That is the apt title used by Tyler Cowen in post at MR . I saw no reason to change it.

His post is in turn based on a post by my fellow "libertarian-tepidly-for-Obama", Megan McArdle .

Honestly, I've actually been waiting around for this to happen. I think very highly of Goolsbee and have written about him several times. I was wondering when the slimy, deceitful, disgusting process that is campaign politics would start to alienate him and his better judgment from the Obama campaign he's been advising.

Cowen, who is also very dismayed to see Goolsbee shunted as well as seeing Samantha Powers dismissed by the Obama Campaign, gives some good food for thought about all this:

But think about the economics of message discipline. How many people are receiving the message? 300 million, plus some number abroad as well. What kind of messages do these people desire? What must be done to make these messages understandable and then to show that the promise behind the message has been met? Which kinds of advisors will flourish best in a "message consistency" environment? Independent and critical minds, able and willing to speak the truth to power?

And Goolsbee is no lightning rod or radical. I'll take him for prez any day over any of the candidates. But that could never happen. See blog entry title.

Apparently, this whole thing started with the heavy protectionist stumping Obama and Hillary had been engaging in in Ohio. It was bad, bad policy...but good politics for the angry and ignorant. In fact, I would alway ask myself what Goolsbee must be thinking as Obama said bad things about trade. Well, perhaps it was wrong to do so, but it was apparently Goolsbee who went and told Canadian officials to pay no attention to Obama's protectionist rhetoric about NAFTA and that is was just campaigning to please the masses in OH. Politically, it may have been a bad move. But in terms of policy and good policy, he was telling the truth. And I respect him for that.

Says McArdle, who's been sympathetic to Obama:

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.

Let's hope not, Megan.

Of course, if Obama and Hillary were honest with their voters about trade, Goolsbee wouldn't be in that position.

It's tough being a liberal economist. You know things to be true about trade and economic policy that your favorite candidates and fellow liberals simply don't want to hear. Must be frustrating.

Update:

Kling weighs in