Kerry supporters -- would appreciate your thoughts on this

[IrateCitizen]

NOTE: I am not trying to "bash" your candidate in this thread, but this article highlights one of the major misgivings I have with Sen. Kerry as the Democratic candidate. For those of us who are undecided as of right now -- like myself -- how are we supposed to reconcile this? I have done activist work on trade issues and I was incensed at Kerry for his betrayal on this issue as cited in the article.

Kerry Makes Another Big-Issue Mistake
by John Nichols

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

<SNIP>

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.

<SNIP>

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. They didn't see the point of choosing between a Republican who backed bad trade policies and a Democrat who backed bad trade policies.

<END OF EXCERPT>

The piece highlighted in bold is one of the biggest criticisms I have of the "Democratic Establishment" and was the catalyst for my leaving the Party from 1993-2000. Am I just tilting at windmills hoping for something better?

[GainesT1958]

1. Overt protectionism...

Would destroy our economy from within, while "Free-trade" with no restrictions whatsoever will suck the juice out of it from abroad.

The "middle ground" here is what we're after. BUT, if, like Dr. Dean, the ideal one espouses would be to get Third-World nations to agree to the SAME worker standards and wage rates as we have here, one might as well hang it up--we're NOT going to even get close to having that, and shutting them out of our market as a result would simply guarantee their trading fiercely with Europe and the Pacific Rim, thereby undercutting our economy--and the very workers one seeks to protect--yet again.

I really side with Lester Thurow on this one (check out his 1991 book, "Head to Head"), and would love to see him named the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors in the next Dem. administration.

B-)

[salin]

5. One big improvement

would be to find a way to disallow corporations from 'negotiating' when establishing new plants in a country - they now garner agreements from the government of said country NOT to enforce labor laws, not to enforce environmental laws. They also prevent the unionization of the workers. The corporations negotiate deals that prevent the countries and/or workers from benefiting from globalization as has happened in countries in the past. The reason countries like Tawian and South Korea were able to see a great increase in the standard of living - was through a natural process where the workers were able to demand higher wages, as more money came into the economy there was greater demand for other jobs etc. The hard push on globalization saw companies "get wise". Frequently now, they negotiate situations from the beginning - with the shiney promise of improved standards of living just by being there - that are more prone to keep employees in more slave-labor situations. Think of the old company mining towns.

I don't know how this can be addressed - but it is part of what Dean, I believe, is trying to get at. As it stands - with the very uneven playing field (against third world workers) the workers don't win, we don't win, only the corporations, and perhaps governments of those countries (bribes?) win.

[IrateCitizen]

7. I'm not disagreeing with your assessment... BUT

I don't think it addresses the misgivings I have. I recognize the fact that we cannot expect third world nations to immediately adopt the same labor and environmental standards as the third world. But, at the same time, we need to set about making clear parameters to move things in the right direction.

For example, if a company or any of its subsidiaries were to manufacture products overseas for sale in the US, they should be required to abide by US environmental standards and have 100% respect for any efforts among the work force to organize for collective bargaining. Additionally, if they purchase items from an outside supplier in that developing nation, they should have to, say, pay a tax that will go directly to a UN or WTO administered fund to improve environmental standards in developing nations.

But Kerry's actions on this have been extremely lacking. He, to his credit, advocated worker and environmental protections in fast-track. But when they didn't pass, he voted for the damned thing anyway! What that says to me is that commercial interests, in his mind, are still more important than these other concerns. It's an approach that says, "I tried and I lost, so I'll just go with the flow. But hey, I tried!"

I'm sorry, but "I tried" isn't good enough. I expect much, much more out of someone who wants my support as a Presidential Candidate.

[Japhy_Ryder]

10. You have to start somewhere

If the trade zones are in place and trade is occurring it places us in a much better position to fix problems. A trade pact gives us the leverage to advocate worker rights and environmental protection in the future. If we attempted to write them into trade legislation right now, it's a non-starter. Third world country says no way, because the gov't in that country has little insentive to agree to something that will cost it billions with no guarantee of any return. Whereas if we have trade pacts, and the third world country realizes the benefits of trade, they are much more likely to agree to our demands in the future and want to ensure that the American market remains open to their goods.

This of course is contingent upon someone actually making the demands, which clearly is not going to be easy. I think Dean's position is very good, that we need to open renegotiations on these trade pacts. Kerry would likely do the same.

I don't know if this is Kerry's rationale here, but I think it's reasonable. If you are going to make demands in treaties like this you must have some leverage. Joining a trade pact now gives that leverage and enables us to level the playing field. American manufacturing jobs are going to be lost whether we are part of trade pacts or not, the jobs are just that much cheaper overseas. The only chance we have to protect manufacturing jobs is to level the playing field and the only way to do that is with international agreements.

[IrateCitizen]

12. I'd like to focus on your last sentence, if I may

The only chance we have to protect manufacturing jobs is to level the playing field and the only way to do that is with international agreements.

Personally, I have come to believe that we should be seeking to strengthen international institutions while reforming them as needed (i.e. WTO) with regards to trade. However, I am not a huge proponent of these regional trade pacts, especially those between unequal partners (like NAFTA). Pacts between more equal players (EU) are probably more beneficial.

But the question then remains, if we are interested in operating through the international arena, why do we need local pacts? Why do we need fast track? I'll tell you why -- so we can peel off the developing nations one or two at a time, and force them to adopt self-destructive trading rules.

Thankfully, Brazil is on to this, and has been very instrumental in leading the recently formed Group of 22 developing nations (along with China and India) in opposing this kind of heavy-handedness.

[Japhy_Ryder]

16. I don't disagree

Ideally the pacts should be between more equal players. We should be working with the EU instead of in competition with them. The free trade zone with Canada (prior to NAFTA) was almost a complete success for both countries. The field was more level, and the trade was more fair. Same thing could happen if the G22 got together in a free trade zone. You'd suddenly see the US and EU willing to work together more then.

But realistically, I don't think that there's much hope for international consensus on trade. We are much more likely to be able affect change in our own hemisphere than anywhere else. Clearly the Bush team cares not a whit about the plight of the developing nation worker, but if we got a Democrat in office, I think he'd work to both benefit the US and to improve conditions in the developing world.

As for fast track...I opposed it when Clinton wanted it, I oppose it now. The Senate should debate treaties, and doing so would ensure that it's not just American corporations that win. So I'm not going to defend Kerry's vote on that, except to say that perhaps he was thinking of himself down the road, and realized that if he were in office, it'd be a nice perk of the job.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. 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/

[blm]

3. Kerry intends to be president and wants to use fast track

not unlike Bill Clinton and Al Gore wanted to use fast track. But, Kerry's commitment to the environment is better than Clinton's or any other candidate that has run for the office in our lifetime. Why does Nichols ignore that important factor of Kerry's candidacy? Why does he ignore Kerry's Free but Fair trade stance? Oh...could be he's in the tank for Dean.

I trust Kerry to use fast track wisely and for the betterment of many nations, not just ours.

[IrateCitizen]

9. Fast track is a bunch of bullshit!

It has not come into play on ANY trade deal that the US has tried to enter into. What it DOES do is take Congress out of the loop from their Constitutionally designated role with regards to foreign trade.

As for the argument that he wants to use it as President and that's why he voted for it.... I'll be nice and say that it is just patently absurd.

[blm]

15. Did you rule out voting for Gore on that?

Was it "bullshit" then, too?

This article tries to paint the man who worked on the Kyoto Accord for 10 years as the bad guy, while praising the guy who practiced cronyism with energy donors in Vermont. Nichols actually BELIEVES Dean and his newly acquired populist campaign rhetoric?


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.
>>>>>>>

[IrateCitizen]

18. Well, I voted for Nader, so I guess you could say I did rule it out.

:evilgrin:

But I also live in NY, so I was safe in voting my "conscience" which was "none of the above" through Nader.

And for the record, I'm not talking about Dean's stance on these issues. And I'm well aware of your dislike for him. But that is a separate issue from Kerry's recent behavior on trade.

[blm]

19. It matters to the spin in the article.

And that's why it is significant. Kerry has long been for Free but Fair trade and has a record of working towards that goal, and Dean is a newcomer to that stance with a record of corporate cronyism that proves it.

btw, IC...don't pretend you wouldn't vote for Gore knowing everything you know today about the BFEE. And I don't doubt at least half of Nader's voters would agree. ;)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. He's trying to moderate, but I have a question here

I think John's trying to moderate his positions to suit the conflicting demands of maintaining progress and high standards here in the U.S., while heeding the demands of competing in the world market. BUt this leads to my question:

Q: As the working and living conditions of people around the world go up, will ours come down? As an example, IT workers here complain about all the jobs being moved to India. Where is this all heading?

[IrateCitizen]

11. I'll bite.

The problem is not with trade in THEORY, but how it is actually conducted. The US and EU like to blame developing nations for the failure of the recent WTO talks. But the reality is that the failure of this round was actually a victory for the developing nations, because they stood united against the US and EU's attempts to steamroll them once again.

Now, I am all for allowing developing nations to enter markets on a more equal footing -- especially in agriculture. They HAVE to have access to our markets in order to undergo economic development. What I do object to is the attempts of the EU and US to impose systems on the developing nations -- forcing them to open up their financial markets and the like. I also think that one of the things we need to do is to get away from this "commercial goods-centered" model of economic development, for the simple reason that it is ravaging the planet and destroying our habitat at an alarming rate.

Does this mean that our "standard of living" must go down? Yes. But it could mean that our overall "quality of life" could go up, along with that of the developing world. Key in all of this, if we are to REALLY promote growth in the developing world, is to build economies based on need rather than the manufacturing of wants. I mean, just think about it in terms of what would happen if all of Africa, Latin America and Asia were using the same amount of energy and natural resources as we do! The planet would be completely spent within 20 years!

I know this isn't an answer to the question exactly as you posed it, but they are issues that need to be taken into account.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. That was a very good answer- economy of "need" vs. "want"

It basically comes down to a cultural motivation. Unfortunately, a lot of folks "want" to be like "us". :-( I personally encourage esthetic living as a general philosophy.
Indeed, whether we like it or not, a retraction of the "consumer" economy is coming our way.
It has to.

[IrateCitizen]

14. Thanks -- I was concerned since I wasn't directly answering you

Actually, there are a lot of folks who don't necessarily want to be like "us". They want improvements in their quality of life (medicines, electricity, etc.), but they don't want the destruction of close-knit communities and extended families that goes along with "the American way of life".

And you're quite correct, that a severe retraction of the "consumer economy" is coming our way -- whether we take steps to ready ourselves for it, or not.

[sandnsea]

25. I would bet my own life

And I mean that, seriously, that Kerry gets exactly what you're talking about.

Here's a quick interview on the environment and I think if you sort of 'read between the lines', you can see he understands we do have to change. Particularly where he interjects this line:

"We must leverage a new urban strategy in America to plan spaces -- build community and avoid the endless sprawl that robs us of our public spaces -- and ultimately revive the urban center as one of the best places to live and raise a family."

And the fact that Teresa's foundation built a green, self-sustaining building in Pittsburgh.

He understands we have to change and he understands it's because of exactly what you're addressing. Some level of economic equality has to happen first, then the quality of life technologies and planning can be introduced. Those technologies will create OUR next generation of jobs and reduce the devastation to the planet at the same time. Give him a chance, I think you'll see he really is the best hope we have right now.

http://www.gristmagazine.com/maindish/kerry092303.asp

[flpoljunkie]

6. From Kerry's speech to the Detroit Economic Club on manufacturing jobs...

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0922.html

In part, but I suggest you read entire speech.

My manufacturing plan has four parts.  Investing in our jobs.  Committing America to research, science, and discovery to build the industries of the future.  Making trade work for America.  And reining in the skyrocketing health care and pension costs that make it impossible for manufacturers to compete.

Michigan thrived under the policies of Bill Clinton and Al Gore.  We expanded trade, invested in America, brought back fiscal discipline – creating 23 million new jobs while beginning to pay down our debt.  I am going to build on that success – and take action on manufacturing that goes even further.

First we need to encourage manufacturing job creation here at home.  If we’re serious about keeping manufacturing jobs from moving overseas, we need to close the tax loopholes that actually encourage companies to leave America to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.  It’s unpatriotic.  And it costs us jobs.

Instead, let’s give incentives to manufacturers who create jobs here at home.  That’s why I have supported legislation to provide targeted tax cuts to manufacturers who keep jobs in this country.  That’s also why my economic plan provides a new tax incentive to encourage companies to stay in America. I will give a new jobs credit – that will give manufacturers a break on the payroll taxes for every new worker they hire.   And we should encourage new investments in small manufacturing by eliminating the capital gains tax for investments in these small businesses and the jobs they create.

And if we’re going to build the jobs of the future, we need to make sure our workers are trained and ready to do them.  In the nineteenth century, a manufacturing worker’s knowledge and creativity were thought to just get in the way of the assembly line.  They were seen as nuisances.  Today, they are necessities.  The manufacturing jobs of today require 21st century skills.  I’ll make sure America has a cutting edge workforce by helping manufacturing workers with grants to upgrade their skills and retrain for the jobs of the future.  And we will encourage students to study subjects like engineering and computer science by helping them repay their student loans if they put their knowledge to work in the manufacturing sector.

On free trade:

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.

And given this Administration’s inaction, American manufactures can be excused for feeling like economic roadkill.  China, Japan, Korea, Europe, others use illegal practices and tariffs to keep American products from getting a fair shake. 

Two months after he took office, President Bush was in Kalamazoo.  There he said – quote – “if our trading partners trade unfairly, they’ll hear from us.”  But for nearly a thousand days, all they’ve heard is the sound of silence, the quiet of a wink and a nod.  Instead of raising his voice, George Bush has been sitting on his hands.

You heard it here again last week.  Secretary Evans complained about China’s promises to stop their trading abuses.  And over and over again, he said, “We’re still waiting.”  Well how long do we have to wait?  How many jobs do we have to lose until this Administration stops waiting?  How much of our manufacturing base do we have to see whittled away before this Administration uses the laws and tools that are sitting there available?  We need to stop waiting and start acting.

But just this summer, this Administration said they opposed efforts to increase the funds for enforcing China’s trade agreements.  They said the money just was “unnecessary.”  Sounds like the Cabinet members need to come out here for some more town meetings.

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. 

And I will appoint a U.S. Trade Representative who is an American patriot and who will put American jobs first.

But here’s what I won’t do, I won’t pander and claim that America can retreat from the global economy.  We can’t.  Unfortunately, some in my party – like Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt – are telling people just that.  Anyone who tells voters they’re going to build a fence high enough to keep out foreign competition isn’t offering an economic strategy – he’s selling a bill of goods.



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.

[IrateCitizen]

8. Question

If this is what he truly believes, then why did he vote for the flawed version of fast track that passed after his amendment was voted down? I've read the bill in detail and lobbied Congresspeople on it, and it was HORRIBLE. Yet, he voted FOR it.

How does he reconcile this? With speeches? Forgive me for being obtuse, but I believe in the credo of Molly Ivins -- if you want to know what a politician is going to do when elected, LOOK AT THE RECORD.

[blm]

17. Look at the Kyoto Accord and Kerry's OVERALL record.

That is his REAL work. That's why I trust him.

[OHdem10]

20. Response to Kerry Mistake on trade

I watched Kerry on 2 different occasion on C_Spn in town hall meetings and one long speech. He explained that he does belive in Trade -without which we have no place to sell our good. Hovever he did say there needs to be renegotation of trade deals. Envoronmental Standards , Labor standards muct be included in any trade policy. He understands we are in the process of downward harmonizxation---our standard of living going down to meet other countries rather than poor er countries being elevated to reach us.

When Dean says we can only trade with countries who have our standards he is making a mistake. Common sense tells anyone
there are only a few countries with which we can tade.

KErry has the realistic approach --Dean has a great soundbite which holds no weight after the election. Any President will be up against KStreet and the Corporations will be out in full force. At least Kerry has the approach he can sell to enough people to do something.
If he can start to cause standards of living to rise in mother countries, they can buy from us. We can be competive. Hope this helps.Demanding Labor standards, Environmental standards
will start the process fairly.

[ModerateMiddle]

21. You could think of it like Kyoto

IN looking at the Kyoto Protocol, the Bushies decided that it wasn't fair, because it didn't require the same sacrifices or terms for developing nations. Their choice was to walk away completely.

There needs to be the same kind of balance in trade. The developing nations cannot meet the same kinds of standards at this point, nor should they. The balance point is going to look different to different people depending on their own perspectives. The two polar opposites - labor and multinational companies - have the exact opposite needs. The answer for almost any of this kind of thing lies somewhere between those two extremes.

However, in which way are we more likely to get to the goal of "the same standards" that Dean advocates? By trading and having influence in that way, or by doing no trading with these countries?

[sandnsea]

22. Kerry's a realist

He is trying to tell the American people the truth. The truth is that we cannot expect a peaceful world unless we bring some measure of prosperity and economic security to the rest of the world. This will require trade. That's a truth. This does not mean we need to sacrifice our own standard of living in the process. That will require a President who leads on new technologies, investments in those technologies and investments in our workers to train them, continuously, to meet the rapid advances that will happen as globalization continues and new needs are created.

That's a fact of life. Clinton spoke about it all the time. It's why he created college tax credits, to allow people to retrain throughout their lives. Kerry wants to build on that. He's the best hope we've got to move ourselves and the world forward and create a peaceful, respectful and economically stable co-existence.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Perhaps Kerry is too much of an intellectual, while we are...

Perhaps Kerry is too much of an intellectual, while we are too used to 30-second commercials and the quick soundbite.

Perhaps the reason some of us get exasperated with Kerry and his nuances is because we fail to understand that Kerry is a very complex character, and that he can look at an issue from multiple points of view.

Perhaps what we see as waffling is nothing more than Kerry's analytical mind at work!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

24. well.... now that you mention it.....

:)

[sandnsea]

26. And lightyears ahead too!

I posted a link to an interview up above, in 'I'd bet my own life'. Rapid fire ideas on so many environmental issues that relate to other issues, it's just amazing to me. The guy is friggin' brilliant!!!