Kerry Makes Another Big-Issue Mistake

[Larkspur]

by John Nichols
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0930-09.htm

U.S. Sen. John Kerry still looks like a reasonably viable Democratic contender for the presidency. A decorated Vietnam veteran who has served several terms in the U.S. Senate, he has the right resume.

Unfortunately, Kerry has a penchant for getting the really important issues wrong. For instance, he voted for the October 2002 resolution that authorized President Bush to launch a "pre-emptive" war against Iraq. Kerry, who was critical of the administration's rush to war before and after that critical vote, just couldn't get the courage up to join U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and the chairs of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees in voting "no." That failure of will cost Kerry dearly among grass-roots Democrats, providing an opening that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has exploited relentlessly - and effectively.

Now Kerry is making an equally significant mistake. The issue is trade and, as with the war, Kerry is trying to talk a good line while putting himself on precisely the wrong side of the debate.

Kerry is attacking Dean for supporting fair trade proposals that would require U.S. trading partners to establish basic labor and environmental standards. "Governor Dean has said repeatedly that America should not trade with countries that haven't reached our own environmental and labor standards," Kerry grumbled in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club. "I will assure strong labor and environmental standards. But his approach would mean we couldn't sell a single car anywhere in the developing world."

The problem with Kerry's argument is that he is simply wrong. Dean, a former free trader, has started to talk about the need to do more to prevent the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and other countries. Dean wants to write tougher trade deals in order to defend the interests of workers, farmers, consumers and the environment not just in the United States but in the countries that trade with the United States. That's a reasonable standard, with which most Democrats in Congress - and most Americans - agree.
<SNIP>

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. The article simply mischaracterizes Kerry's position.

The basic premise -- that Kerry is in favor of 'free-for-all' free trade -- is simply false.

Third, if we are going to compete with the world for the products of the future – we need to be able to sell them. I believe that trade is essential to our economic future – but free trade doesn’t mean a free ride for those that break the rules. I know that some in Michigan think trade is a bad idea. And with the way the Bush Administration has let foreign countries break the rules and walk all over us, I can’t blame them. But let me put it to you straight: the global economy is here and its here to stay. Our choice is either to win the race for the jobs of the future or to get run over by our competitors.

<snip>

As President, I’ll take on the countries that are manipulating their currency to undermine American exports. These countries are supposed to be playing by the same rules as we do and they’ll feel the full force of our trade laws if they don’t. I will open markets in key export areas for manufacturing – like Japan and China. I will make sure that if we have to lower our tariffs, our competitors have to do the same. We don’t need idle talk – we need action – and we need it now.

I’ll order an immediate 120 day review of all existing trade agreements to ensure our trading partners are living up to their labor and environmental obligations – to make sure these agreements are enforceable and to put us on a level playing field. And I will not sign any new trade agreements until the review is done and its recommendations are in place.

<snip>

Governor Dean has said repeatedly that America should not trade with countries that haven’t reached our own environmental and labor standards. I will assure strong labor and environmental standards, but his approach would mean we couldn’t sell a single car anywhere in the developing world. One hundred years ago this month, Henry Ford sold his first car overseas – to a businessman in South Africa. And it wouldn’t make much sense if America could trade with Africa in 1903, but not in 2003. Those markets mean American jobs.

The unfortunate thing is that Howard Dean knows that what he’s proposing is just not possible and that it would send our economy into a tailspin. Manufacturing workers are right to be worried about their jobs and it is wrong to play on their fears instead of offering them hope for a brighter future. Anger and attacks are all well and good, but when it comes to our jobs we need a President who can build a barn and not just kick it down. Give American workers a level playing field and they can beat workers anywhere else in the world everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. As President, I’m going to give them that chance.
Remarks by Senator John Kerry at the Detroit Economic Club

As you can see, Kerry is not saying we should have free trade with no environmental or labor standards -- just that the 'all or nothing' approach from Dean (sound familiar?) is too extreme.

Don't forget, Kerry is the Senator who sponsored the Kerry Amendment to NAFTA -- read more: http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/fasttrack/kerry_amendment/

[w4rma]

75. I don't think the article mischaracterizes Kerry's position or else

Kerry wouldn't have a reason to attack Dean's position on fair trade. Note that Kerry sided with Lieberman in the debates on this subject, against Dean.

Note that the exporting of American jobs is a priority issue for me.

[DrFunkenstein]

77. Don't Even Try It

"Kerry is attacking Dean for supporting fair trade proposals that would require U.S. trading partners to establish basic labor and environmental standards."

This is deliberately misleading. Kerry is not attacking the desire to "establish basic labor and environmental standards." Dean said specifically American, not "basic" standards. That is a cheap writer's trick, and certainly below the standards of The Nation.

Kerry's argument was either that Dean was ridiculously protectionist, or he was pandering to the unions.

"That's a reasonable standard, with which most Democrats in Congress - and most Americans - agree."

Again, another cheap rhetorical trick. He is suggesting that Kerry does not agree with the "basic" standards, which is not - I repeat not - his argument.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

79. You are being deliberately obtuse

and I ain't buying it.

Nichols: 'Yet Kerry is trying to demagogue the issue, with claims that fair trade would "send our economy into a tailspin."

Kerry: 'The unfortunate thing is that Howard Dean knows that what he’s proposing is just not possible and that it would send our economy into a tailspin.'

The replacement of the words: "what he's proposing" with the words "fair trade" is dishonest I don't believe you can't see that.

[virtualobserver]

2. excellent point

great post

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

60. A "reasonably viable" point, that is.

[blm]

3. Too bad Nichols is spinning through his teeth for Dean.

Does he factor in Kerry's well known FREE but FAIR trade stance? Does he factor in that Kerry is the BEST environmental candidate that this nation has ever fielded?

Kerry intends to be president and USE fast track like Clinton and Gore, but, use it as the best environmentalist and global realist this world has ever experienced.

[Larkspur]

8. Nichols doesn't like Dean

He started out despising Dean, and has come to respect the former Governor from Vermont because of his campaign's ability to organize and build support from the grassroots, but Dean is not Nichols first choice for Dem Prez nominee so saying that Nichols is spinning for Dean is false. I don't know who Nichols favors at this point, probably no one.

Nichols is right in his critique of Kerry's argument in the debate against Dean. Dean's position is to raise the labor standards from slave shop in developing countries to a middle class. Most likely he won't be able to change that over night, but Dean can certainly kee negotiating for it. Building a middle class in developing countries not only makes trade fairer, but makes societies that are more interested in peace than war, and that helps our foreign policy along with our economy.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. For Nichols to be right in his critique of Kerry's position,

he'd have to critique Kerry's actual position, not the one he made up for him.

[Cha]

4. Thanks for this article, Larkspur! I've read John Nichols of "The

Nation" for quite a while now and have come to respect his opinion.

"Yet Kerry is trying to demagogue the issue, with claims that fair trade would "send our economy into a tailspin." How absurd! The U.S. manufacturing economy is already in a tailspin, thanks in no small measure to the free trade policies of the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

The disturbing thing about Kerry's latest pronouncement is that he has made this mistake before.

Just last year, the Massachusetts senator tried to position himself as the leading Senate proponent of measures designed to preserve the ability of American states to protect workers, farmers, the environment and consumers in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement the Bush administration is crafting in closed-door negotiations with other countries in the western hemisphere. While Kerry sounded like a good player, he ended up breaking with fellow Democrats to back Bush's plan to establish a "fast track" process to negotiate the FTAA agreement.

The signals Kerry has sent on trade issues are deeply disturbing. He is starting to sound like 2000 Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore, who tried to talk a pro-worker line but consistently supported the free trade that has devastated the manufacturing and agricultural sectors of the U.S. economy. Gore's shakiness on trade issues caused many working people to cast their ballots for Ralph Nader, a fierce critic of the corporate free trade agenda. Even more working-class voters simply stayed home."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. You've quoted the lie

'Yet Kerry is trying to demagogue the issue, with claims that fair trade would "send our economy into a tailspin." How absurd! '

Not only is it absurd, it is a lie. Kerry has never claimed that 'fair trade would "send our economy into a tailspin."'. By taking a partial quote, and adding the phrase 'fair trade' to it, Nichols has concocted a lie.

What Kerry has said:

Governor Dean has said repeatedly that America should not trade with countries that haven’t reached our own environmental and labor standards. I will assure strong labor and environmental standards, but his approach would mean we couldn’t sell a single car anywhere in the developing world. One hundred years ago this month, Henry Ford sold his first car overseas – to a businessman in South Africa. And it wouldn’t make much sense if America could trade with Africa in 1903, but not in 2003. Those markets mean American jobs.

The unfortunate thing is that Howard Dean knows that what he’s proposing is just not possible and that it would send our economy into a tailspin. Manufacturing workers are right to be worried about their jobs and it is wrong to play on their fears instead of offering them hope for a brighter future. Anger and attacks are all well and good, but when it comes to our jobs we need a President who can build a barn and not just kick it down. Give American workers a level playing field and they can beat workers anywhere else in the world everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. As President, I’m going to give them that chance.
Remarks by Senator John Kerry at the Detroit Economic Club

Kerry rightly points out that only trading with countries that have reached our own environmental and labor standards would be an economic disaster.

Are there really only two possible positions - free trade with no restrictions or trading only with countries that have reached our own environmental and labor standards? Of course not.

[Cha]

7. That's okay I believe John Nichols over you kerry spinmiesters

who have done nothing but bash Dean with your own muckety spin.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. I have shown that Nichols is lying about Kerry's position.

And your only response is an insult?

[blm]

31. Fundeanmentalism is sometimes incurable.

Fortunately enough of us have survived.

[Cha]

34. kerry is the "demagogue" here...

[blm]

48. HAHAHA...you have GOT to be kidding.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......

[indigo32]

70. You've shown

absolutely NOTHING. The words "Send our economy into a tailspin" were exactly included in the Kerry quote you posted... and demigagueery is completly subjective.

[LuminousX]

15. Oh Please

I love this. I love the idea that people believe the President can tomorrow say, we are only going to trade with nations who meet our environmental and labor standards. What will happen is we will begin to require nations to institute policies that over time will allow them to reach a position of equity.

Sparring with strawmen must be fun.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. Could you please rephrase your post? I can't make any sense out of it.

What are you trying to say?

[LuminousX]

32. Once more with feeling

Remember our process and goal discussion? Sure you do, it is just down the page... go ahead and refresh your memory. I'll wait....

Back? Good.

1. Obviously you cannot say 'Tomorrow, we will only trade with those nations who have equity with us on environmental and labor standards.'

2. Thus, what will happen is we will begin to negotiate trade deals based on what programs the trading nation has instituted to begin to bring the standards on par with us. Essentially, we tell countries to begin to improve labor conditions, demonstrate how the conditions will meet certain benchmarks over a period of time and then we will trade with them.

3. This gives us a morally superior position on the world stage while offering our own manufacturing interests some protection against sweatshop labor.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

39. Sounds like you agree with Kerry, not Dean.

Maybe you should read their positions again.

[LuminousX]

43. Could you post it again,

I haven't read it enough today.

I've read both. I agree with Dean.

[stickdog]

61. Kerry Advocates A Seven Day Work Week To Compete With Cheap Foreign Labor.

"Give American workers a level playing field and they can beat workers anywhere else in the world everyday of the week and twice on Sunday."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. Is that supposed to be funny?

Don't give up your day job for the comedy club circuit.

[LuminousX]

6. Excellent article

It highlights some key differences while clarifying Dean's pragmatic approach to the issue.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. What is pragmatic about limiting trade only to

countries that have reached our own environmental and labor standards? It sounds like the opposite of pragmatism to me.

[LuminousX]

13. Pragmatism

I guess it all depends on what your goal is. If you want to protect American jobs against foreign manufacturers while still honoring a higher ideal, this is the best way of achieving that.

[blm]

11. Except Kerry is the guy who helped craft the Kyoto Accord

for 10 years while Dean was engaging in cronyism with his energy donors. Yet Free but Fair trade which Kerry has pushed throughout his career gets spun AGAINST Kerry and FOR Dean? That's absurd.


http://timesargus.nybor.com/Archive/Articles/Article/23996

MONTPELIER - A leading environmentalist was asked to leave Gov. Howard Dean's council of environmental advisers after she criticized the governor's short-lived proposal for a coal-fired power plant in Vermont.

Elizabeth Courtney, executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, was one of 20 members of the governor's environmental council, which meets about once every three months with the governor.

But after Courtney wrote a newspaper opinion piece faulting Dean for his brief advocacy of a coal plant, she learned she was no longer welcome on the council. David Rocchio, the governor's legal counsel, wrote her late last month to say she will be replaced on the council by VNRC's board chairman. The move came after she had written the governor on energy issues and showed his staff her draft newspaper piece, Courtney said.

"From the tone of your letter (to the governor), the content of your (newspaper) essay, and your rejection of the concerns we have raised with you in conversation, it appears that you do not seek a dialogue," Rocchio wrote to Courtney and to VNRC's board. "The governor sees little point in continuing to try to discuss these issues with you."

Meanwhile, another prominent environmentalist - Mark Sinclair, Vermont director of the Conservation Law Foundation - was also asked to step down from the council. Sinclair said it was not yet clear whether he was being removed to make way for another environmentalist, as he was told, or because he had criticized Dean's environmental policies.
>>>>>>>

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/43125.html


Dean raises money from energy sources

February 27, 2002

By David Gram

ASSOCIATED PRESS

MONTPELIER — When Gov. Howard Dean wanted to raise money for a possible presidential bid, he followed the example of a former governor of Texas and called on his friends in the energy industry.

>>>>>>>
“Administration actions going back some years betray an inappropriate coziness with the utilities,” said Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Service Research Group. “I am not prepared to say it’s a result of contributions given. But these contributions present the appearance of impropriety or appearance of influence that it probably would have been better to avoid.”

Dean’s close relationship with utility representatives dates back to the day he became governor in 1991. A lobbyist for Green Mountain Power and a GMP employee were among the first people Dean called in to help his transition.

A list of the Governor’s Council of Economic Advisers includes Green Mountain Power Corp.’s chairman, two company board members and a vice president, all of whom made donations to the Fund For A Healthy America. It also includes two longtime utility lobbyists.

Over the years, the governor has sided with the utilities on many of the most pressing issues, including the push for deregulation of the electric industry, and later backing away from that as a goal. Among other major decisions:

— After years of pushing for the companies to absorb the excess costs of their expensive contract with Hydro-Quebec, Dean’s Department of Public Service agreed to let ratepayers be billed for more than 90 percent of what those excess costs are expected to be in the coming years. The extra costs will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
>>>>>>>

[LuminousX]

14. It's still an excellent article

even though you disagree with it. It is going into my bookmark folder.

[blm]

16. Kerry's and Dean's records disagree with the article.

That's why I disagree with it.

Ignore the truth, buy the spin. Nichols has to crawl out of the Dean tank and get some fresh air.

[LuminousX]

17. Dean Tank

<i>If Kerry persists in promoting a free trade agenda that is only vaguely superior to that of the Bush administration, he will muddy the debate and damage his prospects in November of 2004. Instead of attacking Dean - whose stance is not nearly as well-thought-out as the positions of former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt and Congressional Caucus Co-chair Dennis Kucinich - Kerry should be following Dean, Gephardt and Kucinich into the fair trade camp.</i>

Yeah, keep believing it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. Since you keep ignoring Kerry's actual trade position, I'll post it again

Third, if we are going to compete with the world for the products of the future – we need to be able to sell them. I believe that trade is essential to our economic future – but free trade doesn’t mean a free ride for those that break the rules. I know that some in Michigan think trade is a bad idea. And with the way the Bush Administration has let foreign countries break the rules and walk all over us, I can’t blame them. But let me put it to you straight: the global economy is here and its here to stay. Our choice is either to win the race for the jobs of the future or to get run over by our competitors.

<snip>

As President, I’ll take on the countries that are manipulating their currency to undermine American exports. These countries are supposed to be playing by the same rules as we do and they’ll feel the full force of our trade laws if they don’t. I will open markets in key export areas for manufacturing – like Japan and China. I will make sure that if we have to lower our tariffs, our competitors have to do the same. We don’t need idle talk – we need action – and we need it now.

I’ll order an immediate 120 day review of all existing trade agreements to ensure our trading partners are living up to their labor and environmental obligations – to make sure these agreements are enforceable and to put us on a level playing field. And I will not sign any new trade agreements until the review is done and its recommendations are in place.

<snip>

Governor Dean has said repeatedly that America should not trade with countries that haven’t reached our own environmental and labor standards. I will assure strong labor and environmental standards, but his approach would mean we couldn’t sell a single car anywhere in the developing world. One hundred years ago this month, Henry Ford sold his first car overseas – to a businessman in South Africa. And it wouldn’t make much sense if America could trade with Africa in 1903, but not in 2003. Those markets mean American jobs.

The unfortunate thing is that Howard Dean knows that what he’s proposing is just not possible and that it would send our economy into a tailspin. Manufacturing workers are right to be worried about their jobs and it is wrong to play on their fears instead of offering them hope for a brighter future. Anger and attacks are all well and good, but when it comes to our jobs we need a President who can build a barn and not just kick it down. Give American workers a level playing field and they can beat workers anywhere else in the world everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. As President, I’m going to give them that chance.
Remarks by Senator John Kerry at the Detroit Economic Club

[LuminousX]

19. Could you post it one more time

I haven't had lunch yet and your spam fills me up.

I agree with the article. I don't see where Kerry's remarks actually detail anything different than what I've already commented on. His position is not a realistic position that protects American industry as well as Gephardt's position. And since I won't support Gephardt, I have to settle for the less-developed but better position Dean is outlining.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. Sorry but,

I just don't find it credible that you can't understand the difference between Kerry's position and Nichols' characterization of it. I think you are smarter than that.

[LuminousX]

26. Nichols is Generalizing

but even looking at the material you posted, it isn't a gross misgeneralization it just lacks the detail that Kerry himself is capable of. That's okay by me for this kind of write up. It isn't a white paper on the candidate, it is a short off-the-cuff primer on the postition while quickly pointing out Gephardt has the strongest position in this matter (although no evidence is given to back that up, I do agree with that point.)

So, yes, I do see the differences, but I don't see how the differences are so great that they invalidate the write-up completely. As I mentioned earlier, this article has been bookmarked because I feel it does a better than average job in showing the bones of the issue.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Kerry says one thing; Nichols critiques a different position.

Now you say you see the difference but it doesn't matter. lol

[LuminousX]

30. A matter of rounding

3.14159265 or 3.1415
There is a difference, but too slight for me to care.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. Dean doesn't have the monopoly on 'fair trade'

and Nichols is saying that anyone who has a policy difference with Dean is opposed to 'fair trade'.

Here is a blatant lie:

"Kerry is attacking Dean for supporting fair trade proposals that would require U.S. trading partners to establish basic labor and environmental standards."

Of course, Kerry isn't "attacking Dean for supporting fair trade proposals". Kerry and Dean both believe in 'fair trade' and have different visions of what that means.

What is the history here? What is Dean's record? What is Kerry's record? Not their spin, but their actual records?

Dean was recently caught in a lie on national TV about his past support of NAFTA:

Dean also took issue with a characterization by a TV interviewer that he had been a ``strong supporter'' of NAFTA, the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement. Dean acknowledged that he had supported NAFTA, but took exception to the ``strong'' part. ``I never did anything about it,'' he said. ``I didn't vote on it. I didn't march down in the street demanding NAFTA. I simply wrote a letter (to President Clinton) supporting NAFTA.''

The Gephardt campaign subsequently called attention to a transcript of a Jan. 29, 1995 ``This Week'' show in which Dean told a different interviewer that ``I was a very strong supporter of NAFTA.''
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3149583,00.html

Kerry fought to include tougher provisions in NAFTA protecting the jurisdiction of state and local laws:

Senator John Kerry (MA) plans to offer an amendment on behalf of state and local governments that would ensure that foreign investors are granted no greater legal rights than U.S. investors. State and local lobbyists have been visiting Senate offices over the last several weeks to urge support for Senator Kerry's amendment.
http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/us_mayor_newspaper/documents/04_29_02/kerry_trade_bill.asp

[LuminousX]

35. I said he did?

I was saying Gephardt has the best position on trade.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. Nichols' article is the subject of this thread.

Nichols' article is what we are commenting on. Nichols' article mischaracterizes Kerry's position.

[LuminousX]

38. You posted in response to my Rounding comment

And I don't see any mischaracterization going on. Merely generaly journalistic generalization. It provides the necessary back drop regarding the issue.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

40. I don't believe you.

You say you don't see it, and if I believed you, I would try to point it out to you again. But I don't.

[LuminousX]

42. Your choice

But I don't know what there is NOT to believe. I have stated that the article provides a good back drop to the issue. You can disagree with me, but I don't think I'm trying to fool you into making you believe that this is really my view of the article when I secretely harbor some other view of it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

44. I don't think you're fooling anybody.

[LuminousX]

45. Fooling people into what?

Is this a direct attack?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. Are you trying to bait me or something?

lol

[LuminousX]

49. No, just answering you questions

Don't ask the question, and I won't have anything to respond to.

I'm trying to figure out what I'm trying to 'fool you' about. Again, you raised that point which is completely off the topic of the article, Kerry, Gephardt, and trade.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

51. The article lies about Kerry's position.

How is it off-topic to point that out?


You say you don't see the lie - but I don't believe you. What's off-topic?

[LuminousX]

54. Then you are calling me a liar.

Correct? Because I disagree Nichol's has lied?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

55. It would be against DU rules for me to call you a liar.

[peaceandjustice]

67. Nichols didn't say that either.

Nichols was clear that Kucinich and Gephardt have better trade positions than both Dean and Kerry.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

69. Since Nichols is not actually talking about Kerry's policy,

his comparisons are worthless.

[sandnsea]

20. Dean had to backtrack on this

He made a mistake when he said other countries should have to meet American standards. He had to restate his position to 'tougher' standards. It's just another example of Howard being in way over his head and not knowing how to say exactly what he means. It's not that important in a primary, but it's critically important that a President not have to restate his position once a week.

[LuminousX]

21. Bottom Line verses Process

Actually this is Dean talking about the end result, the bottom line, the ideal, instead of the process to get there. It isn't that big of a deal to me because I clearly understand what Dean is getting at. By requiring our trading partners to start meeting higher standards we put them on the road to equity.

So, it isn't a backtrack, it is switching focus from what the ideal end result is - all countries trading freely in an environmentally healthy fashion that enriches the workers equally to the process - begin requiring tougher standards for trading partners.

[sandnsea]

22. Oh, it's switching focus

I see.

The issue here, for me, is that Howard says things without putting them in proper context. The FIRST time. A President has to do that, Howard clearly can't.

[LuminousX]

23. That's a great issue for you to vote on

I happen to choose other issues to guide my vote.

[sandnsea]

25. lol, who said that?

Just clarifying my point on this particular issue.

I'm voting for Kerry because he's been on the right side of almost every issue for over 20 years. From equal rights to women's health to small business to the environment to defense to community security, he's been fighting for the people of this country consistently and continuously. I can look at his record and know what he's going to do. I don't have to listen to hemming and hawing on Yucca Mtn, Medicare, trade, corporate farming, environment, sprawl; and whereever else Howard has done one thing and now tries to say he believes in something else.

[LuminousX]

28. A quote

"The issue here, for me, is that Howard says things without putting them in proper context."

Your issue is you want Dean to put things into context for you the first time. I don't need him to do that because I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, so I bypass this and look for other issues to guide my vote.

This is, by your words, an issue for you, which means it is factoring into why you don't support Dean. That is great. As I said, I just choose other issues to guide my decision.

[peaceandjustice]

68. And Deans original comments to the WP made it clear

...that this was a goal that would require years of negotiation. Kerry and Lieberman want you to believe Dean's signing an executive order on his first day in office pulling America out of trade agreements.
And I'd like to ask Kerry supporters if they feel the labor standards within current treaties that Kerry told the Detroit Club he'd enforce go far enough anyways.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

73. Since Kerry has been pushing for fairer trade agreements for so many years

I doubt HE believes "the labor standards within current treaties .. go far enough anyways."

Just because you believe the existing rules should be enforced doesn't mean you think those rules can't be improved.

PS - please don't take this as an attack or a challenge: could you give me a link for "Deans original comments to the WP" so I can read them?

[quinnox]

37. Sounds like a press release from the Dean campaign

Perhaps Nichols should apply.

[LuminousX]

41. Oh? Give it up.

A quote from the article:

"Instead of attacking Dean - whose stance is not nearly as well-thought-out as the positions of former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt and Congressional Caucus Co-chair Dennis Kucinich - Kerry should be following Dean, Gephardt and Kucinich into the fair trade camp."


Gephardt and Kucinich are the ones who come out looking golden in this article. The fact people see this as pro-Dean implies a lot.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

47. Nichols lied about Kerry's position in this article.

So why quote it? Why repeat a lie?

An honest comparison of Dean and Kerry's positions AND records on trade might not make Dean look as good, I guess.

[LuminousX]

50. A Lie?

That is harsh language. I see where the article generalized.

The quote was directly related to Nichols supposed shilling for Dean. The part quoted, written by Nichols, clearly shows he believes Gephardt and Kucinich have a better position on trade than Kerry does. How can one person's opinion be a lie? Nichols, in this case, is not shilling for Dean, he is shilling for Gephardt.

As I said, the fact people see this as pro-Dean is very telling.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. The fact that you see

a lie about Kerry's position as pro-Dean is very telling. Is that the only way to be pro-Dean? To lie? Like Dean did on "This Week"?

Dean also took issue with a characterization by a TV interviewer that he had been a ``strong supporter'' of NAFTA, the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement. Dean acknowledged that he had supported NAFTA, but took exception to the ``strong'' part. ``I never did anything about it,'' he said. ``I didn't vote on it. I didn't march down in the street demanding NAFTA. I simply wrote a letter (to President Clinton) supporting NAFTA.''

The Gephardt campaign subsequently called attention to a transcript of a Jan. 29, 1995 ``This Week'' show in which Dean told a different interviewer that ``I was a very strong supporter of NAFTA.''
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3149583,00.html

I have pointed out the misrepresentation and you have said you "don't see it". Instead, you are trying to pretend that Nichols' opinion is the misrepresentation. Weak.

[LuminousX]

53. Over and over and over

Okay, you called Nichols statement that Gephardt and Kucinich had a better position than Dean a lie.

I don't see this article as pro-Dean and never said anywhere in this entire thread that it was good for Dean.

You harp upon one point that I happen to disagree with. I don't think it is a lie. Period. You'll have to live with that. You haven't convinced me.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

56. No, you keep pretending you don't understand the material I posted.

but I think you are smarter than that.


But why did Dean feel it was neccesary to lie about his own position on 'This Week'? Why not just say he changed his mind again? That's what I don't understand.

[LuminousX]

57. I'm not an apologist for the Dean campaign

you'll have to direct questions regarding Dean's position to his campaign.

I understand the material you posted. I think I've made that clear. I just don't believe Nichol's lied. His article generalizes Kerry's position.

This is the last I'll say on this topic. It is now a dead horse.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

58. You've made nothing clear

except your ability to ignore information you don't like.

[indigo32]

72. Where?

eom

[Feanorcurufinwe]

76. See replies #1 and #5

[DrFunkenstein]

78. And #77 n/t

[DrFunkenstein]

59. Nichols Is Off His Rocker (And Can Kiss My Ass)

The Kerry Amendment To NAFTA

(Nader-founded) Public Citizen:

"The amendment was a modest reform that guaranteed much-needed changes in the NAFTA Chapter 11 investment model in future trade agreements.

Under the model, foreign investors may file a claim in secret NAFTA tribunals to seek compensation when government public interest regulations in any way diminish the value of their investment.

In doing so, the amendment would have instructed U.S. trade negotiators to ensure that future investor provisions do not grant foreign investors rights beyond what the U.S. Constitution provides."

http://action.citizen.org/pc/issues/votes/?votenum=121&chamber=S&congress=1072

The Kerry Amendment to the Baucus-Grassley fast-track trade bill would have limited expansion of NAFTA-style corporate lawsuits to more countries.

Under NAFTA, foreign corporations gained broad powers to sue US taxpayers for financial damages if our environmental, health, or land protection laws interfere with their businesses.

The Kerry Amendment would have ensured that foreign investors have no greater rights than US citizens under the US Constitution.

http://www.sierraclub.org/votewatch/2002/kerry.asp

WASHINGTON - May 21 - Friends of the Earth expressed disappointment in the loss of an amendment to trade legislation that would have protected environmental standards from foreign investor lawsuits. The amendment, offered by Sen. John Kerry, sought to address concerns with investment rules like NAFTA's Chapter 11 that allow foreign corporations to bring suits against environmental laws and regulations.

"By voting against the Kerry amendment, the Senate has paved the way for more backdoor corporate assaults on laws that protect our air, water and land," said David Waskow, Friends of the Earth's trade policy coordinator. "The Senate should be protecting the health and safety of Americans, not watching the backs of wealthy polluters who make big campaign contributions."

http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0521-13.htm

"The current Fast Track bill is an environmental nightmare," said Carroll Muffett, director of international programs for Defenders of Wildlife. "The Kerry Amendment would have fixed one of the biggest problems with it. Without Kerry, Fast Track is just a license for unchecked environmental destruction."

http://www.charitywire.com/charity51/03074.html

Unlike the amendment sponsored by Sen. John Kerry, the Baucus-Grassley Amendment does not set the U.S. Constitution as the benchmark for the scope of property rights available to foreign investors in the United States.

The Kerry Amendment would repair the investment model of NAFTA. Under the Kerry Amendment, a foreign investor would be required to demonstrate that the policy in question was enacted primarily with discriminatory intent against foreign investors or investments.

The Kerry Amendment is based on U.S. Supreme Court rulings on expropriation in that it would guarantee that future trade agreements improve upon the NAFTA model and restrict such investment protection actions to only those cases where government action causes a physical invasion of property or the denial of all economic or productive use of that property.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0515-04.htm

Dear (Decision Maker),

I am writing to ask you to support the Kerry Amendment to FAST TRACK. The Baucus-Grassley Trade Bill is not good enough. I would appreciate your support for this amendment. Specifically, the amendment will:

1. Ensure that foreign investors don't get greater rights than US citizens or investors. We need to make sure that the US Constitution is the benchmark for investor treatment.

2. Clarify the definition of expropriation in future trade deals to conform with the US Constitution and recent US Supreme Court rulings.

3. Protect US laws on public health, safety and the environment from attack by investor-state lawsuits.

4. Ensures that minimum treatment under international law is defined in a way that follows the US Constitution. We don't want to follow that of some other country.

5. Require diplomatic check. Before a corporation could go into one of the secret trade tribunals to sue for taxpayer compensation (avoiding the domestic court system), they should have to check in with their own government.

This amendment will be voted upon soon. I urge you to vote for it and keep the problems that are already happening with NAFTA Chapter 11 from happening under future trade agreements.

Sincerely,
Your Name
Your Address

http://www.unionvoice.org/alert-description.tcl?alert_id=2005

<>

[diamondsoul]

80. Oooh, thanks for posting this!

This is the first I'd seen of it, and I'm going to write my Senators first thing in the morning to tell them to support it.

[stickdog]

62. Dean is for fair trade. Kerry is attacking Dean. So what's Kerry for? (NT)

[DrFunkenstein]

63. Impeccable Logic

Do you think that perhaps your being a little bit too vague? Dean has suggested unfeasible trade policy standards. Kerry said very clearly that either Dean either misspoke or is telling unions what they want to hear.

That in no way suggests that Kerry is against increasing international trade standards, and - unlike Dean - has a real history of promoting that end.

If Dean said that the US Constitution should be the benchmark of NAFTA litigation, that would be understandable - the Kerry amendment set out to do that, as well as make it much easier for environmental groups to sue multinationals.

Suggesting that Kerry is somehow against improving standards is more than a distortion - it is an outright lie.

[George_Bonanza]

64. The Kerry Amendment: any links?

I'd love to know further what this is.

[DrFunkenstein]

65. See Post #59

Although somewhat more complicated than the average Joe would understand, the amendment was amazing - in part, because Kerry made it moderate enough to pass. You will be hard pressed to find a progressive that wasn't 100% behind the amendment.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

66. If Dean and Kerry had the same exact trade stance

Some of you would still be arguing that one was right and the other wrong. :eyes:

[DrFunkenstein]

74. I Would Be Arguing That Kerry Has Experience

And Dean changes his tune according to his audience.

---

WILLIAMS: Senator Kerry, you have accused Governor Dean of playing on workers' fears and advocating protectionism and saying that under him it threatens to throw the economy into a tail spin. It that fair?

KERRY: Yes, it is fair, because Governor Dean, on a number of occasions across the country, has said very specifically that we should not trade with countries until they have labor and environment standards that are equal to the United States.

That means we would trade with no countries. It is a policy for shutting the door. It's either a policy for shutting the door, if you believe it, or it's a policy of just telling people what they want to hear.

I think there's a middle ground that's smart for America. No president can shut the door to globalization and no president should.

President Clinton traded. We created 23 million jobs in the 1990s, we balanced the budget, we paid down the debt, we brought more women into the workforce than at any time in American history. We lifted a hundred times the number of people out of poverty of Ronald Reagan.

We can do that again, but we have to enforce trade agreements. We have to be fair in our trade.

And I intend to sign no trade agreement that doesn't have adequate labor and environment standards. I'm going to raise the enforcement level. But I'm not going to shut the door, because that would depress the economy of our country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html

---

Now read post #59.

<>