Centerfield

I just had to comment on these statements:

1- Every candidate on stage last night agreed on one issue, the US must hold its trading partners accountable to International Standards of Wage, Conditions, and Competition. Dean was misquoted by Lieberman during the attack say that Dean only supported American Standards. The fact is Dean does not hold this position. Correctly reporting this to the readers of this site is the fair and Centrist thing to do, not toe the line of Joe Lieberman and discount the measured response which Dean provided which included the correction on the specific quote.

2- Every American is for the Return of Troops home. He does not however advocate the immediate withdrawl of the troops. If you'd spend 2 minutes reading any of his speechs, you'll see that he has been advocating the position, which only now the Bush administration is taking up, to internationalize the effort and allow for the troops to rotate out of Iraq and return home. In order to do this, we'd need significant numbers of International Troops to be stationed in Iraq, and Dean is clear in pushing first for Egyptian, Pakistani, and Moroccan troops to take those positions. This is the smartest policy to pursue right now. A boot in the neck of the Arab community is not the policy needed, as neither is an increase in troops. We are already stretched to our limit. Dean is very clear on his poisition:

Internationalization of Effort
Increase in International Troops
Retainment of US Command of US Troops
Healing wounds at UN
Seeing the war through and winning the peace

I wish that in the future, before you jump on a few of Dean's words, you familiarize yourself with his actual positions. I don't expect you to be a Dean expert, but if you'll write an article, you owe it to your readers to be informed.

First, on trade. Dean was quoted two weeks ago by Washington Post columnist Fred Hiatt as adopting a position that is, for all practical purposes, anti-free trade. He said we'll have trade deals only with countries that have the same labor and environmental standards as the U.S. -- which would ultimately include no countries, as Lieberman pointed out. And he's quoted as directly attacking NAFTA and the WTO.

Here's a link to Hiatt's column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40299-2003Aug24.html

Dean then made a statement during the debate that seemed to reflect this position (which I quoted in my post). And Lieberman called him on it.

You may wish to credit Dean with a consistent position that calls for *international* standards. But it looks to me like Dean intentionally adopted a more aggressive, semi-protectionist stance just recently.

He's playing politics on the trade issue to placate liberals. And that's directly counter to the centrist, New Democrat tradition.

His position on Iraq is also a bit muddy. On the one hand, he has previously called for more American troops in Iraq. And he has publicly embraced the nation-building mission there and the need to see it through.

As you point out, he has also (quite rightly) called for more foreign troops, especially from countries in the region who's presence might be far more palatable than ours. But then he made the dramatic statement last night about our troops coming home.

This is an especially bad time to be talking publicly about bringing the troops home. Events of the last few weeks have really deepened the crisis there, dramatically increasing the possibility that various factions in Iraq will oppose us militarily. This is a moment when those groups are trying to gauge our resolve.

And, honestly, it is utterly impractical to be thinking right now in terms of lowering the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. Even if other countries join us, it's quite unlikely they'll contribute enough troops for us to actually lower our commitment.

His statement is both impractical and poorly timed. He deserved to be criticized for it. Someone better impress on him the need to stay away from "withdrawal" type rhetoric. Because the knock on him from the Republicans will be that he's too liberal and/or too weak on foreign policy. And those statements play right into it.

Reading the actual Washington Post article which you posted, and can read by clicking my name, I notice that it actually answers both of your concerns. The actual passage in question on Trade states:

One multilateral institution that might not fare so well in a Dean administration, though, is the World Trade Organization. In what would be a radical departure, China and other countries could get trade deals with the United States only if they adopted "the same labor laws and labor standards and environmental standards" as the United States. Whether or not that demand was consistent with WTO rules? "That's right." With no concession to their relative level of development? "Why should there be? They have the right to have a middle class same as everyone else."

As THE UNITED STATES: That was not spoken by Dean, it would have been quoted. I suggest we withhold full criticism until the writer qualifies why he supposed AS THE US rather than as Int'l Standards. It may be a misunderstanding on the part of the writer for all we know. Additionally, the fact remains that the current policies of trade are not only stripping the manufacturing class of jobs, but now White Collar jobs are leaving in mass. Dean will not push for a radical change, he will push for the changes which the Democratic Platform will reflect. He believes as they all do in fair trade standards. He believes in protecting workers, and encouraging small businesses, which don't send jobs overseas. Joe got it wrong, and you did to. Dean never said American Standards, the writer of that article did.

As to the foreign policy situation, read the remainder of that article. It does as good a job as I've seen of outlining Dean's Foreign Policy stance, which you are now so criticizing.

Why did you chose to cite one small portion of the article while overlooking the remainder which spelled out Dean's entire stance on Foreign policy?

Steve, I think Dean's perspective on trade in the Hiatt article is pretty clear. While the "United States" part is outside of quotes, he goes on to quote Dean as saying that NAFTA and the WTO haven't worked -- that they haven't created jobs. Every centrist New Democrat I know of goes around saying NAFTA created jobs.

Hiatt clearly understood Dean's views to be "a radical departure". A departure from what? The free trade legacy that was nurtered so prominently by New Democrats.

I agree with you that this isn't Dean's *real position*. He has quite a record in Vermont of supporting free trade agreements. And his formal statements don't reflect that sort of protectionist rhetoric. I point to it as an example where he seems to be playing politics -- refitting his real views with the kind of rhetoric that plays to the left.

My point on foreign policy is similar. He's carefully staked out a policy that is (in my view) responsible -- emphasizing the need to follow through with our commitment and to accept the required sacrificies.

Then, in the midst of a debate, he takes other Democrats to task for suggesting we need to send more troops (a position he himself has taken). And he makes quite a dramatic remark about bringing the troops home.

A certain portion of the left believes precisely that -- that we should just pull out and bring the boys home. I wonder if his rhetoric is designed to position him well with that crowd.

We could probably test that theory, by the way. He's out there speaking to rallies every day, and I just wonder if "our troops need to come home" has found its way into the stump speech.

If not, and it's a one-time event, then I apologize for suggesting otherwise.

Interesting new piece in Slate.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2087877/

On the trade issue:

"Dean counters by insisting that trade agreements need mere "international standards," not American standards, on labor and the environment. But that's not what he told the Washington Post (as the Lieberman campaign helpfully points out in its release) on Aug. 25. More important from my perspective, it's the exact opposite of what Dean told me when I rode with him in July on his campaign van in Iowa. When I asked Dean if he meant just general "standards" or "American standards," he insisted that he would demand that other countries adopt the exact same labor, environmental, health, and safety standards as the United States. But the audience wasn't riding with me, and they rally to Dean in his time of need, applauding wildly. Lieberman is left to lamely reply, "That's a reassuring change of position."