I think "throwing Goolsbee under the bus" is a mite strong, but the Chicago Tribune makes it clear that the Obama campaign is distancing itself from Goolsbee:
"I think Austan innocently went over there, half as a professor, half as a campaign adviser," said Obama campaign manager David Axelrod. "He's basically a volunteer. He's one of the economists Barack talks to. He's not in close and constant contact with the candidate."
I don't blame them for doing this--the politics were bad--but nonetheless, this makes me less likely to vote for Obama come fall. Not necessarily because they're tossing one of my favorite professors, and a hell of an economist, to the wolves, though I admit that stings. But if Obama's committed to running against free trade, even if he supports it in his heart of hearts, then there's a good chance he's going to have to act on his promises once he gets into office.
Do you forget Clinton's first campaign already? What stuff did he enact that he campaigned on? Or even the Decider?
Best comment from Protein Wisdom’s comment section:
Indeed
Didn't Clinton run against MFN for China in '92, and proceed to extend it, again and again?
Praise the Lord, you are starting to come to your senses. McCain may not be "in" or "hip", but he's not a protectionist.
Obama is too pragmatic to be a "protectionist". He'll argue for environmental and labor restrictions to be placed on trade agreements, perhaps (they exist in some already). But I wouldn't worry about this. Goolsbee was never in line to get Treasury or the Fed anyway, but he'll still be a sub-Cabinet level economic advisor. Isn't his area of expertise in taxation rather than trade, anyway?
Nope and unlike Obama and Clinton, he doesn’t support earmarks, pork-barrel spending, or corporate welfare either.
The anti-trade stance isn't even Obama's kookiest position when it come to the economy. Comparable worth is.
Re: earmarks, they're not always a bad thing.
Congressional representatives are elected to advocate the interests of their constituents, and securing money for worthy programs in their districts is part of their job. An earmark that allocates money to a homeless shelter in one's home town, for instance, is not an evil thing.
Earmarks are bad when they are used to advance the interests of the connected and dole out political favors to supporters.
One appropriate way to deal with this issue is by increasing government transparency, which is part of the ethics bill that was Obama's first victory as Senator. This allows citizens and journalists (theoretically the watchdogs for citizens' interests) to sort out who is doing the latter.
As much as one shouldn't vote for advisers, whose job security is not exactly awe-inspiring, I would bet most pro-Obama economists really are pro-Goolsbee-behind-Obama groupies.
That this distancing is worrisome to such a crowd denotes one distinguishing characteristic of Obama's campaign: his main personal asset is his charisma and the credibility this gives to his promise to do things "differently," in particular to listen to other voices, rather than the content that comes directly from him. The complement, running in parallel to the touching speeches, are the interesting proposals in econ and foreign policy which can be traced to his advisers. More than the other candidates, Obama is a moderator of and a conduit for good ideas.
And that, I think, is the crux: if Goolsbee is set aside, who will walk in to provide the econ context behind the charisma? Specially when this distancing is the result of and part of playing politics the "old fashioned way."
I kind of though his health care proposal was pretty high up on the list of bad policy ideas. Granted Hillarycare 2.0 would probably be marginally worse as in addition to the employer mandate and a proposal to make the federal employee prepaid health care system the statutory norm that’s in both their proposals, she included an individual mandate but that’s a different between a proposal that’s 90 percent bad and one that’s 95 percent bad.
BHO was editor of the Harvard Law Review and it was said about him that you never knew where he stood but that he was very engaging about your ideas. Obviously many people have been charmed. Krauthammer fit his own name this weekend by saying that people saw change and unity in Obama's ability to transcend races and then projected that ability into other areas when really, in policy, he has been a very standard black caucus, leftist representative which, once the soaring charm is not the main agenda item, is it seems a lot of we will get if he is elected. In that vein, what Roger Kimball discussed this weekend, that Obama's name was on the laptop of the FARC guerilla leader killed as well damning info about Correa of Ecudaor and Chavez which goes w/o saying; two 'gringos' had assured them that Obama wished them well, Obama would block agreements with Columbia, I forget if it was free trade or military assistance. This should only remind us that we have taken certain things for granted in presidents which are pretty much under his purview alone once elected.
Actually, I wrote that they are "sliding" Goolsbee under the bus, not "throwing." All gentle-like. Samantha Power, otoh, was thrown.
Obama would be the David Dinkins of America.
Austan Goolsbee and the other economists supporting Barack Obama are doing so because they are ardent pro-abortionists. It's not primarily about economics---it's about the culture wars. These people need to stop kidding themselves. They know damn well that the Republicans are the better bet when it comes to economic matters. After all, today's Democrats are quasi-socialists. Everybody halfway sane knows that. Do you believe the abortion issue is more important? OK, that's fine and dandy. Just don't lie to yourselves and pretend otherwise.
BHO is a cripto-socialist. Goolsbee would have been forced into even more and more free market heresies as the campaign wore on.
Outside the campaign, Goolsbee can simply waive in the manner of an approving Pope.
I always thought Obama was weak on fundamental economics and found it strange that anyone outside Robert Reich or Bob Krugman would associate himself with kooky theories like comparable worth and protectionism.
Now I understand -- Obama has embraced the Economists' Creed -- "What is the answer? Whatever you want it to be."
IT seems to me, that every time someone makes an error, they are listed as an "unpaid volunteer". Maybe if Obama paid them, they wouldn't say things embarrassing to his campaign.
Then again, why would a Democrat pay for anything they can get for free?
This is hardly a case of throwing Goolsbee either "to the wolves" or "under a bus". It is simply necessary for the campaign to communicate the message that Goolsbee is a free academic agent who happens to advise the campaign, but doesn't necessarily speak for the campaign in everything he says. I doubt the advisory relationship is really changing in any substantive way.
These people are all grownups. I think Goolsbee and any other academic advisers to Obama's campaign or any other campaign understand perfectly well that to the extent they wish to preserve their freedom to say whatever they want in public, to the same extent campaigns will sometimes have to distance themselves from some of the things these academics say, especially if they deviate in some way from the candidate's public commitments.
Exactly which promises are you opposed to Obama acting upon? Revisiting and modifying NAFTA in some way? Sure, that is going to happen, whether it's Obama or Clinton. Do you think NAFTA is just perfect just the way it is? Do you really think that political commitment, and the campaign maneuvering over the Goolsbee flap, really signal some important philosophical shift on trade policy from four weeks ago to now? It seems rather silly to change your degree of support given that there has been no substantive change in policy. Grow up.
he's going to have to act on his promises once he gets into office
Bwah hah hah hah f'ing hah.
Right-ee-oh then. Expectations of a politician living up to our expectations.
Good one.
Like good communists/socialists they will simply write him out of their collective history ... eventually they'll be saying Goolsbee who ?
"then there's a good chance he's going to have to act on his promises once he gets into office."
What a bizarre notion. That's hardly expected even of politicians with long track records. Obama is a fairy-tale spinning Populist, with no real track record of delivering on anything much. Sort of like Jimmy Carter, only more so.
Dan,
Neither Mexico, nor Canada are intere4sted in a NAFTA redo. So how is Saint O going to get the job done?
Energy supplies are tight and Canada and Mexico are big suppliers. Is it wise to ask them for a redo?
At core protectionism says: "you are not paying enough for the stuff you buy". It is anti-consumer, not just anti-economy.
Wow it seems many of your readers are crazy. A modest increase in the tax rate makes someone a stalinist now. Grow up.
TH,
I'd agree with you, but only on the basis that "evil" is a bit over the top here. But really, why shouldn't the people of one's home town be the ones to decide whether or not to raise money locally for a local homeless shelter?
While I have nothing against government transparency, a far better way to deal with the issue is to prune the federal government back to its federal, consitutionally-valid functions.
Like good communists/socialists they will simply write him out of their collective history ... eventually they'll be saying Goolsbee who?
Talk about fear of a black planet. Quality crew you got here Meagan.
No requirements. Remember that in 2000 Bush promised to limit carbon dioxide and not engage in nation-building?
But then again you're right--I've known George Bush, and Barack Obama is no George Bush.