Eh, I've heard worse.

As many people have said and the crowd reaction indicated, people don't care if you change your position, as long as your current position is the one they agree with. 'Flip-flopping' is a meme for journalists and pundits. In early primary territory, where only a third of the registered Democrats can even name a candidate, I have no problem with candidates clarifying our outright changing their positions based on feedback.

Suellentrop's a patently biased hack. 'rears back to throw the knockout punch'? Are you serious? Why doesn't he just say 'descended as if from on high to the sound of a soprano chorus of angels to deliver his holy pronouncement'?
sidereal | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 12:12 am | #

Nobody can flip-flop more than the shrub...Bring it on!!
Steve Conrad | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 1:00 am | #

Suellentrop is clearly in an alternative universe. As far as that Washington Post article, it's at

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

Here's the excerpt:
****
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."
*******

Here's Suellentrop's write-up of his ridealong with Dean:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086258/

And the relevant excerpt:

****
But one thing bothers me about Dean, and I raise it with him. He wants to renegotiate NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards—his lone departure from Clinton-style Rubinomics.
****

Various points:
1) Perhaps a hundred times, probably more, in speeches Dean has said that he wants trade agreements to include (a) unspecified environmental agreements and (b) guaranteed labor organizing rights.

2) The above fit the "international labor and environmental standards" he talked about in the speech.

3) I've never heard him say anything like that we should require all countries to have the SAME labor, environmental, health, and safety standards as the U.S. Suellentrop claims Dean said this to him on their car ride. If so, and Dean at the time made such a radical break with his previous statements, why didn't Suellentrop report it then?
Gabriel | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 1:09 am | #

Quote from Suellentrop's original article:

"But one thing bothers me about Dean, and I raise it with him. He wants to renegotiate NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards—his lone departure from Clinton-style Rubinomics. Dean even says: "I actually had this argument with Bob Rubin, who totally disagrees with me, of course. But I think it's because Bob is fighting the last war. He said they use those arguments to try to undo NAFTA. I said, I know they use them to undo NAFTA, but now you've got NAFTA, and you're going to have NAFTA, now think about what this problem is. He said, you're right about the problem. Your analysis is right. I just don't have the solution. I'll get back to you when I do. I haven't heard back yet."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086258/

If Dean specifically said that he would apply the "exact same labor, environmental, health, and safety standards as the United States." why wouldn't Suellentrop have included that in his article? You would think that would be pretty significant.
Diane | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 1:10 am | #

.. continued

4) The Washington Post article has a paraphrase. I doubt Dean said what the article implies he said.

So what it comes down to is that Suellentrop and Lieberman are accusing Dean of changing his position, when there's no reliable record of him having the position he denies having!

My read: Suellentrop fancies himself a guardian of free trade and is looking to dig at Dean for threatening to rethink the free trade orthodoxy.
Gabriel | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 1:13 am | #

Sounds like time for an employment for-cause drug screen. Ignore.
Alan in CA | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 3:19 am | #

What is unavailable to cram into a one minute response are the details. For instance, I think it is clear to everyone who has been following Dean and knows his position on Iraq knows this: That pulling the troops out would cause a power vacuum, further destabilizing the region and actually increasing the danger of terrorism originating there.

I'm not going to speak for him, because I feel that it is partly his responsibility for his own words. But I will say that our troops, the troops who have been there since March and earlier, do need to leave. They need to leave as part of a promised and needed rotation. The stories coming out of the press that I read about the occupation in Iraq is that the soldiers who are there need to be rotated out. Unfortunately, Bush's misadventures mean that there are not people to rotate back in because there was no post-war planning done on his administration's part.

The solution to getting the current troops out is to get new ones in. But there are few fresh American soldiers to rotate in. So the solution there is to seek international help to accomplish this rotation. It would accomplish 'getting our soldiers out now', while internationalizing the situation. We stand a better chance at not permanently fouling up the entire affair should the UN and NATO get involved.

Again, it's not a perfect solution, but it's the situation we find ourselves in.

It would have taken 15 more seconds to make this perfectly clear. So where is the succinct and perfect clarification and rebuttal we've come to expect?
Barrett in MN | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 5:11 am | #

Suellentrop wants to be a kewl kid. He savaged Hispanics worse than Dean, and admits that while Lieberman attacked hard, it was the crowd that ripped Lieberman a new one.

As to the "change in position" on Iraq, it's brilliant. Bush won't do that, and he can't do that. Only a new President can.
Dana Blankenhorn | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 7:40 am | #

(I'm spreading my EU does it better meme whereever I can...)

Actually, I think Dean is missing a wonderful opportunity for a counterthrust. (My pbs station didn't show the debate so he may have used it already but here goes...)

Dean should point out that the European Union also has trade agreements and they actually accomplish the effects of creating "stable sedate" democracies. The reason why Turkey has a serious democracy that can say no to the US is that the EU has demanded that they have a serious democracy in order to join the EU. I've always thought that was just common sense. By the way, if you want to annoy the american likudniks, point out that Israel wants to join the EU, this dying regime if the Instapundits are phrasing it right.

Whoever does white papers and research for the Dean team should look into EU labor and environmental standards right now. Or you could just hire me...I'd take the job.

Here's something I found on the net:

Here's a link and here's some evidence that the EU is doing a better job in terms of actually raising living standards, another reason that Glenn hates the EU probably. Anyway, here's something off the net:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/int...nt/ benefits.htm

Enlargement will boost economic growth in the candidate countries and so reduce the pressures for economic migration. The prospect of enlargement has boosted stability in candidate countries. Purchasing power and demand for EU goods and services in the candidate countries are growing fast, will grow even faster after accession and enlargement has been a spur to economic reform. As well as increasing opportunities for UK firms, this growth will reduce incentives to emigrate. Research from Portugal, one of the EU's poorer countries, shows a decline in the number of people leaving Portugal to work since Portugal joined the EU.

Posted by: Philip Shropshire at August 27, 2003 07:19 AM


Philip Shropshire | email | url at September 5, 2003 12:59 PM
Philip Shropshire | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 12:11 pm | #

This article doesn't bother me a bit. Sullentrop is one tiny voice and clearly his views were not shared in most of the other articles I've read about the debate.

As far as the flip-flop issue goes, I agree with something many other Dean supporters have said: as long as opinion changes are rooted in evidence and solid reasoning there really is no problem. I like a candidate who is not afraid to re-evaluate his positions. What I'm looking for is that base of reason and facts and perspective. Whether Dean ends up negotiating for WTO standards or American standards or something in between, the important part is that he sees that protecting the rights of foreign laborers is a crucial part of protecting jobs and working conditions here in the states.

Rock on Howard!
BryanInCA | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 12:40 pm | #

To all of those involved in the DDF and other critical organizations to the DEAN for America movement, I thank you. I thank you for talking points, for careful and accurate research and most importantly giving a voice to all of us fighting the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy! There I said it. I am doing my part and am trying to get an increasing roll in the campaign to take our country back. I hope everyone on this blog reads this, not only to give credit where it is due but maybe more importantly to let everyone here in Dean Nation know the good works being done on their behalf and the behalf of the country.
RM NYC | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 12:47 pm | #

Yeah, well, I meant to comment last night -- instead, I went to bed.

Suellentrop was really nasty to us some time back, then he came around, and then he wrote that scathing Kerry piece.

Is Suellentrop just all acid and gas? I'd like to think so -- but alas, no.

I think we need to continue to say that our positions are "evolving" as we continue with this campaign, and staunch the flip-flop bleeding.

But you see, part of the problem is this: Dean says things so passionately and forcefully that when his position changes, well, it does seem like a flip-flop, because he seemed so darn sure before.

On the facts? This Suellentrop piece is no big deal, not really. He is like a debater going for points, no matter what the point is.

However, Dean is (oddly) cultivating an image problem that is counter -- 180 degrees counter -- from the one that works for us so well. And, much of it was preventable.

One final note: problems just like this that de-railed McCain, and I don't want that to happen -- let's get it now while it's early!
Scott Moore | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 12:58 pm | #

The hell with Suellentrop. He's always been a closet conservative (or, at best, DLC-er). Fortunately, Will Saletan is given space in today's Slate to give a much more reasonable reponse to the debate: http://slate.msn.com/id/2087966/
Mal Hoenig | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 1:41 pm | #

I basically agree with Scott, except for his read on McCain. McCain was derailed not by his own flipflops but by his lack of organization in the post-NH primary states, and vicious smears by Bush.
Gabriel | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 1:52 pm | #

I would hope something as stupid as this wouldn't undo a candidacy. Trade negotiations are just that: negotiations. No one has any idea exactly what we will get and the political climate that will influence any negotiations, all of which can easily weaken or strengthen whatever set of rules we shoot for. Saying what you want vs. what you can get and WHEN are all quite DISCONNECTED IMO. It's enough for me that Dean has the right goals going in, and presumably some red lines.

One thing I have been wondering: just what are the differences between American standards and International/EU standards? What is this REALLY about? Anything at all?
Ben in Redmond | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 2:02 pm | #

Ben,
I think what the hyperbole about Dean's stance on equal standards is exactly that. Leiberman would try and paint Dean as any Republican would, a tax and spend Dem that is working for the financial collapse of American industry. Frankly, Joe makes me want to puke. He should make these outrageous exaggerations when Dean cannot correct him. If Dean gets two seconds to smack down Leiberman's argument only Leiberman loses and Dean gets more points. It's just like giving up a turnover in football when your down.
RM NYC | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 2:21 pm | #

Gabriel: Yeah, I've been corrected on that several times, actually. Thanks for pointing it out -- however, they did try to stick him with "waffler" title but it didn't stick, as I recall.
Scott Moore | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 4:14 pm | #

Anybody ever watch El Busho make a speech? Every 3 words he looks at his cheat sheet. He gives no eye contact.

El Presidente of the cuff is a combination of tried and true cleshays.
His vocabulary must be only a couple thousand words.

Dr. Howard Dean uses little material. He can speak on the same subject 3 times and put in new words that gives it the same meanings.
He stand erect gives great and sincere eye contact,and is flexible on his policies . Nothing wrong with that after having El Busho.

I wouldn't pay much attention to that article.He is just trying to sell newspapers.
Michael F. Ruger | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 4:59 pm | #

To Ben: The EU standards are much higher. They essentially lift up the poor countries standards not just on the environment, but also wages and democratic mechanisms. It's also why even some countries in this hemisphere would rather join the EU as opposed to NAFTA or the FTAA. I'll see if I can't find more online since I'm lobbying for that Dean researcher position.

Keep in mind that Dean is trying to get the labor vote, or at least keep the endorsement away from Gephardt. What that means is that he'll move left on NAFTA and the WTO. Who's against not killing labor organizers by the way? I actually think renegotiation makes sense and happens to be the right position anyway. We should emulate the EU....
Philip Shropshire | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 5:47 pm | #

All right, here's something from ex-rep David Bonior that makes these same points.

Wait, can you use html here?
Philip Shropshire | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 6:03 pm | #

All right, here's something from ex-rep David Bonior that makes these same points.

Wait, can you use html here?

Or edit?
Philip Shropshire | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 6:04 pm | #

Okay, html too dangerous. The link is here:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/ ber...02_bonior.shtml

This is the best quote:

It’s been a decade since the battle against NAFTA was lost. What have been its consequences? Have your worst fears come to pass?


It’s been a disaster. The Rio Grande has been turned into a cesspool from pollution and industrial wastewater. Drinking-water quality is marginal: If you go to towns along the [U.S.-Mexico] border, you find large numbers of children with hepatitis. In Juarez there’s very little wastewater treatment; raw sewage has been going directly into the Rio Grande. The farming situation, too, is a disaster in Mexico: 18 million people make their living off of the land, and they’re going under very quickly because they can’t compete with U.S. farmers. So they end up moving into the cities, which causes more crowding and more pressure.

And then you’ve got the whole immigration issue. Wages are still terribly low in Mexico; in the maquiladoras, they’ve lost about 250,000 jobs to other low-wage countries, such as Vietnam and China. In the U.S., we’ve lost an enormous number of good manufacturing jobs to low-wage countries as well— not only to Mexico, but to the Asian market. In the latter case it’s not attributable to NAFTA, but to so-called unrestricted, unfettered free trade. It’s been a bit of a nightmare.
Philip Shropshire | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 6:07 pm | #

More from the Bonior interview:

Is there a model for the body you hope to create?


Compare the situation I just described to what the European Union and the European Parliament have done. In order to become a partner in the E.U. you have to meet certain standards — in the areas of health, education, environmental standards, civil liberties, wage and labor laws. You have to upgrade yourself or you can’t get the advantage of belonging to the Union. The E.U. spends roughly $35 billion a year to help their partners upgrade, out of a pot of money that member states contribute. Portugal and Spain and Greece wanted into the E.U.; they had to upgrade their standards a decade ago to get in. Eastern European countries are entering the union now, and they’re getting the same kind of assistance to get there.

In the U.S. we tried to do NAFTA on the cheap, without any resources at all. It was a neoliberal model based on the concept that the unassailable “invisible hand” would take care of things, that all boats would eventually rise. I think that this notion of free trade as an answer to these problems has been an absolute disaster for most people in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.
Philip Shropshire | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 6:08 pm | #

I had a very similar reaction to Suellentrop's article, and emailed him earlier today...I didn't know much about the labor standards comments, but I did recognize the fallacy of this 'iraq' flip-flap, so I called him on it.

Glad to see other's noticed it too. How about that great sensationalized Slate headline "Dean stumbles at debate"...
Braintan | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 7:00 pm | #

Philip - You ">can use html, there was something wrong with your code I guess. And no, unfortunately you can't edit.
Scott Moore | Email | Homepage | 09.05.03 - 9:44 pm | #