Colleague 1: So how did your debate in San Diego go?
Me: Fine.
Colleague 2: Who were you debating?
Me: Dick Schmalensee--but it wasn't much of a debate.
Colleague 3: Why not? Dick can be ferocious--he's very quick on his feet, and always very well prepared.
Me: Because this year he's voting for Kerry.
Colleague 1: Huh.
Colleague 2: Former George H. W. Bush Council of Economic Advisers member Dick Schmalensee is voting for Kerry?
Me: What's strange about that? You're voting for Kerry.
Colleague 3: I wasn't a subcabinet appointee for George H. W. Bush.
Me: George W. Bush is not George H.W. Bush.
Colleague 1: What pushed him over the edge?
Me: He was most exercised about the Bushies failure to take any steps to fix electricity markets--he really believes that properly-structured electricity markets could work very well and be a very good thing, you know--that and Iraq.
Colleague 2: Bush policy failures in electricity markets rank fifteenth or so in reasons to vote against the Bush administration.
Colleague 1: Iraq, Tora Bora, the trashing of our alliances, the deficit, the tax cut...
Colleague 3: Wimping out on entitlement spending, the steel tariff, global warming, the farm bill...
Colleague 2: The Medicare drug benefit that was little other than a large transfer of money from taxpayers to the executives and shareholders of pharmaceutical companies...
Colleague 1: Civil liberties, Abu Ghraib, fuzzy math...
Colleague 2: So what did you do?
Me: We debated whether, on economic policy, George W. Bush has governed from the right or from someplace out in the Gamma Quadrant. We shouted down questioners who wanted us to find *something* good in the Bush economic record. (We did have good words for Mark McClellan at the FDA streamlining drug approval procedures, and for Tim Muris at the FTC.) We agreed that we were glad we were not health care economists and thus did not have the job of finding ways to put downward pressure on medical costs without compromising quality of care, because neither of us is confident he understands very much about how to do that. We speculated on why the Bush administration has turned out so badly--especially as Schmalensee knows and has enormous respect for almost all of the high Bush appointees. We talked to ourselves as economists do--probably over the heads of the audience. It was fun. I wish that the University of California at San Diego would post the video...
Colleague 3: So of the 1000 or so subcabinet appointees of George H.W. Bush... How many do you think are voting for Kerry this November?
Me: Of George W. Bush's cabinet appointees, how many are voting for Kerry? I really cannot see Colin Powell, Paul O'Neill, or Christie Todd Whitman in the privacy of the voting booth voting for Bush. And from the subcabinet, I'm having a very hard time envisioning Anne Krueger, Ken Dam, Peter Fisher, Rich Clarida, or Randy Kroszner voting for Bush. I have a hard time envisioning anyone even half-briefed on the current situation and on Bush's policies voting for Bush...
Posted by DeLong at October 12, 2004 08:28 AM | TrackBackBrad: It sounds like it was fun -- I wish I had been there to see it!
Posted by: Kash at December 31, 1969 04:11 PMI think you mean Paul O'Neill won't be voting for Bush. Somehow I think John O'Neill will be voting for Bush. In fact, at this point I think John O'Neill would vote for Stalin if he were running against John Kerry.
Posted by: Steve Carr at October 12, 2004 08:39 AMThough there's also John O'Neill, former counterterrorism official, who sadly will not be voting for everyone.
Posted by: Matt Weiner at October 12, 2004 09:16 AM"I wish that the University of California at San Diego would post the video... "
Have you made this request of them? UCSD does post videos of some of thier talks.
Posted by: Rob Sperry at October 12, 2004 10:09 AMColin Powell, Paul O'Neill, Christie Todd Whitman, Anne Krueger, Ken Dam, Peter Fisher, Rich Clarida and Randy Kroszner are all about to get phone calls. Bremer type calls. Loyalty-check calls. All thanks to Brad.
Posted by: kharris at October 12, 2004 11:21 AMGood questions! Would be lovely to know how Bush's nearest and dearest will vote. Even better would be watching 50 or 60 of his closest colleagues declaring themselves pro-Kerry before November 2. "Laura for the Johns." "Poppy for Kerry."
Not quite is good is the bumper sticker which has cropped up here in Texas: Another[italicized] Republican for Kerry-Edwards.
Posted by: Bean at October 12, 2004 11:40 AMDelong: "George W. Bush is not George H.W. Bush."
". . . grant that men shall say of him,
'He is a far worse man than his father.'"
Hopefully, on Nov. 2, the American people will throw this son from the ramparts.
Posted by: Kumarian at October 12, 2004 12:31 PMSo... is George H. W. pretty much the high point of the Bush family? From my understanding, Prescott wasn't great either.
Posted by: Julian Elson at October 12, 2004 02:22 PMIf your speculation about these voters is correct, it would be a fine act by any of them to announce their decision to vote for Kerry.
I wouldn't expect Powell or others still in government to do so, but what about Whitman and Paul O'Neill? Yes, it's difficult, but if they honestly believe Bush's reelection would is undesirable perhaps they have some obligation to say so.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at October 12, 2004 03:00 PMJulian Elson wrote, "From my understanding, Prescott wasn't great either."
IIRC he came out against the Vietnam War early enough to have gained some honor.
Posted by: liberal at October 12, 2004 03:35 PMBrad,
Bless you for posting these comments.
My UCSD informant (Roger) says UCSD.TV should have this debate online within two weeks.
Go to http://www.ucsd.tv/
and check "video on-demand."
Richard
Posted by: Richard in Cambridge at October 12, 2004 08:03 PMYour safe Online Pharmacy
Posted by: Your safe Online Pharmacy at October 13, 2004 12:00 AMBean wrote: Good questions! Would be lovely to know how Bush's nearest and dearest will vote. Even better would be watching.... "Laura for the Johns."...
Ask and ye shall receive: http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/politics/61658
(OK, not exactly an "authoritative source," but....)