Associated Press as Ian Brodie, the Prime Minister's chief of staff. The Prime Minister did not deny it and gave an insincere apology. Will the Prime Minister fire his chief of staff? Will he confirm that he was the source of this interference?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian embassy in Washington has already apologized for the leaked information. The government is trying to identify who was responsible for leaking the information to the public; it was not my chief of staff.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the NAFTA question is a very important question for working families and so is the question of leaks from the Prime Minister's Office that are apparently producing interference in the American election campaign and the Democratic primaries.
If the Prime Minister is telling us today that it was not his chief of staff, who was it? Is it possible that the Prime Minister himself knew about this information and authorized the leaks in order to discredit the campaign of Mr. Obama for president of the United States?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the leak of this particular document is--
Hon. Ralph Goodale: Sue him.
Hon. Lawrence Cannon: The only guy we're suing is you for your big mouth.
The Speaker: Order, order. The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor to answer a question. We will have some order. I cannot hear a word. The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, the leak of this particular document is not only regrettable as the Canadian embassy in the United States has already said. It is completely unacceptable to this government and we will do our best to find out who did it.
What we are talking about here is a report that somebody in the consulate in Chicago wrote to their superior. There are literally thousands of documents like this written around the world by Canadian officials. It is ridiculous to think that the Prime Minister's Office even ever sees these documents.
Prime Minister Harpo sez: "We will make sure that every legal and every investigative technique necessary is undertaken to find out who exactly is behind this."
At which point Cheney will respond, "Go f**k yourself."
This smells like a Rovian ploy to extend the Democratic primary, forcing the candidates to bleed out their campaign coffers and bloody each other with propaganda that will be spoon-fed to McKeating while he sits high above the fray. It was less to help Clinton than to stick a spoke in the wheels of Obama, who was threatening to run off with the nomination.
So many great posts,as always, especially realitychecker, 2:40pm, homeward angel, 4:26pm, BeForKids, 4:47, & Goebells sez, 5:15 pm.
For fellow Canadians reading this:
When Harper answered questions on this leak, I could tell he was telling the truth.
I looked into his eyes.
Should it come to Clinton or McCain, I will vote for McCain. He may be a piece of shit, too; but at least he admits that he is a Republican.
Harper is called "Steve" by George Bush, who apparently is the only person on the planet who calls him that.
Steve is an admirer of NeoCons, and among other things, has no understanding of environmental issues. He is also a of Israel, to the extent that he exonerated Israel & criticized UN, when in its invasion of Lebanon, Israel bombed a UN post, and killed (among) others, a Canadian peacekeeper.
For the majority of Canadians, who imagine themselves to be peaceloving - who only countennace violence in hockey - Steve (Harper) is an embarassment.
In the circumstances, it is no surprise that people from Steve's inner circle were keen to discredit Obama.
Igloo Dweller
P.S. & to "johnwyclif": :-).
Even on NPR and Air America I've heard the pundits referring to the mudlsinging as a mutual activity... a knife fight between Clinton and Obama. That's all spin, all the time.
So far it's all been totally one sided... with Sen Obama, as simply as possible, without inflammatory language, parrying these assaults.
The Corporate Media is friggin hopeless... the "Ballot Bowl" with all the drama and hype of WWF or the Jerry Springer Show. Makes me wanna crack a beer and a jug of pickled pig's feet, remote in hand, pick a hero, whoop n holler, throw muh workboots at the TV screen when the bad guy gets away with eye gougin' n such.
Well, last night I was on the television. A student interviewed the President of University Student Democrats and the President of the University Student Republicans to get their take on politics. The Democratic Pres. made his spiel about the typical Democrat-speak. And the Republican Pres. did his. Then she interviewed me, a faculty member, to discern how young people can become more proactively involved in politics. Of course, the obvious question was coming "who do you think will be the Democratic nominee?" My answer was "what is the difference?" She was a little perplexed. As were the Presidents. I did not have enough time to explain all of the differences (because she asked me so many questions and they had to go to a commercial break), but I said "start with corporate influence and follow the money trail. There you will find your President."
O Canada! Please pre-retroactively-emptively invade and occupy U.S.! I would much prefer to be living in a country occupied by you than one occupied by the current administration.
Wow, I'm pro-leak. IF Obama or Clinton are saying things that they don't really mean then that should be the story. It appears we live in a world where dishonour is okay as long as you don't get caught.
Time to rescue democracy and demand that politicians tell the people the truth or get pilloried.
If Clinton wins the nomination I get to vote for Nader again. Just when I thought I might vote for a Democrat. Funny thing is that I voted for Clinton in 92 and have voted Green ever since. This year I told my friends that I would vote for Obama, even though he is flawed, if the Dems could get him nominated. I like him because he has done more to attract new voters than anyone in my lifetime. Clinton may prove to drive more voters away than anyone else.
Ah yes, a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. Well, so is a vote for Clinton.
RE: - I looked into his eyes.
:ROTFL histerically. Johnwyclif, thank you!
Someone should put up a video of Jack Layton on Lou Dobbs tonight (I don't know how to do these things). It was shocking - not only did Lou Dobbs not give Jack a hard time, he actually invited him back!
RE: - Harper is called "Steve" by George Bush, who apparently is the only person on the planet who calls him that.
You forgot Danny Williams. Strange how our own little "Leave it to Stever" never bothered to tell Bush he didn't like to be called "Steve."
RE: - Wow, I'm pro-leak. IF Obama or Clinton are saying things that they don't really mean then that should be the story.
The first leak (Brodie's comments) involved both Clinton and Obama, and the second (the memo) just Obama. Your presuming that the leak is accurate. Obama said during the debate that he was more concerned with Mexico than Canada - and you just have to misrepresent that statement slightly to get this convenient misinterpretation of Obama's position.
Canadians (and Americans), you notice that every time Harper addresses this issue that he now says the leak is wrong but doesn't miss a chance to infer that the information leaked is accurate! Seems to me that Harper is more concerned that this ploy works than he is about the backlash to himself and his party for doing this.
RE: - Nafta and gatt were the inventions of clinton
I sort of remember Brian Mulroney serenading Ronald Reagan with "When Irish Eyes Were Smilin'" long before Bill Clinton got near the White House. Bill Clinton may have continued the legacy, but he did not invent it or start it.
RE: - In the circumstances, it is no surprise that people from Steve's inner circle were keen to discredit Obama.
That's the thing - if Harper's bunch wants to discredit Obama this badly, there must be a reason - and I doubt that Harper's bunch would want to sabotage Obama if Obama was actually for NAFTA the way it was.
This one Question Period before the leak, there is something in what Harper says that makes me suspect that he knew this two part leak thing was about to go down - is it just my imagination or do you see it too? Harper is basically dismissing the idea that whoever makes it into the White House will wish to reopen NAFTA. Harper is also dismissing the NAFTA talk as something you talk about during election but forget about once one reaches office:
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada is a trading nation, and rules that are balanced and respected for trade are very important to the global climate, but we have had an unbalanced North American Free Trade Agreement for years now, which has benefited the large and powerful corporations far more than ordinary Canadians.
Now we have leading candidates in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are saying that NAFTA should be renegotiated. I hope the Prime Minister would agree with me that this is an opportunity for Canada to put to the forefront reforms to the environmental and labour aspects of these trade agreements that could benefit working families.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have learned to take with a grain of salt what opposition politicians say about trade agreements during election campaigns. We all know about the Liberal promise to rip up NAFTA some 15 years ago.
This government has been clear. We view NAFTA as a very positive agreement for all three of the countries, for Canada and the United States in particular, under which we have had tremendous growth in trade and tremendous growth in opportunity. Of course, if any American government ever chose to make the mistake of opening it, we would have some things we would want to talk about as well.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we can agree that the Liberals did promise to fix NAFTA. They broke that promise, but that does not mean we should turn our backs on the opportunities to bring labour and environmental standards into that agreement. They are fundamentally important.
However, for too long we have been importing pollution and exporting jobs under this agreement. We put our resources, like energy and bulk water, at risk and when it comes to pay and wages, they have been frozen or they have fallen for most Canadians.
Why will the Prime Minister not take the lead here, exercise some sovereignty and bring about change to the agreement that will be good for workers?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, under this government and under our trade arrangements, real disposable incomes of Canadians are up. Employment is up. That is a trend we want to keep going.
As I said, I think NAFTA is a solid agreement for both of our countries. I would caution about jumping to a conclusion about what a future president may do. If a future president actually did want to open up NAFTA, which I highly doubt, then Canada would obviously have some things we would want to discuss as well.
Bush mentioned that the Three Amigos (Bush, Harper, Calderon) are meeting in New Orleans in April - and everyone figures that it is another SPP meeting. The SPP is known as "NAFTA on steriods."
Could this all be about trying to be sure that Obama doesn't rally his supporters to New Orleans in April? Before this week, all Obama had to do was say the word and his followers would follow him anywhere. Could the April SPP meeting really be so important that Harper will risk his own popularity at home in hopes that nothing gets in the way of the meeting's agenda?
RE: - as this goes forward the clintons will be proven as the most corrupt people in the history of american politics..
I don't like the Clintons either, and Hillary Clinton is an opportunist. Clinton is doing the same thing here as she did when Michael John Hamdani created a few fictional people so as to avoid jail time. Clinton has a tendency to jump on the bandwagon and what you will get with her is poll driven politics and a President spending more time trying to prepare a war chest for reelection than running the country. However, Clinton is small potatoes compared to Cheney.
Despite all the spin, the fact remains that free-trader Obama lied to Ohio voters about renegotiating NAFTA while his senior economic adviser privately assured Canadian officials it was just campaign rhetoric.
In Ohio and elsewhere, Hillary Clinton has been out front on the issue of renegotiating NAFTA, and she has pushed Obama into "agreeing" with her (if only for political expedience). In truth, Obama is more of a free-trader than Clinton.
Consider this. In September 2005 the Senate's leading anti-NAFTA crusader, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, introduced an amendment that would prevent the U.S. from negotiating future NAFTA-like trade deals that allow "dumping" of products into the U.S. at prices below their cost of acquisition (harming U.S. farmers, ranchers, businesses, industries and workers). This was S.Amdt. 1665 to the 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill, and the vote was taken on September 15, 2005.
Hillary Clinton voted for the Dorgan amendment, and Barack Obama voted against it.
It's easy to make campaign promises, but when it comes to renegotiating NAFTA Hillary Clinton's promise is backed up by her vote on the Dorgan amendment. Obama's promise is belied by his vote against the Dorgan amendment. It's fitting that his duplicity has now been so publicly revealed.