Where is the Obama campaign’s renowned hypocrisy when we need it? Austan Goolsbee himself assured us (via a meeting with Canadian officials) that Obama’s NAFTA bashing was just political posturing, not indicative of policy. But now he’s reportedly offering the job of U.S. Trade Representative to a staunch protectionist:
Oddly enough, on October 19, when the L.A. Times endorsed Obama and the nation’s economic downturn had hit full speed, the paper’s endorsement offered no caveats about Obama’s embrace of protectionism and the terrible effects it might have on a flailing economy if enacted. There was a whole paragraph about Sarah Palin’s inadequacies (as the vice-presidential pick of the man they didn’t endorse, this was of paramount importance, no doubt), and a one-line warning about a windfall profits tax (which has already disappeared, thanks to Obama’s reliable rhetorical expiration dates). Nary a word about how their candidate was so wrong on free trade in a time of economic peril that they were actively hoping Obama, qualified by virtue of his “steadiness and maturity” mind you, would flip faster than a flap-jack on the economy as soon as he was in office. That would have been nice to know.
