August 30, 2003
Dean's Position Switching
Dean shifts stands on some issuesThis is such a stupid article. It's very slanted, which is really disappointing considering that it comes from the Washington Post.
Dean from the beginning has been someone who defends the practice of changing positions depending on situation and fact. That's what a policy-maker should be able to do, adapt to circumstances. Here he's being criticized (or it is being implied that he is now open to criticism, an artful way for a "journalist" to slant his writing) for evolving his positions.
The craziest example is Social Security. He's actually being criticized for not being in support of raising the retirement age. That's just backwards. Previously he had remarked that raising the age was an option that would help solve it, but he had never firmly advocated it. Now he advocates raising the limit at which Social Security stops being taken out of a person's income.
The Cuba thing is another example. He said one thing months ago ("relax the embargo"), and says a different thing now ("maybe we shouldn't"). And in between that time Castro has started executing dissidents again. Is that really not supposed to matter?
Finally, the campaign finance reform thing. Before he said he'd accept public financing, because the alternative was relying on rich special interests rather than the public. Now he's finding the public might actually be able to outscore the rich special interests, so he might refuse the upper limit. The reason it's not a problem is because of the reasoning and integrity behind it. These critics, including this journalist, are being false.