At last! From Corvallis! A real reporter!
T.A. Barnhart
From the Corvallis Gazette-Times online, we have a reporter (Matt Neznanski) asking, gasp, real questions about real issues!
Just after Barack Obama’s campaign stop in Albany Friday, Gazette-Times reporter Matt Neznanski had five minutes to ask questions one-on-one of the candidate. Here is a transcription of that conversation.Gazette-Times: You talked today about renewable energy. Oregon and western states use hydroelectric power a lot. It’s clean, it’s renewable, but we see that there are problems that come with it in the collapse of our fishing industry off the coast. How do we strike a balance for our need for energy and the environment, and what can the executive branch do help guide us?
...
Gazette-Times: Senator Clinton was in Portland this morning talking about health care. Difference in plans aside, what’s the likelihood that health care is something that we can tackle and work to solve in the next term and how do we get there?
...
Gazette-Times: You grew up living in different countries and different regions of the United States.What do you bring from that experience that might shape how you approach domestic and foreign policy?
To read Sen Obama's answers to Matt's questions, read the full story at the Gazette-Times website.
And here's hoping some of them there big city reporters pay them some attention. Thanks, Matt, for one more reason for Oregonians to feel proud.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
May 9, '08
Real journalism, what a concept! He will never get a job on ABC news with that approach.
May 9, '08
Interesting to hear him talk about the gas tax that Clinton has proposed - kinda seems like he hasn't even read it. She proposes: -Imposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies and using the money to suspend the gas tax for the peak summer months -Closing the $7.5 billion in oil and gas loopholes and using the funds to provide assistance to lower-income families to pay their energy and grocery bills. -Cracking down on speculation by energy traders and market manipulation in oil and gas markets that are driving up the price of oil by at least $20 a barrel -Pressuring OPEC to increase oil production, including by filing a WTO complaint against OPEC countries -Stopping new additions to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and standing ready to realease oil to counter market spikes and reduce volatility.
The second bullet being my favorite.
But that's all just a "DC trick," right? Just like the Obama people tried to convince us that having a debate is a "DC trick." Kinda seems like everything Clinton does these days is a "DC trick." So far I've heard his campaign say that about 3 different things Clinton has proposed. I don't see anywhere in this article where Obama talks about his yes vote on the Cheney engery bill or his taking of money from oil companies even though he claimed that he didn't.
9:27 p.m.
May 9, '08
you know Katy, i passed along what a reporter did in Corvallis that none of the national press seems able to do: ask a substantive question about the issues. Hillary has suffered from the pathetic behavior of the press as much as Obama -- and much more, going back to her time in Arkansas.
and what do you do? attack Obama. you've whined at the content in BO being biased against Hillary, attacking her -- and you can't even stop your attacks for 2 seconds to commend this young man in Corvallis for showing what journalism is meant to be. in 5 short minutes, he did more than that horrific ABC debate.
what's the point of your unsubstantiated charges against Obama? what purpose does it serve to lash out in a post that is meant to celebrate a rare, and local, act of intelligent journalism? how about next time, instead of dragging your junk into a piece that commends another human being for doing a good job, you try and find something appropriate to say? because this dose of disrespect is pretty unpleasant.
May 9, '08
Katy,
Hillary is on her "This is Spinal Tap" tour - where Spinal Tap takes second billing to a puppet show. She only pulled 550 when expecting 1000 today?
May 9, '08
Sorry TA, nothing I said was "unsubstantiated" as you claim. You posted an article and I commented on the content, I was unclear that we were only to post about the journalist. Here I thought I was allowed to express my opinion about Obama's responses to the questions. Silly me! Oh, and thank you so much for saying I'm "whining" when I write about the candidate I've chosen to vote for and support. Seems like Democracy to me, but again, that's probably just me "whining" again.
10:37 p.m.
May 9, '08
well, Katy, the post was about journalism and how amazing it was to see some actually practiced in this campaign. all you did was find a few words in the rest of the article that let you attack Obama and make accusations. of course you are free to do that. don't tell me you are commenting on what i wrote, though. i may support Obama but i'm not stupid.
May 9, '08
Oh for crying out loud, I never called you stupid. You, however, felt perfectly comfortable with calling me a whiner.
May 9, '08
I think Matt's question about hydro-electric energy and its impact on the fishing industry to be one of the more interesting questions I've seen asked of Obama.
I agree that Matt is a "real" reporter who put some questions of pertinent value and concern to the PNW to Obama.
Katy, in regard to your statements about Clinton... I agree that they are out of place in this particular piece about real journalism as it relates to a particular reporter's questions of Obama. Especially given that Obama's comments about Clinton's proposed summer gas tax break were not made in response to the reporter's questions. But, rather,were made in his speech in Albany before the reporter met with him.
May 9, '08
Bill Clinton will be in Baker City Sunday. I have a post up.
May 9, '08
TA, I also enjoyed reading the Oregonian's liveblog. :) He's like the Beatles, man! British invasion!
When Obama approached the people ringing the track, their eyes widened, girls shrieked and people nearly trembled. This must have been what the Beatles felt like.
"Have you ever seen anything like this?" Wu asked, shaking his head. http://blog.oregonlive.com/elections/obamavisit2008/
11:22 p.m.
May 9, '08
T.A. and Katy,
Can't we even manage to talk about two things at once? That share a common thread? Wow. I can't wait till this fucking primary's over.
I'm interested, by the way, in what both of you are saying. But I could use a little less ego with the substance you're delivering. Both of you. Geesh.
11:27 p.m.
May 9, '08
telling people to set aside their ego is a big egotistical, Pete. but i'm glad to be here so you can scold me. anything to help you survive the brutal ordeal you've suffered in this primary.
and i missed the fucking part. was there porn?
11:36 p.m.
May 9, '08
Katy, the gas-tax holiday IS an ineffectual political gimmick. First, it would never pass. Second, there is ZERO mechanism to even try and force the saving get passed on. So you do nothing to lower the price at the pump, and the "windfall profit" tax at best, is simply offset by the difference the drop in cost the removal of the tax the oil companies pay (and will not pass along at the pump) because they have zero incentive too, and actually because of said windfall profit tax she is purposing, and every incentive to NOT pass along the savings.
May 10, '08
Katy, just because someone proposes something that doesn't mean it will pass. Too many of us have lived through an excellent idea badly implemented.
May 10, '08
Nice questions, but he forgot two:
How do you feel about nuclear power, a "clean" energy source?
Did you take Economics 101 in college? If so, did they teach you that the "fair trade" demagoguery your party is pandering with now is both economically and morally utterly corrupt?
May 10, '08
Keeeripes Katy,
Hillary can't find a single economist to back the idea, the only pols that like it are either Republican or her backers, and finally the tax itself amounts to a hill of spit savings if all of it were realized. All of it. Is it a DC trick? I don't know if it is or not, certainly it is a NY Senator's bad idea backed by an AZ Republican with a whole lot of bad ideas.
Hillary is responsible for her suggestions, Hillary is responsible for her actions and her votes. She is responsible for her words. Oddly enough, the Obama campaign hasn't made her take responsibility for her law practice, boards (walmart) she's sat on, statements for companies she's made, her past associates, outright lies (Bosnia), criminal fundraisers, it's a long list of crap that's been left alone and you don't like how she's been treated???
Let's try her take on AP's story, "working, hardworking white people, whites without a college education..." goddam George Wallace couldn't have gone that one much better. That's not even dog whistle race pandering. But Hillary is the victim. Your rough tough fightin' woman is the victim? There's a direct contradiction in terms. Are you a victim?
No kidding Obmama gets 90% of the black vote, the Clintons have said what they said, no fake quotes, their words on tape, and they played politics in AK long enough to know all the codes, all the slights, all of it and could easily have avoided them and probably have kept a good chunk of that vote. What is your idea? That blacks are so racist that 90% vote skin? Oh absolutely they'll hear the crap quicker than a white who hasn't had to deal with it most of his life, but that doesn't mean their imaginations run amok.
You are certainly getting to vote for your candidate and you've repeatedly had your say and yet you act as though you've been kicked. You've been on this po' po' pitiful me kick for months, your candidate says stuff and people don't buy, that is how it goes in politics. A bunch of pretty darn good men have already been kicked to the curb in this campaign, your candidate is still in there kicking, you've sure had your fair shake. She hasn't won. Her chances are real slim. She started out way ahead of everybody else and she's not getting there, that's her, not everybody else, it is her and it is the nature of politics that you can do everything you can and still lose. Then you've got to figure out where your principles lie, what do you do then?
May 10, '08
Oh, and thank you so much for saying I'm "whining" when I write about the candidate I've chosen to vote for and support.
Why do I feel like I'm at a Blazer game when the Lakers are down by 15 with 40 seconds left, Kobe is on the line shooting a free throw and some jackass in a Kobe jersey and white Laker cap turned to the side with a straight brim is standing up and shouting MVP?
Katy, In the words of the Blazers fans when the Lakers are down 15 with 40 seconds left... "it's all over (clap clap clap) it's all over."
Hillary is done. She has lost and she will bow out soon after Oregon. Basically today she said white people won't vote for Obama so they should vote for her. You're really ok with that? Really? I personally think that the white people that wouldn't vote for a black man are the same white people that wouldn't vote for a woman but that's just me. Please tell me if you think I'm wrong or what Hillary actually meant by saying white people wouldn't vote for Obama. She's just been put in the Strom Thurmond bag of idiots for me unless she issues some sort of giant retraction.
Here is reality. Without the black demographic Hillary can't win solid Democrats. If somehow she pulls a backroom deal to win the nomination she will lose to John McCain...handily.
So Katy, how do you expect Hillary to win when 1/4 of the Democratic base isn't going to vote for her if the Dem superdelegates screw their candidate by voting for Hillary? Why would we throw away 1/4 of our base that I personally really enjoy having because Hillary really wants to be President and is willing to throw nuclear bombs at her opponent for the chance.
Hillary offers nothing more than a Presidential win of 51% to 49%. That's her ceiling. She could win...barely. I'm not convinced that chance is still there now. I pictue most of the country laughing at her. It's a lot tougher than an eloquent amazing and young candidate pitted against the corpse of John McCain. Just suck it up and vote for Barack.
May 10, '08
UPO:
I took some time to look back through my economics textbooks. None of them mention Democratic pandering. None of them mention moral corruption either.
I suspect that, like many conservatives, you've confused economics with religion. I also suspect that, like most conservatives I talked to, you haven't actually studied economics; you just have a "common sense" approach based on a few articles of faith you received from right-wing pundits.
May 10, '08
Bob Herbert writes today in the NY Times about the Clinton's problem with a graceful exit. "The Seeds of Destruction" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
May 10, '08
Obama responded to the following substantive questions with "Hope! Change! Yes we can!". A starry-eyed crowd roared.
May 10, '08
Katy--We are living through the days of rapidly rising crude-oil cost because supply cannot keep up with demand. The world is running out of easily tapped oil. The known reserves that remaining are harder and harder to extract--think the Alberta tar sands, for example. Perhaps intervention by super-intelligent space aliens, or Divine Providence, can change this, but suspending the federal gas tax, pressuring OPEC, stopping speculative trading, and so on cannot change the fact that petroleum is a finite resource. No disrespect to Senator Clinton, but sometimes policy is irrelevant, and this is one of those times. It would be far more useful to hear candidates talking honestly with voters about this situation and flogging research into alternative energy sources BIG TIME.
May 10, '08
Katy--We are living through the days of rapidly rising crude-oil cost because supply cannot keep up with demand. The world is running out of easily tapped oil. The known reserves that remaining are harder and harder to extract--think the Alberta tar sands, for example. Perhaps intervention by super-intelligent space aliens, or Divine Providence, can change this, but suspending the federal gas tax, pressuring OPEC, stopping speculative trading, and so on cannot change the fact that petroleum is a finite resource. No disrespect to Senator Clinton, but sometimes policy is irrelevant, and this is one of those times. It would be far more useful to hear candidates talking honestly with voters about this situation and flogging research into alternative energy sources BIG TIME.
May 10, '08
"What is your idea? That blacks are so racist that 90% vote skin?"
====
Pretty much.
Any other thoughts on why one demographic group would skew so far to one of two candidates, when the difference between the two candidates are politically indistinguishable?
The difference between Hillary and Barack are not political, but mainly experience and skin color. For almost all blacks to disregard the former and base their decision mainly on the latter is pure prejudiced.
What did MLK say? "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
MLK was correct. Unlike 90% of today's blacks who vote based 'the color of their skin'.
9:10 a.m.
May 10, '08
If the differences between Clinton and Obama are not political, one can hardly blame African-Americans from voting out of inspiration that, finally, there might be a Black President in this country. Are you so harsh in your judgment of women voting for Clinton because, finally, there might be a woman President?
And Clinton's "experience" remains that of one Senate term more than Obama, none of his political experience at the state level, and never having been challenged in an election by a credible candidate.
May 10, '08
Differences between the candidates? Temperment, personality, approach to problem solving, ideas and leadership qualities. Reflect on the differences. Who is more likely to unify the masses to work together for the common good? My ballot gets dropped off today.
May 10, '08
Wow, Katy sure is getting more than her rational share of vindictive swipes here. Maybe y'all should try to figure out how much this senseless backbiting is affecting the NAV's who are pretty much deciding that the best choice between your two hopefuls is - NEITHER.
May 10, '08
Larry:
How do you explain that 90% of blacks did not vote for Jesse Jackson? How do you explain that 90% of blacks did not vote for Al Sharpton?
Clearly there are other factors involved than race.
10:00 a.m.
May 10, '08
Katy,
Thank you for posting what you did. As someone who has cast my vote for Obama I nonetheless found what you posted interesting.
Actually I think that on this one Hillary has caused some of her own problems. She has been leading the the "tax holiday" stuff, which really is a gimmick that doesn't work for consumers because the middle-men rake it off.
The other parts of the program that she lays out are more interesting, particularly if the captured revenues could be turned to helping us move away from oil dependence.
Part of the oil price rise is driven by the falling dollar so policies that would affect that in the longer run will matter more.
Part of the oil price rise is driven by middle east uncertainties. On, this Hillary bears some blame for her irresponsible bellicosity toward Iran, which lends credence to Bush saber-rattling. I had planned to abstain in the primary, but I voted for Obama because I felt I had to oppose a politician who is willing to play political games with threats of nuclear genocide and "obliterating" other countries.
Also her racial remarks in the last few days, particularly the implication that it is only white people who are the hard working people in America probably would have led to vote for Obama, if I hadn't already voted.
But I have to say that both things in some ways made me really sad. The racial stuff I think is out of character and must reflect really bad political advice (which apparently she's been getting a lot of -- there are reports from credible sources that Mark Penn thought California was winner-take-all on delegates and built the campaign plan around that error). And the bellicosity, while fairly consistent with Hillary, so that perhaps it really does reflect her deep down approach, also I fear may be driven by her need to respond to one of a number of unfair double standards she faces as woman.
There was a phase of the campaign when some eloquent feminist supporters of Clinton were pointing those out with a great deal of truth in my view. I am not as taken with Obama as many of his supporters and at the point John Edwards dropped out I was genuinely undecided with abstention in the mix.
But it also is true that Obama faces double standards, and the willingness of sections of Hillary's supporters (around here, not you, not Chris Corbell, but some others who outnumber you, often anonymously) to engage in Muslim-baiting, slanders of various sorts and race-baiting around Jeremiah Wright ultimately made it impossible for me.
Anyway, since T.A. asked us to go look at Obama's answers I don't think responding about them is out of line, and I don't notice anyone taking the Uberplanning Urbanlord to task for doing the same.
May 10, '08
The link has expired; I found the interview transcript at: Obama Q & A
I find substantive questions with honest answers refreshing in political, or for that matter any, journalism.
May 10, '08
You're right, Barnhart, Neznanski did do very fine in the five minutes that were available. I don't think any national reporter would have done better. I believe he would have done the same professional job with any other candidate.
May 10, '08
I'll take this opportunity to thank Rick Taylor for sending readers my way, BJ has sent the sitemeter spinning. Small blogs, particulary political ones, have problems attracting readers, so any notice on active blogs is appreciated by us low tier folks. BJ and BlueOregon are the biggest political blogs I frequent, my preference for smaller blogs is based partly on my membership and also on basis of looking for out of mainstream views. (that's saying something in blogostan)
May 10, '08
Katy. Senator Clinton would say absolutely anything to get the nomination. That is the problem. There is not one thing she says that I believe except that she very, very, very badly wants to be President.
May 10, '08
Hillary Clinton has a Universal Health Care plan and all American should feel proud of Her.
She has a good health insurance as a Senator, but she is fighting for millions of people in this country without Health insurance.
Thank you God for Hillary ideas and hard work for our country. God bless Hillary Clinton God Bless America.
Alberto Borges
May 10, '08
Hillary can be a lightning rod in the Senate to join the Obama Administration in repealing much of the Bush legacy. She has run a valiant race but came up short against an unexpectedly inspirational candidate. We need strength across the board in dealing with the Bush aftermath. An inspirational leader is a start, but a powerful ally in Congress is a necessity as well. Let's hope they mend their differences and present a united front to prevent McCain from continuing the tyranny of Cheney/Bush.
7:12 p.m.
May 10, '08
You know, I'd really like to see a followup from "Larry" or anyone else who keeps dropping the line that the black turnout for Obama reflects "racism" and then ducking the responses.
Bert made the cogent point that other black candidates have not received anything like Obama's level of support. How does that jibe with the "racism" theory? Is Jesse Jackson less black than Barack Obama or have black voters suddenly turned more "racist"?
Genop made the point about all the other differences between the candidates beyond their policy positions. Doesn't all the highly charged support for Hillary put the lie to the assertion that there's no difference between them? Or are you claiming that Hillary's white supporters are also only supporting her because she's white?
It's likely that those white people who say they won't vote for a black man never have voted for a black man. That's pretty clearly a racist sentiment. But many of the black voters who are now voting for Obama have obviously voted for white people before. Bill Clinton, to pick a not-so-random example, won the votes of a lot of those people who are currently voting for Barack Obama.
We're now about a third of the way through our third century as a country and every single President of the United States up to now has been a white man. Is it really racist for a black person to feel that if you have two very well qualified candidates they'd like to see the black man in that role for once? Is it really sexist for a woman to feel that if you have two very well qualified candidates they'd like to see the woman in that role for once? I don't think the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would have any problem with either of those feelings or the votes that might result from them.
May 10, '08
What about the generational factor? Someone I met recently has been doing volunteer work in the local Obama office and remarked on the youth of the folks in the office.
May 10, '08
As I wrote upthread:
"What did MLK say? "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
<h1>MLK was correct. Unlike 90% of today's blacks who vote based 'the color of their skin'."</h1>I was correct. Better to hear from somebody else.
Since I am not a black, I can't speak as well on this topic as a black woman. Goes by the name of dramachick.
Here are her words:
"I'm a black woman, and I can never forgive Obama and his supporters for labeling the Clintons racists when they know good and well that's not true. Words cannot describe how offended I am that Obama thinks I owe him my vote simply because of the color of his skin. No thank you. I've never voted for an unqualified person for anything, and I'm not about to start now. I'm with the candidate who has real plans, real solutions and will get things done, and that's Hillary Clinton."
See the url: http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/05/candidates.html
dramachick, the 9th comment.
9:46 p.m.
May 10, '08
Well said, Doretta. It's not just Bill. Part of the reason Hillary was the apparently prohibitive front-runner for so long was that she had huge poll margins among black voters, especially in the high black population southern states. They wanted to vote for someone who they believed could win as their first consideration. That's why super-ds like John Lewis (recently switched) were out for Hillary as well
Once Obama became plausible, other kinds of considerations came in. One way I look at it, in addition to agreeing with what you've said, is that black voters have been such a reliable constituency for the Democrats, the party ought to recognize that, if there's a strong black candidate who can win. I think something very much the same applies in the case of women who take gender identification into account in supporting Clinton, and in both cases it seems legitimate to me.
May 10, '08
Hillary Clinton will be our next president.
Hillary best candidate. Oregonian should vote for Hillary.
Alberto Borges
May 10, '08
Hillary Clinton will be our next president.
I wish Hillary Clinton a happy mothers day.
God bless America God bless Hillary Clinton
Alberto Borges
12:35 a.m.
May 11, '08
Congratulations, Larry, you and "dramachick" have mastered the use of the "strawman" fallacy. And let's not overlook "appeal to authority", in re the claim that dramachick is a black woman. And darn, I almost left out "misuse of statistics" given your patently absurd claim that if 90% of black people vote for a black candidate that means every one of them voted for him only because he's black.
Back here in reality, Obama has never called the Clintons "racists" nor has he implied that anyone owes him a vote due to the color of his (or their) skin. Back here in reality, promoting colorblindness as the ideal via an appeal to authority based on a person's purported blackness is laughable. Back here in reality, when a large number of people vote for someone you can be assured that they have many and varied reasons for doing so.
That you hide behind those comments rather than addressing the questions/points I listed makes me wonder why anyone should even consider taking you seriously.
If you are capable of doing more than making stuff up and then arguing against it or repeating unsupported and laughable suppositions, now's the time to show it.
8:56 a.m.
May 11, '08
Back here in reality, Obama has never called the Clintons "racists" nor has he implied that anyone owes him a vote due to the color of his (or their) skin.
Right on the money Doretta, as is your dissection of the previous comments.
He hasn't, and I don't think that they are personally racists either, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us are idiots. The Clintons and their surrogates somehow imagine that the use of clearly racist innuendo should be given a pass and that we will not concede to them.
<hr/>I'm ready to go for a draft of Hillary for Senate Majority Leader, to replace the insubstantial and wispy Mr. Reid.
Their behavior is not helping........
May 11, '08
Doretta has got to be a writing instructor considering the way she picked apart Larry's logical fallacies!
Maybe it's time we all quit taking other people's opinions for granted, and slinging accusations about voting motivated by sex or skin color, and simply acknowledge that people's motivations for their vote can be complex.
May 11, '08
What does it say about our culture that Obama is 1/2 "white" by blood, was mostly raised by his "white" mother and "white" grand parents, but he is "black" in our collective mind?
May 11, '08
It says that Obama feels he is mostly black and thus is as black as he wants to be. But if he was to emphasize his 'whiteness' as much as he did his 'blackness', then the black community, led by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others of like-mindedness would declare him 'not black enough'.
In fact they did label him such early on, but when they saw that he actually could win, they stopped their racist language of how Obama was not 'black enough' nor a real African American because he did not perform enough race-baiting like Jesse and Al.
Too bad Obama could not speak as eloquently of his own racial make up as well as Tiger Woods speaks of his racial heritage.
May 11, '08
Hello Chris Lowe....
Since I know from earlier posts, you have studied african american history, can you enlighten everyone on Black Liberation Theology; specifically, the Black Value System ? (For those that don't know, this is Obamas religion.)
My opinion is that Hillary is not racist. She simple was indicating what the press was saying; that Obama wasn't getting the blue-collar white voters now, as he had earlier and that was part of the base of the democratic party. This is part of the demographic polling, is it not ?
For the other participate that voiced that this race is over...you are WRONG. This is a voter-suppression tactic. Obamas' campaign is using it in West Virginia and Kentucky also.
There is only one of the last 6, Oregon, were Obama is leading. He is trying to short-circuit the system; like the almighty democratic elite calling for Clinton to quit; have been doing for quite awhile.
The little gas-tax debate, oh yea, no debate for Oregon; was voted on three times in 2000, in Illinois, by Obama; which seems a little hypocritical now.
May 12, '08
Hey, one of my two questions got asked! And Obama gave a good answer (for nuclear power if the waste disposal issue can be resolved).
Bert Lowry: Try some reading - here are some on the benefits of free trade:
In Defense of Globalization by Jhaddish Baghwati
Why Globalization Works by Martin Wolf
The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities by Jeffrey Sachs
Globalization and It's Discontents AND Making Globalization Work AND Fair Trade for All by Joseph Stiglitz - a critic of current free trade agreements but also a big critic of protectionism and nativism
Development as Freedom by Amartya Sen
None of these books are written by right-wing ideologues.
I would also recommend a subscription to The Economist, which is also a critic of American free trade agreements - because they are bilateral and not world-wide. While economically doctrinaire, their arguments are quite persuasive, and unlike some, they do not combine economic freedom with political repression.