|
The New York Times has the Goolsbee story today.
Obama was previously able to plausibly claim more purity in his NAFTA
criticism than Clinton, whose husband pushed the agreement hard.
But no
more because of Goolsbee, with whom I've long been concerned.
The denials were sweeping when Senator Barack Obama’s campaign
mobilized last week to refute a report that a senior official had given
back-channel reassurances to Canada soft-pedaling Mr. Obama’s tough
talk on Nafta.
On Monday, a memorandum surfaced, obtained by The Associated
Press, showing that Austan D. Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the
University of Chicago who is Mr. Obama’s senior economic policy
adviser, met officials last month at the Canadian consulate in Chicago.
According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political
and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them
that Mr. Obama’s protectionist stand on the trail was “more reflective
of political maneuvering than policy.”
It also said the professor had assured the Canadians that Mr. Obama’s
language “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a
clear articulation of policy plans.”
This is what I think. Obama has to respond to the fact trade
policy is broken and destructive. NAFTA is well known and is the
surrogate for a broader debate. Goolsbee is a wacko free trader,
probably fears being labeled a heretic by his wacko free trader
economic peers, and is under much pressure because the trade issue is becoming
the "third rail."
The Obama campaign is issuing denials:
“At no point did anyone in our campaign convey to anyone that
there had been any backing away from Obama’s position on Nafta,” a
campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, said Monday.
And again:
Mr. Burton issued another strong denial, although he declined to
respond to a question about Professor Goolsbee’s discussions with
Canadian officials.
You probably can't deny your way out of this. Cut the losses. Goolsbee has become a
liability. The day of the free traders has come and gone.
National economic policy must dominate, and trade policy must be
changed to serve national interests.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed