How can you tell if a politician is lying?

Answer: his lips are moving.

A number of you have been emailing me asking about this:

The latest from Canadian Television (LINK ) on that story that a senior member of Sen. Barack Obama's campaign team had reached out to the Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. to tell him not to take seriously Obama's fiery anti-NAFTA rhetoric includes questions about a conversation on this subject between Obama senior economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

"I don't think it's appropriate to go to Ohio and tell people one thing while your aide is calling the Canadian ambassador and telling him something else," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told us yesterday as we flew from Houston to Dallas. "I certainly don't think that's straight talk."

Well, I certainly hope he's lying, because I think he's going to be the next president of the United States. But of course, as I've said before, I do not like it that politicians seem to feel the need to lie shamelessly to the electorate.

Comments

Obama Lied, Mexicans Cried, Canadians Sighed? (More entries welcome.)

For someone the left is heralding as a superior alternative to the e~e~e~evils of Dubya, he sure is getting a head start on the linguistic fraud.

Posted by anony-mouse | February 29, 2008 5:47 PM

I thought this had been debunked? And even if it's not, does wanting to "reassure" the Canadians really contradict what he says on the campaign trail? If you believe that the agreement can be effectively modified in the ways you're promoting - labor and environmental standards - and you are confident that this will be sufficient to not abrogate the treaty, then there is no reason to worry about a NAFTA repeal.

If he had talked to them and said something to the effect of "We're going to be talking about NAFTA, because voters are concerned about it. But I'd like to reassure you that we do support open trade, and I'm confident that we can reach the necessary accommodations to continue with this particular trade accord", then the two sides wouldn't be contradictory.

Just sayin'.

Posted by TH | February 29, 2008 6:03 PM

This whole NAFTA move by Obama is very nasty.

And to win the primary, he didn't need to attack NAFTA.

If the economy worsens, then the anti-trade/populist rhetoric by Obama might be used beyond Ohio.

Posted by thehova | February 29, 2008 7:13 PM

This is a good opportunity for me to express my admiration for Bill Clinton on NAFTA.

It was President Clinton's finest hour. He would speak at union meetings throughout the midwest on NAFTA, tell them they might loose their jobs, but assured them that there would be other opportunities and that the government would assist in the transition.

Will Obama be able to do that? or is he too interested in "unifying"?

Posted by thehova | February 29, 2008 7:18 PM

Yeah, the nasty electorate making the politicans lie.

My wife would just not listen until I popped her one in the kisser; then she would behave for a few days, but it always wore off and I had to pop her one again just to keep her in line. she made me do it.

Posted by Doug_S | February 29, 2008 9:21 PM

The only way that Obama could NOT be lying is rather obscure. That's where sending the message to Canada wouldn't be necessary because - unlike Jane Galt - they're smart enough to realize how much of a charlatan Obama is. Why inform the Canadian government of something they can figure out by themselves?

Readers of The Atlantic might also wonder why none of their "voices" have pointed out that Obama is on record as supporting Bush's SPP (spp.gov), aka "NAFTA on steroids".

Keeping politicians from lying requires those in the media to hold them accountable. Don't expect that around here.

Posted by TLB | February 29, 2008 10:06 PM

Of course, just like Obama's aides filled out surveys that were later revealed, and Obama disavowed them, so to will he disavow his aides ever meeting and making statements in his behalf.

Nice guy...

Posted by sam | February 29, 2008 10:14 PM

For those who wrongly say this has been debunked: why couldn't Obama offer public assurances to the Canadians?

Posted by Thomas | February 29, 2008 10:31 PM

Nixon lies ex post facto his subordinates messing up. He's a crook; impeach him. Obama lies; 'politicians lie when their lip move;' fuggetaboutit. I think that's a mistake. The presidential stage is in part a 'bully pulpit.' It is the job of the president to represent reality to the American people and tell them what needs to be done. He is failing that task. When else has he lied? Has he lied to the Jews and is his earlier defense of the Palestinian postion his 'truth?' Will Israel disappear under his watch? Should the Ameican Jews consider themsleves complicit in that decision? By contrast, Nixon lied in response to the mistake of a subordinate; he didn't set out to initiate a fraud.

Posted by michael | February 29, 2008 10:41 PM

Did he lie about NAFTA? Take the poll!

http://vet4hill.googlepages.com/surveyindex.htm

(It's fun!)

Posted by vet4hill | March 1, 2008 12:46 AM

michael: First off, we're talking about a candidate lying, not a sitting president. Secondly Nixon lied about significant malfeasance, Obmama lied about something he wouldn't even need to say if the electorate was more rational.

Personally this incident improves my opinion of him. It proves he can court the populist vote without actually being a populist.

Posted by James K | March 1, 2008 12:47 AM

Debunked? Ehn. CTV stands by its story, while both the Canadian diplomats and Obama deny it.

If the CTV story is false, then CTV of course has an incentive to blind itself to the truth rather than issue an embarrassing retraction.

If the CTV story is true, the Canadians have to worry that calling Obama a liar in public will hurt relations with an Obama administration, and thus the Canadians have an incentive to lie and deny the story. At the same time, Obama has to deny it to avoid admitting he's lying on the stump.

So you can pick whether you think it's more likely the CTV is lying or the politicians are. I wouldn't want to bet heavily either way.

Posted by Oildrilling Lunatic | March 1, 2008 1:48 AM

James K: Wrong. Goes to Obama's credibility as "a new type of politician." If you're just being snarky, not bad. If you're serious, rather than being cynical, try being an actual populist and voting Green.

Oildrilling is right. Canadian PM Harper is downplaying this because he's betting Obama is going to be elected.

Posted by SocraticGadfly | March 1, 2008 2:18 AM

A US President needs to be very careful in ripping up deals with Canada. There is a long history of trade deals, and NAFTA specifically helps the US. If Obama rips up NAFTA, then Canada would be more than free to rip up oil & gas guarantees. Canada represents approx 20% of US oil imports and 94% of nat. gas imports. Never mind all of the other agreements for boundary waters, customs, trains...

It would be very, very easy to bring the US to its knees if a protectionist President started doing idiotic things like forcing a NAFTA renegotiation. Obama is either an idiot or a charlatan, and in either case has demonstrated that he is unfit to be President and a clear and present danger to the nation. Megan's support of him is also demonstrably foolish and based on an unsophisticated understanding of his character and his use of advisors.

Posted by Hey | March 1, 2008 3:50 AM

If you're serious, rather than being cynical, try being an actual populist and voting Green.

Uh...the point was that actual populism is bad, but that populist rhetoric is needed to appeal to voters who don't know any better.

Which sounds snarky, but is nevertheless probably true.

Posted by Brandon Berg | March 1, 2008 4:38 AM

Obama is not going to rip up NAFTA. Neither is Hillary. They are not even going to touch NAFTA. Congressional Dems, although they mumbling and staring at their feet when they did it, have admitted that there is no desire in the Congress to change the NAFTA one bit. So, Obama and Hillary are just bamboozling the rubes in Ohio and the rest of the Rust Belt.

If either Obama or Hillary get to the White House (as more than an invited guest of John McCain), regarding NAFTA the rubes in Ohio and the Rust Belt will learn the meaning of the Flounder Principal (Hint: "Animal House"): "Hey, you f___ed up! You trusted us."

Posted by Letalis Maximus, Esq. | March 1, 2008 9:34 AM

Obama is not going to be the next President of the United States.

Posted by Yehudit | March 1, 2008 9:39 AM

[Obama]...has demonstrated that he is unfit to be President and a clear and present danger to the nation.

Well then, because it appears that Obama may be playing both sides of the NAFTA issue, clearly John "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!" McCain is vastly preferable!

Perspective, people.

Posted by DMonteith | March 1, 2008 9:44 AM

This is just more proof that Obama isn't ready for the big leagues. He looks and sounds great but this is the 21st Century, not the 20th: we should be past electing charismatic leaders and instead be voting for competent managers.

Posted by chip | March 1, 2008 10:14 AM

"Obmama lied about something he wouldn't even need to say if the electorate was more rational."

It's funny how people contort their minds when confronted with facts they don't like. "Well this is really ok because >insert contorted argument here

Posted by Lily Simmons | March 1, 2008 10:33 AM

"Well, I certainly hope he's lying, because I think he's going to be the next president of the United States."

Well it really does not matter if he is lying or merely an immature pandering clown.

He won't be President. Forget the meaningless 'general' polls about who is leading in head-to-head matchups overall. The polls that matter indicate that Obama is simply not likely to win.

He CAN'T win Florida which makes Ohio critical for him and he is basically just tied with McCain at this point in time. And this point in time is his high-water mark. After this he gets better known and then he starts to bleed support. And this analysis totally ignores the very great chance that he will lose in Pennsylvania in November.

Rendell said the un-sayable but he also told the truth. Obama will lose many supposedly Democratic voters in Pennsylvania and there is nothing he can do to prevent it. I would bet that he loses that State this cycle.

If you have cash to lose now is the time to short Obama. McCain will destroy him. Or rather he will destroy himself.

Posted by dougf | March 1, 2008 10:50 AM

Senator Obama buys his house undermarket with a Syrian's help, casually tells Canada and Mexico that he will renegoiate NAFTA and causes a political firestorm and according to Canadian newspapers would cause a gas and oil embargo to the United States. He will pull out the troops perceptibly and bomb Pakistan our ally in the war as his wife sniff's that she has never been proud of the United States while making over $300,000+ per year. Yes, just what we need, a naif who will use the Presidency of the most powerful nation on earth for on the job training.

Posted by ronnor | March 1, 2008 1:08 PM

Yehudit and dougf, I believe you are right. The more this goes on, the more I think (barring acts of God) this is going to be a huge victory for McCain. Beyond protectionism, Obama is also in favor of driver's licenses for illegals, "card check" unionization elections (i.e. no secret ballots), New Deal-style jobs programs, taxpayer-funded abortions, and has even said nice things about comparable worth, for heaven's sake (i.e. let's end gender disparities by having bureaucrats decide what jobs should pay)! These are not popular positions, and as Obama's leftism gets to be more known, swing voters (esp. white males) will desert in droves.

Posted by PapayaSF | March 1, 2008 1:12 PM

NAFTA lied, Americans buyed (stuff from Canada and Mexico?)

Posted by docweasel | March 1, 2008 2:34 PM

wow. "he lied..." "he didnt lie..."

first off, i think its worth remembering that Obama himself never spoke to any Canadian offical/diplomat/embassy...about NAFTA. A conversation was had by one of his advisors; the content of which we dont fully know, but we're told is not akin to what CTV is reporting. You can believe it or not.

All this banging on about NAFTA and lying and politicians pandering in Ohio: its not unthinkable that a Dem can support the idea of free trade, while also believing that agreements need to include labor and environmental standards as a core American ideal.

second: it would be worth keeping in mind that CTV has changed its story, at least once. It's not "sticking with its story" as many of you suggest. It amended its story, and was forced to backtrack (ie, change) several of the original statements.

look, the point is: if you want to call this a lie that's your prerogative. but let's at least be factual in the things we talk about when we blast politicians.

(snark to follow: i dont give a damn about this story to be honest with you, because i believe Obama has seen first hand what happens when labor agreeements are negotiated and workers are an afterthought, and he doesnt like it. and since Obama didnt have this conversation, nor did he probably even know it took place, i'm going to give him a pass on this. and you can just come the fuck on if you think HRC is a trustworthy candidate).

Posted by enough | March 1, 2008 3:35 PM

Reminds of the line from "The Blues Brothers";

It wasn't lies, it was just...bullshit...

Posted by Rich | March 1, 2008 4:50 PM

Well, I certainly hope he's lying...

So that's what that hope thing is all about, that he'll change his mind.

Posted by charles austin | March 1, 2008 5:32 PM

Socratic Gadfly: As far as I am concerned there is only one kind of politician. His rhetoric doesn't impress me, I don't care what he says, only what he is likely to do.

IMO, Obama trashing NAFTA and lying about it is much preferred to trashing NAFTA and meaning it.

I'm not sure what you mean by voting Green. I'm not actually an American, but if I was the Greens would be the last group I would vote for. That's why I say a fake populist is better than a real one.

Posted by James K | March 1, 2008 10:23 PM

"Well then, because it appears that Obama may be playing both sides of the NAFTA issue, clearly John "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!" McCain is vastly preferable!"

Right, because the world tilted on its axis when Reagan bombed Libya. If Iran needs to be bombed, McCain will bomb it. Knowing that, Iran will probably not let it come to that.

Posted by Fred | March 1, 2008 10:56 PM

Right, because the world tilted on its axis when Reagan bombed Libya.

Other than the fact that Libya was not right next to the straight of Hormuz during a time of sharply escalating oil prices and also right next door to a country we were occupying with a huge amount of influence over many armed militias on the ground there, you're absolutely right to compare bombing Libya to bombing Iran.

What's more, bombing Iran will be a boon to our relationships abroad whereas Obama's NAFTA talk will leave our prospects for productive diplomacy in tatters...

Knowing that, Iran will probably not let it come to that.

I don't know...what if Osama Bin Laden double dog dares them?

Idiot.

Posted by DMonteith | March 2, 2008 1:11 AM

Don't believe everything you hear. The contact from the Obama camp about Canada's role in NAFTA DID NOT HAPPEN!

Susan Rice, Foreign Relations Advisor to Obama categorically denied that any such contact was ever made. I believe her. She has credibility and I have no reason to doubt her. Plus, this is just another lie/distortion of Obama's position on NAFTA. Renegotiating is not the same as killing NAFTA!

In the debate regarding Afganistan, Tim Russett, if I remember correctly, asked a hypothetical question that if we stated to the Iraqi government that we were going to begin removing troops, and then they said well, okay, then get out! Would you go after AlQuaeda if we had actionable intelligence where their camp was?

That was the set-up. What answer would you think you would give?

As far as him not convening any meetings on Afganistan because he is running for President -- Chris Dodd said this sunday morning on CBS Face the Nation that we (senators, including Hillary) have missed votes while campaigning. Hillary has also missed meetings of her committee.

Do you think Obama's committee on Afganistan is keeping up-to-date without him? I think so.

Obama is not a patriot - BUNK!

Obama is a Muslim and is going to take over the country - BUNK - fear mongering. He is Christian and respects others and their choice of religion.

Obama is guilt by association with Rezco (he purchased a house on the up and up) and has stated to Tim Russett on Meet the Press that "it was a bonehead thing to do." No one has been able to find any wrongdoing on Obama's part because their isn't any!

What about the Billary and Rezco photo obtained by the Today show. Hillary's response is "I've never seen that man in my life." Um, the Clintons are embracing (more than a casual photo op) and I'll bet Rezco was one of their fund raisers. Why doesn't the media follow-up on that?

If Obama is the nominee and elected President, our country will be, for the first time in a long time where we have a President who will be able to gets things done in Washington because he will have the masses of Americans behind him. More than a 51% mandate from the people; SHAME will get those senators/congressman to do what is right for the American people instead of voting just to keep their job and score political points.

I can't wait!

Posted by SharonAusrinTX | March 2, 2008 5:22 PM

Do not assume that Obama is lying. I assumed that Jimmy Carter was lying, and that he could not possibly do what he said he would do. He was the last Democratic president I voted for. He did what he said and became the worst President in my life time. I'll vote Libertarian, Green, or sometimes Republican, but never Democratic again.

Posted by ken | March 2, 2008 8:58 PM

Blah blah blah. The basic question is: do you believe in fair labor practices (including workplace safety)? Do you believe in protecting the environment?

If we have laws protecting our workers and our environment, on what basis should we accept goods from other countries that don't? In Lawrence Lessig's phrasing, why should we allow companies in foreign countries to sell us goods and services produced in ways which would violate the law if they were made in the US? (Obviously minimum wages need to be adapted to local conditions, but that there should BE a minimum wage is not disputed by any country. Vietnam has a minimum wage. China has a minimum wage. They are set in accordance with local costs of living.)

So...remind me: why shouldn't NAFTA have labor and environmental standards? And what on Earth is Canada worried about here? In all likelihood the US will have to improve its labor and environmental practices to meet Canadian standards rather than vice versa.

Posted by brooksfoe | March 3, 2008 6:11 AM

brooksfoe, it was certainly reported in Canadian media as Obama (and Clinton) want to tear up NAFTA. If his intention was as you claim, then he did a poor job communicating it.

That said, this:

"...he will renegoiate NAFTA and causes a political firestorm and according to Canadian newspapers would cause a gas and oil embargo to the United States."

is overstating things a bit.

Our previous Liberal government was great at playing to anti-american sentiment and I wouldn't have put it past them, but I can't see the Conservatives going that far. Plus much of the Conservative power base is in the West, and Alberta in particular has little tolerance for governments who play political power games with the oil and gas sector. Not that there wouldn't be fallout, but not likely to that extent.

Posted by Sean E | March 3, 2008 10:29 AM

Brooksfoe,

I can't speak for my fellow travelers uprthread, but I'm in strongly favor of workplace safety and of enviromentalism (though probably not as much of the latter as you).

I also try to take into account the fact that both of those are expensive to implement. If we need to adapt minimum wage standards to local conditions, shouldn't we also adapt environmental and saftety standards to local conditions?

Every dollar (or peso, or yuan, or yen) that a factory spends on better workplace safety or a better environment is one that it cannot spend on wages. When a country is poor enough that factory wages sit near subsistence levels, how much money can they afford to spend on anything but wages?

You have put forth one of the trickiest moral problems for free-traders - how much of America's workplace law represents a moral absolute and is thus worth imposing on the rest of the world? And how much is a luxury made possible by our great wealth, and cannot be imposed on poorer countries without causeing more problems than it would solve? I've tried to suggest how I think about the question, but I can't, in all honesty, say I'm sure what my answer is.

As an aside: Obama and Clinton are not renouncing NAFTA and all its works because Ohio is up in arms about the Mexican standard of living. (While morally worthy, this sort of concern commands precisely 2 votes in Vermont, and one in California) Ohioans believe that free trade is eroding their standard of living, and that protectionism would help to shore it up. They might even be right, but from what I've seen of your posts, the right of low-skill factory workers to a six-figure salary (if you include benefits) is not any higher on your list of political priorities than it is on mine.

Posted by heedless | March 3, 2008 10:36 AM

The biggest reason for loss of jobs in Ohio is Ohio's tax structure.

It is much less expensive to locate a company in Texas for example..!

Posted by PVPeel | March 3, 2008 11:13 AM

What is it about Obamamaniacs that they believe that Obama will be some kind of uniter who will gather support from all sides? He's a hard Leftie who will not be accepted by the majority of Conservatives. Heck... even McCain is seen as too liberal for a large number of Conservatives.

Obama can't even unite the Democratic Party... Clinton clearly has a lot of support even if she ends up losing the nomination.

And the best way to get foreign countries to be more concerned with health, safety and the environment is to help them get rich enough to afford it. In the oil industry, for example, a lot of money is spent purely on safety and environmental protection. A LOT of money. Money that poor countries might not have.

Though progress is being made... the shipyards that build oil rigs overseas do good work and are working on safety and cleanliness at the behest of their customers. For example, BP is incredibly persistent in pushing HSE initiatives on vendors. They'll cancel contracts of HSE is not adequate... but before doing so, they'll work with the vendor to improve.

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | March 3, 2008 5:00 PM

"Idiot.

Posted by DMonteith | March 2, 2008 1:11 AM "

I think that was supposed to read:

"Posted by Idiot| March 2, 2008 1:11 AM "

Posted by Tom | March 3, 2008 5:35 PM

brooksfoe,

In Lawrence Lessig's phrasing, why should we allow companies in foreign countries to sell us goods and services produced in ways which would violate the law if they were made in the US?

Because other countries have the authority to make their own laws and asking them to give up that authority simply for lower tariffs is unrealistic and impolitic?

The reason Canada is worried is that this really isn't about labor and environmental standards. 9 times out of 10, they're just proposed as a poison pill for the trade deal, since no country is going to sign over so much discretion in their regulatory policies. Rust-belters and manufacturing union members aren't going to be just peachy with free trade as long as it contains labor and environmental standards; they want their protectionism back. On a practical level, labor and environmental standards primarily function as a means of opposing free trade without having to make an intellectual case for protectionism. Sure there are principled advocates of it, but they have as much influence on the actual politics of trade as principled intellectual property advocates have on copyrights.

I personally don't care one way or another about labor and environmental standards since I believe that they're only the business of those who live in the jurisdiction they apply to (same reason I don't donate to campaigns for politicians running for offices that don't represent me) and would support trade deals with or without them, but I oppose them on practical terms since most of the political support for them stems from their poison pill role, so including them doesn't really help get it passed on our side, and they make the deal a lot harder to get passed on the other side, since getting the treaty signed then entails them pushing through a raft of regulatory changes that there's not enough political support to pass on their own while taking on the protectionist interests.

Posted by MattXIV | March 3, 2008 6:46 PM

I thought that the Liberals were supposed to respect the sovereignty of other nations and to respect their culture. Maybe they don't value human life to the same extent that we do? They don't complain about how Muslims treat women or gays... why do they care about how the Chinese treat laborers?

Of course, the poison pill aspect explains that nicely... "compassionate protectionism"

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | March 3, 2008 9:21 PM

Yeah, well, Sean E, if it was reported that way in Canadian media, then wouldn't it be very logical for someone from the Obama camp to place a call to the Canadian embassy to say that really, they have nothing to worry about? Seeing as how they don't?

I can't believe Ohioans are worried about Canadians stealing their jobs. The Canadian dollar is stronger than the US dollar; the worries here should be running the other way around. The only American jobs I've heard of shifting to Canada are auto industry jobs, and my understanding is that has a lot to do with Canadian auto workers being cheaper than American ones because the Canadians have government health care.

Ohioans may be worried about Mexicans taking their jobs. To the extent this happens because of lack of labor or environmental standards, I don't see anything wrong with amending that agreement. Ohioans ought to be worried about Chinese taking their jobs to the extent that's happening because the Chinese are allowed to make their rivers look like the Cuyahoga used to. And you know what happened last summer when the US started banning Chinese goods because they contained poisonous chemicals? Chinese bloggers starting thanking the FDA because they hoped that finally, someone would start forcing their companies to stop poisoning them, too.

Posted by brooksfoe | March 3, 2008 10:10 PM