Is it a double standard to demand that Dean release his sealed records?

[Padraig18]

Poll question: Is it a double standard to demand that Dean release his sealed records?

Various candidates are demanding the Gov. Dean unseal his records as Governor of Vermont. Meanwhile, none of those demanding that Dean unseal his records have opened their own records to public scrutiny; is this a double standard?

Edit: typo

[molly]

1. Please list WHO HAS SEALED RECORDS relevant

to this campaign.

[Padraig18]

3. Every single candidate.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[molly]

5. Name those candidates - PLEASE!

[Padraig18]

7. You don't know who the other 8 candidates are?

:eyes:

[molly]

10. Of course - just don't know what records are sealed -

so please tell me?

[Padraig18]

14. They are all 'private.

Every single record in their offices. Quit playing sea lawyer---you're not very good at it.

[molly]

20. What's a "sea lawyer"?

[Padraig18]

22. Look it up. n/t

[molly]

24. Nope - you brought it up - what is it?

[Padraig18]

27. Look it up.n/t

[Ardee]

220. waste of time,Molly

this sort of specious hurling of "facts" and refusal to substantiate those "facts" is far too common here,is SOP for this one, has no merit whatsoever and lends the suspicious odor of dead fish to this particular Dean supporter.

It is common ( but not ethical) for some politicos to seal their records in order to avoid getting bit on the butt when seeking higher office. For one who proclaims himself a member of the "democratic wing of the democratic party" (Wellstone just rolled over) the sealing of his records can only be seen in a very poor light and lends further credit to the "Dean is just another phoney" crowd.

[SahaleArm]

25. Sorry but that dog won't hunt...

Those who haven't released are all active members of the House or Senate. Dean is no longer acting governor, there is very little reason to seal those records; he certainly wasn't involved in national security matters.

[Padraig18]

29. Oh, so the instant he ceasedf to be governor...

... all the other people mentioned in whatever records there are surrendered THEIR rights to privacy? :eyes:

[SahaleArm]

34. You don't seal records when active - They are sealed by virtue...

of having office. Vermont, by law, will withhold the names of private citizens when releasing records.

[molly]

61. Which means that there is absolutely NO LOGICAL reason

to seal them EXCEPT to protect something HOHO doesn't want made public - HMMMMM - what could that possibly be?

[Padraig18]

62. Privacy, perhaps?

:eyes:

[molly]

64. Nope - that is already a known fact - the names of

people writing to HOHO when he was gov has already been released - much to the dismay of those hurt - NOT HOHO - why should he care?

[Padraig18]

66. explain your 'no' vote, as requested in the poll question.

Why is it OK for all of Senator Kerry's records to remain private, e.g.?

[molly]

78. Senator Kerry's records are not private - they are a matter

of public record - all you need to do is request to look at them. Much unlike HOHO's

[Padraig18]

84. No, they are not.

Senators and Representatives are exempt from the FOIA. Nice try, and thanks for playing.

[TorchTheWitch]

174. some of them already have had their rights trumped

<snip>
Dean, who originally pushed to have his papers sealed for more than 20 years, has said that some papers must remain private to protect citizens who wrote to him about personal matters, such as their health. But according to a recent Boston Herald report, some such letters are among Dean's publicly available records.
<end snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57807-2003Dec11?language=printer

[Padraig18]

177. And your candidate's files are available for examination where and when?

:eyes:

[TorchTheWitch]

207. kindly refer to your own post

#164

"To his credit, Gen. Clark made public what he could make public legally.

:eyeroll: right back attcha

[Padraig18]

209. Sorry.

Without a Clark avatar or other input regarding who you support, I couldn't know who it was, could I? :eyes:

[TorchTheWitch]

236. you didn't ask who I supported

"And your candidate's files are available for examination where and when?"

As you can see by your own words, a full and complete answer to your question didn't require revealing which candidate I supported. :eyes:

[imax2268]

204. I think that more attention

should be paid to the papers that BushCo and Cheney have sealed...

besides...from what I understand Dean is in the process of releasing some of those papers...that's what I heard...

[Ardee]

225. wrong wrong wrong

unless sealed by the politico the records of public servants are public.The documents, correspondances ( not personal)and other such connected to the public service of the person are all available by request. Where do you acquire your facts, they are simply not....

[Padraig18]

232. oh, really?

Then where may I examine all the correspondence, etc., of the other candidates, in particular the ones currently in Congress? :eyes:

[Ardee]

242. none so blind

you do not seek information Padraig ,merely confirmation. If you are so sincere in wanting to know how is it you miss the very next post,#98 which answers the question you repeatedly ask but refuse to see answered.

In point of fact Dean was the only democratic candidate who chose to actually seal his records. What is it, I wonder, that he wishes to hide? I am sick unto death of the secrecy and misplaced loyalties of the Bush administration and will not support a candidacy that mirrors that same repugnancy.

[Padraig18]

244. Post #98 does *NOT* address the question.

It refers to documents like the Conressional Record, etc.; it does NOT address the files, memos, correspondence, etc., in each Congressional members FILES--- the exact same information THEY demand that Dean release.

I'll give you an 'A' for tenaciousness, however.... :eyes:

[Ardee]

245. my goodness your bad manners know no bounds

that you are a fanatical Deanista is blatantly evident. That you leave all reason and thoughtful consideration of opposing views behind is also sadly obvious and does you little credit whatsoever.

Dean is the only candidate among the nine who purposively and deliberately sealed records. That one fact dooms your arguments to the scrap heap and all your niggling and sophomoric little posts attempting to deny and distort that simple fact reflect so badly upon you that I am embarrassed for you. You do have a history of being far too enamored of your own opinions and debate with you always seem to take the same course, ignoring of the factual representations in posts that "dare" disagree with your own and increasingly snippy retorts.

I am rather confident that most thinking folks reading these posts are aware of your deficits and that the points have been made. Thus I leave these pages to your childish responses. The field is yours but there is no honor found there.

[Nicholas_J]

98. The records of all of the other candidates

WHo are serving in political office are totally available to the public. You can easily see the arguments they make for voting for or not voting for a bill. You can get access to their record of telephone contacts in their offices.

Dena kept these records sealed. So no one knows what contact he maty have had in order to determine who he spoke to before vetoing r threatening to veto legislation.

So you are making an incorrect statement. The records of every other cnadidates except Sharpton, are availble under FOIA.

Dean purposefully attempted to cover his contacts and recors of private meeting made at times he was making decisions regarding public legislation. The other cnadidates did not, and cannot.

[Padraig18]

110. Wrong!

Their office records and files are exempt from FOIA. Just as many of Dean's records are 'public' as are Kerry's, e.g. . The records the other campaigns are asking for release are correspondence, notes of meeting, etc., items which Kerry, et al, may hold privately ubnder the FOIA.

I *know* what the FOIA says, and the hypocrisy is sickening.

[TorchTheWitch]

172. absolutely right

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

"Judicial Watch has also filed two lawsuits to gain access to the records of Vice President Cheney’s Energy Task Force. Dean had criticized Vice President Cheney for withholding these records from public scrutiny."
http://www.judicialwatch.org/3535.shtml

[Padraig18]

223. Still no reply to...

... why the other candidates don't do as they say gov. dean should do, huh? Typical... :eyes:

[dsc]

4. Every single Congressional record

is defacto sealed. They are under Kerry's complete control and can only be released if Kerry says so.

[Padraig18]

6. Precisely.

*nod*

[molly]

8. NOD? Name the sealed records - PLEASE!

[Padraig18]

11. No file in their offices are public records.

Quit the pettifogging.

[molly]

53. WHY NOT?

you expect the citizens of this country to believe a man that went skiing after avoiding the draft?

[Padraig18]

56. You tell me why not

After all, they are THEIR records, not Howard Dean's. And he didn't 'avoid' the draft---he got a medical deferment.

[molly]

59. Medical deferment to go skiing 2 days later

why my husband and many like him - John F Kerry - were fighting the Viet Cong - SHAME ON HOWARD DEAN!

[Padraig18]

60. Boo freaking hoo, hoo, hoo.

Did your husband or JK have a documented medical condidtion that made him less than 1-A?

[molly]

82. My husband had a very serious ear condition

you obviously don't know - or don't want to know - that HOHO admitted to not wanting to go to fight - NOONE did that I know - including my husband. My husband was not deceptive!

[OrAnarch]

85. Now thats something to be proud of..

With a condition, he chose to go afar and wage an unjust war, killing the innocent. He spent a few years contributing to a military machine that makes the rich richer and gives people like Bush the power to spread death and destruction across the globe. Sorry, but Dean's ski trip has the moral highground here.

Don't shoot the messenger for finally informing you that humans, soldiers or people, all have the ability to think before acting and should then take personal responsibility for their actions. If Bush showed up at your door tommorrow and handed you an M-16 and some orders, I would hope the world would hold you both responsible for the carnage that would ensue. IF he came to my door, he'd get a polite 'fuck off'.

[Cha]

97. I thank you for the sanity of your post.

:yourock:

[molly]

113. Were any of you guys alive then? If not, you cannot

possibly know what it was like.

[Padraig18]

125. waaa, waaa, waaaa...

Bull feathers! That's THE lamest argument I've ever heard.

[molly]

140. Why would ANYONE ever want to align themselves with the

likes of un-compassionate - brain-washed people?

[Padraig18]

141. Why would anyone support a * enabler?

Ball to you...

[OrAnarch]

199. what an argument...

Anytime when faced with a problem, you can just fall back on thoughts like that and avoid logic and thought all together...And of course, youll get no where.


Perhaps not alive then, but empiracally, we NOW know that the Vietnam war was a farce and a sham. So even if people then bought into the nationalism then, they should be apologetic with their newfound knowledge now, and embarrassed by their gullibility.


Listen, NOW, 70% of people thought that the Iraq qar was justifiable. I believe support for the war still polls higher than Vietnam chronologically. So, then, its ok what our people do in foreign countries because people have been lied to or do not have the personal convictions to stand up for what they believe? Come on now...we know its wrong now, and if you didn't know it was wrong then, take responsibility for that. Take responsibility with your new knowledge of what your actions have caused in the past.


Remember, now there is still 30% of the people with true beliefs and patriotism, who are perhaps in much the same position as Dean was. So while we are talking about double standards, and your holding your Democrat banner high against Bush now, please consider how this parellels to your own time, and be ashamed if you would condemn me for skipping out on a draft. That behavior is despicable.

[Ardee]

228. only one thing to say

screw you and the horse you rode in on, and the poster who agrees ,rather thoughtlessly as well.To summarily demean those who served in Viet Nam brands you not them. You are simply beneath contempt.

[Padraig18]

87. Did it keep him from being 1-A?

Was it medically-documented?

[bitchkitty]

227. What is this HOHO shit?

You Clark supporters astound me with your wisdom and maturity.

[chocolateeater]

240. So are you saying that Dean lied abouthis back condition?(n/t)

[OrAnarch]

77. vietcong?

haha. keep telling yourself that. they were killing innocent vietnam humans in an unjust invasion, one in which they should deeply apologize for participating in.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AntiCoup2K4]

101. And you expect the citizens of this country to believe....

...that a Skull & Bonesman, advised by PNAC'ers, who wants to appoint James Baker to his cabinet is the right man to bring down the Bush Criminal Empire, who are Skull & Bonesmen, advised by PNAC'ers, in the White House courtesy of an election rigged by James Baker.

I'd have to say that a legitimate medical deferrment is much more credible than John Boy's situation.

[MODemocrat]

143. Some people believe Bush in spite of all his lies

Let me see, did he just go AWOL, or was that desertion!?

[Andromeda]

68. I'm going to tell you again...

but I don't know why I'm bothering to repeat myself:

Dean's records are no longer sealed. Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against Dean to have his records opened.

They are being examined by the judges NOW and the judges will have the final say which papers remain confidential and which papers don't.

It is out of Dean's hands. He has no control over his records at this time.

Dean didn't hire a lawyer to fight it. That should tell you something.

All will be revealed so everybody can be disappointed together when they don't find anything incriminating.

[TorchTheWitch]

187. nope, sorry

It is out of Dean's hands. He has no control over his records at this time.

It most certainly is NOT out of Dean's hands, and that's the whole reason this issue is so big and really starting to have a bad smell:

<snip>
Friday, December 12, 2003
...
Responding to the mounting criticism, Dean said this week that he would leave the matter up to the judge in the Judicial Watch lawsuit. Deputy Secretary of State William A. Dalton, whose staff oversees the archives, said a decision could be months away, but he is preparing his staff for the possibility that the court, or Dean himself, will make some documents available sooner.

Fitton, of Judicial Watch, said that Dean is trying to delay the process. Last year, three Vermont newspapers sued for access to Dean's schedules. It took several months for a judge to rule that some should be made public. "It is clearly a stall tactic to say, 'Let the judge decide,' " Fitton said. "Once people realize that, the pressure to open them up himself will increase."
<end snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57807-2003Dec11?language=printer

*Tom Fitton is Judicial Watch President
http://www.judicialwatch.org/3536.shtml


If Dean WANTED the records open before any judicial decision, he has the option to open them HIMSELF. Dean's own experience with being sued to reveal scheduling records taught him how long it takes for a judge to rule that some should be opened... his strategy in this case is to cross his fingers and try to run down the clock. If he's got nothing to hide, he would want to open the records himself and stop this bad press in the bud.

[Andromeda]

201. Much ado about nothing.

Period. This is just hype to make it appear as if Dean is guilty of something. You did not dispute what I said and what I said still stands.

It IS out of Dean's hands now. He is letting the system take the initiative so why should he open the records himself? It's gone way past that now so why shouldn't he just wait it out. He's not doing anything wrong by doing that. Besides he's got more important things to do than appease the hysterical kooks that are demanding his records be unsealed.

Another point I should have made is that Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch is a certifiable loon who sues everybody including his own mother. He has several bimbo lawsuits going against Bill Clinton and they will probably go on and on until the year 2035 or until he dies.

Judicial Watch has little credibility IMHO because they abuse the system by filing numerous frivolous lawsuits and nothing much comes of them because they have no merit. This one is no exception.

[TorchTheWitch]

239. nope, still wrong

Much ado about nothing? I think you know better then that.

It's really very simple. Dean CAN open the records himself. PERIOD. You can't spin that with a single iota of credibility. Go ahead and try to come up with a single bit of credible rule of law, recent legal documentation or legal president that shows Dean is unable to open those records himself at this point... I'll wait.

If Dean isn't hiding something, he would be the FIRST ONE shoving the records into the faces of whoever is questioning him on it. This is HURTING his campaign. He could expose the records himself and be totally 100% vindicated if there's nothing there that could hurt him and his poll numbers would skyrocket, the poll numbers of Gep and anyone else that called him on this would plummit, he could righteously beat the drum on his cleanliness, and the cash would FLOOD into his campaign coffers. Except he isn't willing to open them himself.

We already know there is SOMETHING in those records that could possibly hurt him because both Dean and his own attorney are on the record admitting there is something in those records that could be damaging to his run for the presidency. It could very well be that it's just some minor little embarrassing thing, but nevertheless, there IS something.

You would have been wiser to have just glossed over the Judicial Watch factor. Trying to spin that one is beyond ridiculous. They sued Cheney (you know... that guy we hate) and his nasty Energy Task Force, sued the Senate for abuse of power regarding judicial appointments, sued Rudy Giuliani in connection with his fundraising practices during his Senate campaign... oh, wait... my bad, Judicial Watch is perfectly credible and applause worthy unless they're suing Howard Dean. :crazy: But the most compelling evidence that your take on Judicial Watch is absurd is that Dean fought this issue about his records for months but buckled under after being served by Judicial Watch - he's not contesting the suit, and he's allowing the records to be opened... according to you, they're already unsealed. If Judicial Watch has no credibility, nobody told Dean because it's obvious that he believes they do.

The shit storm is brewing, and we can all just sit back with our popcorn and watch the fecal thunderheads move in. Grab a chair, but bring your own Kleenex.

[Padraig18]

2. Please explain your 'no' vote, as requested.

Thank you.

[Padraig18]

9. All these 'no' votes, not one explanation.

About what I figured... :eyes:

[molly]

12. PLEASE tell us whose records are sealed and what are

those particular records?

[Padraig18]

16. I have.

If you would just read the answers to your obvious dodges.

[molly]

23. Give us a link?

[Padraig18]

26. Try their filing cabinets and gov't warehouses.

:eyes: Nice dodge.

[molly]

32. NOPE - you are evading many important questions

just like hoho. Just answer the questions and quit playing games?

[Padraig18]

35. YOU are 'playing games'.

I'm not evading anything, but just like JK, you are employing hypocrisy.

[molly]

55. Hypocrisy? Try honest logical reasoning

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lefta Dissenter]

13. Clark has released

all records that are his to release. The records from being a 3- and 4-star General belong to the U.S. Government, and you can bet your sweet bippy that if there were anything derogatory about Clark in there, we would have heard about it by now!

I SO wish that Dean would release his records - have the names of individuals purged wherever necessary - but it would just take this issue off the table!

[Padraig18]

19. Everyone should do the same.

Then hypocrisy would be off the table as an issue, too.

[molly]

28. I don't know of any candidate with sealed PUBLIC records

except ho-ho - who else do you know of?

[Padraig18]

31. They are automatically sealed without the candidate's permission.

So that means everybody else.

[molly]

33. HEHEHE - you are wrong!

now - tell us what logical reason hoho sealed his records?

[Padraig18]

36. Prove I'm wrong.

Hehehe.

[molly]

38. The prove is for you - you started this thread

[Padraig18]

41. I don't have to 'prove' anything except hypocrisy.

Which I am doing, with your able assistance.

[XanaDUer]

74. No, it's not illegal, just questionable...

"MONTPELIER, VT (2003-01-14)

(Host) Many of the records from the 11 years Howard Dean was governor of Vermont will be kept secret, at least for now. Shortly before he left the governor's job, Dean negotiated a deal that seals his sensitive papers for 10 years. Records from the two previous administrations were closed for just six years. Dean is running for president, and he says he wanted the records closed because of political considerations."


More here:

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/vpr/news/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=441887

[Padraig18]

80. Where may we view Sen. Kerry's files?

I'd love to browse through them.

[Myra]

79. It would elevate Dean rather than lowering him.

It would sound better for him to say "I've unsealed mine, now you unseal yours" than "I'll unseal mine *if* they'll unseal theirs."

What standard is he reaching for? The CheneyBush standard?

[Padraig18]

95. It's out of his hands.

He is not fighting the Judicial Watch lawsuit, which should say TONS to all but the most ardent ABD folks.

[Ardee]

230. He is CERTAINLY fighting it

by employing delaying tactics in the hopes that this insight into Deans defects dies down.Just the fact that he , in the middle of a campaign for the presidency, when every eye is upon him,chooses to do something so open to criticism shows me his unfitness for office.

[Padraig18]

234. And all of the other candidates HAVE made their files public?

Why don't they qyuit being hypocrites, and do what they are demanding that Gov. Dean do? I'd like an answer to that, please.

[Ardee]

243. no ,sadly you dont

The answers to your questions have been noted by others ,why are you blinded to them? A rhetorical question as your fanaticism is blatantly obvious. You do your candidate no merit whatsoever and, if you are typical of Dean supporters ( and you are certainly untypical of any political debater), his candidacy will soon falter and drop due to the turn off factor of his blind and arrogant support.

Dean is being asked because he, and he alone chose to seal records....insert great big D-U-H.........

[janx]

51. A judge is going to do so.

This is to make sure that the accounting is impartial.

You have no room to gripe. Sorry.

[molly]

63. I like and admire Wesley Clark - he is my second choice

then Edwards!

[Eloriel]

170. It is off the table

THEY ARE IN A JUDGE'S HANDS WHO WILL DECIDE ABOUT EACH AND EVER PIECE OF PAPER IN THE LOT.

[TorchTheWitch]

215. it's not off the table

DEAN CAN OPEN THE RECORDS HIMSELF SO THE VOTING PUBLIC CAN SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANYTHING DAMAGING IN THEM BEFORE VOTES ARE CAST AND HE IS REFUSING TO DO SO.

<snip>
Responding to the mounting criticism, Dean said this week that he would leave the matter up to the judge in the Judicial Watch lawsuit. Deputy Secretary of State William A. Dalton, whose staff oversees the archives, said a decision could be months away, but he is preparing his staff for the possibility that the court, or Dean himself, will make some documents available sooner.

Fitton, of Judicial Watch, said that Dean is trying to delay the process. Last year, three Vermont newspapers sued for access to Dean's schedules. It took several months for a judge to rule that some should be made public. "It is clearly a stall tactic to say, 'Let the judge decide,' " Fitton said. "Once people realize that, the pressure to open them up himself will increase."
<end snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57807-2003Dec11?language=printer

*Tom Fitton is Judicial Watch President
http://www.judicialwatch.org/3536.shtml

[slinkerwink]

15. yes, I'd agree

[eileen_d]

17. This thread is going places!

Glad to hear Clark's released what he could, so I don't have to worry about it...

[molly]

18. Ever hear of "double-speak"?

or "pass-the-buck"? Or, those games played at canivals? This sounds kindof like the hidden peanut - NO?

[Padraig18]

21. It's exposing hypocrisy. n/t

[buddhamama]

30. was Clinton asked to release his during the primaries?

answer that question and you'll the answer to your poll.

[molly]

37. Maybe - but who cares? I care about WHY a govenor

would seal his records? My ex-govenor - Tom Carper - has NO sealed records. I don't agree with some of his opinions, but what the hey - he doesn't have sealed records. BTW - Delaware is a very SMALL state - much like Vermont.

[buddhamama]

40. i care! that is why i asked the question

[molly]

48. What's Clinton got to do with this election - he's not running?

DUH? So, answer the question - forget the polls - just answer the questions!!!

[buddhamama]

54. listen molly,

i do not answer to you,okay? and i did not ask the question of you either. i would like to know.

if you can't/don't want to answer the question, fine, don't.

ignore it.

[Padraig18]

39. 12 'no' votes, and still not a single explanation...

Why am I not surprised. Hypocrisy is so easy to expose...

[slinkerwink]

42. yes, it is.

[molly]

65. Well, we are waiting?

[Padraig18]

112. We've been waiting longer.

Explain your 'no' vote, please, as originally requested in the poll.

[janx]

43. That's because there is no viable explanation.

That much is obvious.

[Andromeda]

75. Please read post #68

:eyes:

[janx]

99. Trace back through posts. You'll find you misunderstood

what I was saying.

...which was that there's no explanation from Dean bashers.

(We have now reached complete mayhem on DU!)

[Andromeda]

202. Sorry, janx...

should have read it more carefully.:-)

[molly]

44. I don't care about COUNTS - I care about ANSWERS!

[Padraig18]

46. Apparently that only applies if...

... YOU are not the one required to provide them.

[molly]

50. OH - DEAR - Howard Dean is now above the law?

[Padraig18]

52. What law are you referring to?

Sealing his records is legal in VT.

[janx]

47. You'll get your answers from an impartial judge.

What more do you want?

[TorchTheWitch]

216. seriously?

How about he open the records himself instead of trying to run out the clock? Answers from the judge won't mean squat if Dean is nominated or actually elected and THEN we find out something damaging.

If he has nothing to hide, why doesn't he open the records himself instead of fighting the issue for months on end? He can STILL open the records himself at any time.

<snip>
Responding to the mounting criticism, Dean said this week that he would leave the matter up to the judge in the Judicial Watch lawsuit. Deputy Secretary of State William A. Dalton, whose staff oversees the archives, said a decision could be months away, but he is preparing his staff for the possibility that the court, or Dean himself, will make some documents available sooner.

Fitton, of Judicial Watch, said that Dean is trying to delay the process. Last year, three Vermont newspapers sued for access to Dean's schedules. It took several months for a judge to rule that some should be made public. "It is clearly a stall tactic to say, 'Let the judge decide,' " Fitton said. "Once people realize that, the pressure to open them up himself will increase."
<end snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57807-2003Dec11?language=printer

*Tom Fitton is Judicial Watch President
http://www.judicialwatch.org/3536.shtml

[Padraig18]

58. make that 16.

The stench of cheap political opportunism shames those who employ it into slience, it seems...

[stickdog]

45. Of course it's a double standard -- and a Rovian one at that. (nt)

[Padraig18]

49. Exactly.

It's a cheap political tactic worthy of the Mayberry Machiavelli himself. :grr:

[quaker bill]

67. It is an obvious double standard

And an attempt to create an issue out of thin air. A classic repugnican ploy, like the attack ads featuring Osama.

This kind of stuff has the stench of Kenneth Starr / Whitewater all over it.

What Dean did as Governor is in the public record. Anything of relevance was clearly covered in the press and can probably be simply uncovered by a lexis/nexis search.

They are just looking for tidbits that they can pull out of context and spin to their hearts content. Howard should stick to his guns on this.

[molly]

69. Let me guess - you support HOHO?

if it were any of the other candidates, this would be an issue - correct? Don't answer until you are willing to bet on it!

[Padraig18]

71. May I borrow your crystal ball?

:eyes:

[Cha]

90. let me guess....you support

that guy who said...""Stop crying in your teacups"

"Get over it? We’re talking about one of the most sacred rights of a free society here, Senator, not about getting over a bad hair day. Americans have died to secure our freedoms -- including your right to run for office and our right to have our vote counted. If we believe that right was violated when the Supreme Court refused to count legal votes, it is our patriotic duty to say so.

Kerry's remark is an eerie echo of the Republican refrain of 2000 to "move on, get over it!" But why would a Democrat feel so threatened by people’s vivid memories of the stolen election that he felt compelled to lecture a crowd about it?"

Good Question!

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/10_kerry.html

[Padraig18]

70. I agree--pure Rovian tactics.

You can almost smell the desperation from some of the other campaigns with this cheap-shot tactic.

[molly]

72. We are just desperate for a government

OF THE PEOPLE - BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE!!!!"

I really don't think this includes HOHO - he's for HOHO!

[Padraig18]

76. Why not explain your 'no' vote, as requested?

Slogans are a dime a dozen; logic isn't. :eyes:

[stickdog]

83. I really don't think

you're making any sense.

[Ardee]

231. it is Dean supporters who are guilty

If the records had no relevence then why did Howie feel the need to seal them. I ,for one, am sick to death of politicos who hide behind such tactics. Almost as sick as i am of supporters who behave so childishly when their beloved (and phoney as a three dollar bill)candidate is criticised for anything.

[Padraig18]

235. And the other candidates' records are available for inspection WHERE?

:eyes:

[Padraig18]

73. 19 'no' votes--- zero explanations.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

[Ardee]

233. poor padraig

it must be so hard to learn with ones hands firmly over ones ears and eyes tightly shut. Poor padraig opening himself up to such ridicule and the shaking of heads behind his back.

[Padraig18]

238. Eyes wide open, and hearing...

... very little but rank hypocrisy on this issue. i notice that no candidates' supporters (except Clark) have ever answered where, when and how their candidates' files may be viewed.

[Raya]

86. IT is so DISGRACEFULL that DEAN supporters make FALSE statements

IT IS REALLY SHAMEFULL HOW THESE questions based on totally
false assumption are supported on the board, but critiques of
Dean are "locked" for any possible reason.

Everyone involved in presidential political discussion should be
willing to take the effort to find out that House and Senate records are public unless officially classified for national security purposes.

This is one of the classic difference between a Congressman and a Governor running for President that has been discussed for decades. That is, the Congressional record is much more open to scrutiny and critique than the decisions of Governors.

I should be obvious, that the media attention to the Governors sealed records (Bush's or Dean's) indicates that a very different set of fact apply here than to the other candidates.

The lack of knowledge in the Dean camp should scares me. I should
scare all of us.

[Padraig18]

89. Where and how may I examine the correspondence and meeting notes of...

... say, Representative Gephart, or Senator Edwards? We are NOT ignorant of the law--you are. Congressional office records are NOT suvbject to the FOIA.

[Sensitivity]

103. I feel very dirty about the way we are defending the indefensible

When George Bush was hiding his record, it was such a big deal.

Now we are doing the same thing and comming up with every maneuver to
excuse it.

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG. Even the officials in
Vermont said I was a very questionable action. No one is saying that about any congressional records.

Is there no shame.

[Padraig18]

106. The hypocrisy is so thick it could be cut with a knife.

I wish he hadn't sealed them, because I doubt that there is really much there, but the rank hypocrisy of the other campaigns on this issue is disgusting.

[janx]

137. Since you have come here, you have done nothing

but bash Dean as a candidate. Every post is about nothing but that.

Care to tell us why?

[Andromeda]

203. Dean supporters

know exactly who their candidate is and I think is it the anti-Dean crowd who has lack of knowledge about Dean.

Nobody is "locking" discussions of Dean. How could we? You just put your two-cents worth in so I guess your 1st Amendment rights have been upheld.

Why should a different standard for Dean exist than what exists for the other candidates? Don't tell me again that it's because he's a governor. And why does a different set of "facts" apply here. Please explain. Why is Dean singled out for such scrutiny and none of the other candidates are challenged in the same way?

The whole issue has been blown up to monumental proportions and when all is said and done I'll bet nothing incriminating shows up and then the Dean-haters will have to go sniffing around for something else to use against him.

[molly]

88. It is because of people like you that I WILL NEVER EVER

VOTE for Howard Dean. This would be the first election since I was of voting age that I will not vote for a DEM president. I really don't see much difference between Howard Dean and GW Bush and you supporters of his verify that fact.

[Padraig18]

91. At least my candidate isn't a Bush enabler.

You cannot say the same, my dear.

[Cha]

92. *

:nopity:

[stickdog]

109. Please tell us all the similarties between Bush and Dean.

Yes, both tries to keep their private records private for a few years.

That's simply SOP for Governors as well as Senators.

Got any more?

[Andromeda]

205. If you don't vote for the Dem...

you are helping Bush get re-elected.

[Nicholas_J]

94. It is more than a double standard...

It is a triple standard.

Dean can run against democrats, and be critical about decisions they have made while in office, because there records in congress are totally public, while Dena can hide any number of his questionable decisions behind a veil of secrecy. Dean can rant about an Iraq vote, but no one can see how many phone calles he made to pharmceutical companies before reciving a large campaign contribution, af few days before vetoing legislation these same companies wanted killed

And Dean had his records sealed by the state he governed in.

When George Bush tried he failed and Bush's records are NOT sealed by the state of Texas, who's Attorney General refused to seal them. Requests must be made to the State of Texas, and on a case by case basis, the State decides whetther to release a particular record or not, regardless of where George W. has had them stored.

What is of greater concern was Deans refusal to release records regarding decisions he made as Govenror. The request's were not made by Republicans, but by environmental organizations who questioned the sale of Vermont Yankee at the same time Dean received large donation to his presidential campaign by Vermont Yankee executives.


CLF seeks details of Dean administration’s talks with utilities
March 11, 2002

(from the State section)
By SUSAN SMALLHEER Southern Vermont Bureau

MONTPELIER — The Conservation Law Foundation will file a freedom of information request with the Dean administration today to find out how many contacts it has had with Vermont utility executives over the pending sale of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

Mark Sinclair, senior attorney with the environmental group, said Monday that recent news reports about the financial contributions made by Vermont utility executives or board members to Gov. Howard Dean’s presidential campaign political action committee were “too much of a coincidence.”

Sinclair said the new offer from Entergy Nuclear of Jackson, Miss., last week wasn’t substantially better than the original bid, and doesn’t really address the serious concerns raised by the state earlier this winter about local control and other economic issues.

“The department didn’t get anything,” he said.

Sinclair compared it to the negotiations with Vice President Dick Cheney by energy companies that are now subject to an investigation by the General Accounting Office.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/Archive/Articles/Article/43924

The person spearheading this information request was someone Dean himself had appointed to the Vermont Environmental Board.

There are a number of other incidents in which Deans decisions in favor of large corporate interests coincided with large contributions to his campaign funds.

This is every bit as suspect as anything George Bush has ever done, and certainly deserves as much scrutiny as anyones vote on Iraq or the Patriot Act.

Deans not concerned, given the vast amount of documentation sealed by him, it will take more than year to even put a dent into the records, but fortunately, they will likely look at the cases in which other agencies tried to sue Deans access to records related to events in which the appearance of financial malfeasnace may exist on Deans part.
This not to say that he did anything wrong, but at the time, it very much looked like Dean DID do something wrong and wa attempting to cover it up.

Judicial Watch was able to get the decision it got so quickly because in Vermont there was no legal precedent for sealing the records for the length Dean attempted and obtained.

AS I said, It may not do other democrats any good, but it will certainly aid republicans.

[Padraig18]

96. Tons of Deans records are public, too.

And TONS of Kerry's are not, because Congress is exempt from the FOIA. This 'call' is pure political opportunism, and hypocritical as hell.

[Nicholas_J]

200. Where are the records of Congress FOIA exempt.

Having worked for YEARS and YEARS obtaining such records, I know that this is not factual. Any decisions made by any member of congress must be completly in the public record:


9. The Presidential Records Act of 1978, 44 U.S.C. §2201-2207 (1982), does make the documentary materials of former Presidents subject to the FOIA in part. Presidential papers and documents generated after January 20, 1981, will be available -- subject to certain restrictions and delays -- under the general framework of the FOIA.

10. Virtually all official records of the Congress are available to the public. The Congressional Record, all bills introduced in the House and the Senate, and all committee reports (except for those containing classified information) are printed and disseminated. Most committee hearings are also printed and available. Copies of most congressional publications are available at federal depository libraries throughout the county. Historical records of the Congress are made available in accordance with procedures established by House and Senate rules.

In addition, almost all activities of the Congress take place in public. The sessions of the House and Senate are normally open to the public and televised. Most committee hearings and markups are open to the public, and some are televised.

http://www.sba.gov/foia/guide.html#10


Virtually all records of congress and congressmen are conpletely a matter of public record. Governor Dean's activities regarding decision making issue, were not. All of the decision making activities of the Congress are done in public, and not in camera, as the decisions made by Governor Dean.

Which is why no one is crying out in public for access to the records of the other candidates regarding the decision making process regarding legislation. When Dean decided to veto the noted pharmaceutical legislation in 1996, three days after reciving a large campaig contribution from the major company lobbying for its defeat, Dean did not meet with the people who were arguing fot its defeat in public, but in private.

Deans decisions regarding the sale of Vermont Yankee to Entergy/Koch Industries, likewize, were not made in public, on C-Span or in any othe manner, in such a way that the public could find out how thw Governor came to his decision.

Like Richard Nixon, during Watergate, Governor Dean decided to invoke executive priviledge when his record of contacts regarding the sale of Vermont Yankee to Entergy, and large contributions to his presidential campaign from Vermont Yankee Executives invilves with the sale who favored the sale of the facility to Entergy/Koch Industries.

Which is why Judicial Watch, and in Particular the Conservation Law Foundation has compared Deans actions during the sale of Vermont Yankee to Dick Cheneys meetings with executives in the Energy Industry. And so far, the courts have found Cheney to have had more valid reasons for keeping the meeting private than Dean has had to seal his records. Cheneys stated reasons were to protect the confidentiality of those who he met with. Deans stated reasons were to protect Dean.

Besides, Dean called upon the one reason for sealing the records that is not considered a legal reason for sealing them. To cover his own ass. To avoid embarassing things in his record that could be used against him in future election campaigns. This is not an acceptable reason under any of the state laws regarding sealing such records.
And Judicial Watch and the very Liberal Vermont Courts just nailed Deans ass and are now going through the records to unseal all that do not fit the legal criteria for doing so.

Dean has tried to seal records that are available to the public as a matter of course for all of the other candidates, as all of the activities involved are as a matter of course, performed totally in the public arena.

If one compares Deans decision to veto legislation as a vote, one can consider that vote to have been performed in private, and all debate about it to have been performed in private, wheras the votes and the reasons given for such votes by congressmen are subject to hours of debate in the public forum.

By record, Deans tenure as governor was and is still considered the most secretive in Vermont History.


Finally, records of elected officals do become public under NARA, once they leave office.

This most firmly applies to Governor Dean.

[Padraig18]

210. Unfortunately, the law you cite...

... does NOT cover a member of Congress' *office* files, such as correspondence, inter-office memos, notes from staff meetings, etc. . Nice attempt at diversion, though.

[beaconess]

241. Why hasn't Howard Dean made this argument?

Probably because he knows it's bull.

Those of you trying to compare Dean with other candidates are missing a crucial point. Edwards, Kerry, Lieberman, et al, are all members of the legislative branch, a deliberative body whose decisions are made in the open - as noted previously, not only do their deliberations take place in public and are fully on the record, their vote is also a matter of record. The public nature of their duties ensures the level of transparency and accountability that the public needs. Thus, there is no need for members of the House and Senate to release their inter-office files.

Moreover, the vast majority of this information is not the property of the Member but of the House and Senate. Thus, they don't have the authority to seal or release most of the documents since they don't belong to them.

On the other hand, Dean, Bush and other governors, are part of the executive branch, where deliberations and decisions are not nearly as visible to the public as those of the legislative branch. Unlike members of the House and Senate, a governor does not operate as part of a collaberative or larger body. As such, he has considerably more power than any individual legislator and, as such, is held to a higher standard of accountability.

People who are familiar with government and its machinations understand this and that is why there has been no hue and cry for Senators and Members of Congress to "unseal" their files. Anyone who knows how all of this works knows that that is a silly argument.

That probably explains why Howard Dean hasn't made any such demand.

[stickdog]

104. Now you are defending Bush vis a vis Dean?

Could it be time to look at the big picture a tiny bit, playahayta?

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Padraig18]

102. It's also surprising that...

... other candidate's supporters are comfortable with the hypocrisy of calling for Dean to unseal HIS records, while maintaing the privacy of their own. Don't you see the blatant hypocrisy in such a stance? :eyes:

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

217. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SEAburb]

111. So you support governmet secrecy

It must be painful contorting your values to justify secrecy in government.

[Padraig18]

116. Has your candidate made *all* of his files and records public?

Talk to me about hypocrisy once he/she has, OK? :eyes:

[SEAburb]

124. I haven't chosen one yet.

I'm leaning toward Clark right now. I had Kerry on top until he turned down fed matching funds.

[Padraig18]

127. OK.

Where may I examine ANY candidate's files on Monday? Why this obsession with just Gov. Dean's records? :eyes:

[Cha]

122. There are no "secrets" in Vermont Government...

so you can quit your handwringing.

[stickdog]

105. It's SOP.

So stop acting like it's not.

[molly]

108. What's an "SOP"?

[Padraig18]

118. Standard operating procedure.

When will you explain your 'no' vote, or are questions just something OTHER people have to answer? :eyes:

[molly]

123. I absolutely HATE Howard Dean - much to the credit

of his supporters here on DU. If you people want to run my country - I do not want to live here. You sound very much like something that happened in Germany around the 1930's.

[Cha]

128. *

*:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[molly]

129. OH - P.S. - HOHO and his crowd believe that most of the US

would lockstep behind him and his anger and rage and CONTROL. This is the US - of the people - by the people - for the people. That does not mean a handful of "grassroots" hippies - our candidate should support ALL of us and I don't see HOHO doing that.

[Padraig18]

134. Not a 'hippy', thank you.

Nice content-free bash, though. So, when are you going to explain your' no' vote?

[Andromeda]

206. Hippie?

:hippie: :hippie: :hippie: :hippie: :hippie: :hippie:
Who are you calling a hippie?

[Padraig18]

130. I dpn't like spineless sellouts like john Kerry, either. n/t

[molly]

132. You do not know John Kerry or you would know that he is

far from spineless. Is that what you were told to say?

[Padraig18]

133. he's spineless.

Rather than uphold his Constitutional duty to declare war (or not), he chose political expediency and enabled * to do so at will. I'll go drink some Kool Aid now, if it will make you happy...

[SEAburb]

136. You have put up a great fight,

but don't turn into a personal one. We will all have to come together. I really admire your willingness to take it to the Deanies.

[Padraig18]

139. Why hasn't she explained her 'no' vote?

I find that somewhat remarkable...

[Cha]

114. You're not paying attention...

Get with the program...the records are going to "opened"...there are no secrets in Vermont Government.

[molly]

117. WHEN???????????

[Padraig18]

120. As soon as the judge says so, that's when. n/t

[Cha]

126. Do you ever get the feeling ...

you are dealing with the purposely obtuse?

[Padraig18]

131. there's no doubt in my mind.

Have you noticed that not ONE, except a Clark supporter, has explained why THEIR files are not all open to the public? :eyes:

[molly]

138. Yep - I get that ole feeling that you guys just wanta ignore

the facts! It's a whole helluva lot easier than dealing with them.

[Padraig18]

142. Where and when may I examine Kerry's correspondence and office files?

It's also a fact that YOU Kerry folks are hypocrites on this issue.

[Name removed]

237. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SEAburb]

119. Where can I go to see them Monday //nt

<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>

[Padraig18]

121. May I examine YOUR candidates files on Monday? n/t

[molly]

144. ABSOLUTELY!!!!!

[Padraig18]

149. You think so? LOL!

His personal correspondence, his notes from staff meetings, etc.? Don't be naive! You know damned well those are not public. :eyes:

[TorchTheWitch]

218. nope, sorry

You're not paying attention. Get with the program... the records are going to "opened"...there are no secrets in Vermont Government.

No, it's the Deanies that aren't paying attention. Either they aren't paying attention or they're lying. The records being revealed after the nomination or even after the election is worthless. Dean can open the records himself and show the public he has nothing to hide before any votes are cast, but he is refusing to do so. If there are no secrets in Vermont government, why did he have to be sued to find out if he's got any damning records which he himself and his attorney are on record have alluded to?

Either start reading up on what's going on or stop lying about what you won't admit you've read.

see #187

[Padraig18]

219. Why the focus on just *Dean*?

Why shouldn't ALL the candidates open their records, too? That would remove the palpable stench of hypocrisy and crass political opportunism from their 'demands'? Could you answer that question, please? :eyes:

[MODemocrat]

135. It is a double standard which is politically motivated

Larry Klayman has not sued George W. Bush for hiding his records from when he was governor of Texas. Bush has not answered any questions about 9-11, and probably never will have to.
As a Dean supporter, however, I want him to hasten the process of releasing his records, so as to clear his name and his supporters' minds, as well.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

145. If you voted "NO," go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=96196



On edit: As you can see, I'm not having much luck.

[Padraig18]

146. Hehehe!

That's why none of the 'no' voters will answer, except the one Clark supporter. It must suck to have your own hypocrisy shoved back down your throat. :evilgrin:

[Padraig18]

147. Rank hypocrisy kick.

:eyes:

[dajabr]

148. Yes...

Especially since I don't see the other candidates stepping forward to declare that all of THEIR records are open to the public.

[Lefta Dissenter]

162. As much as I hate to kick this,

Instead of asking the supporters to somehow prove that their candidate's records are open, why don't you go directly to the candidates themselves? I'm quite sure that a Kerry (or any other) supporter doesn't have a lot of control over the records, and can't somehow facilitate their release, no matter how much they're browbeaten. It's the candidates themselves who need to come forth.

Clark has made a point of putting his records, including performance evaluations by superior officers, on his website. I don't know the procedure for finding out what doc's are available from Senators, Representatives or Governors. Instead of battling with the supporters, why don't you take a little time on Monday to call the various offices and find out how to access their records? It might be that you'll have more reading material than you have time for.

As far as I know (and I've been known to be wrong before), Dean is the only one who has deliberately sealed his records, and, rather than immediately releasing them, is forcing a lengthy legal process before we can see what his records have to show. Imagine the difference it would make in public perception of Dean if he would DEMAND that those records be made public just as soon as humanly possible. No judge, no lawsuit, just OPEN THE RECORDS! I would certainly have a lot more respect for him.

In fact, as long as you're calling candidate's offices, why don't you call Dean's office, and ask about the release of his records? I'm sure they'd love to hear from a supporter.

[AP]

150. This is so much like McCarthy: "others must unseal their records!" Whazza?

Whose records do you need to see Senator McCarthy? You've asked a question which presumes that certain facts exist without first proving the facts.

[Padraig18]

151. That's not even logical!

Why are DEAN'S records somehow relevant, but Edwards' aren't??? :wtf:

[AP]

159. Oh my god. Trust me. You shouldn't be throwing around the word "logical."

Judging from your posts in this thread, you're not qualified to judge what's logical.

Have you no sense of dignity?

You know you demean both you and me by posting such nonesense.

[Padraig18]

161. I have been entirely logical...

... much to the discomfort of all the hypocrites calling for Dean to release his records, while keeping their own records safe from public scrutiny.

Et tu, senator Edwards, et al?:eyes:

[AP]

168. You are either high, or really stretching your credibility to the breaking

point.

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

171. "Lame" is exactly the word that came to mind.

[Padraig18]

173. Once again:

When and where may we all view Sen. Edwards' office files? :eyes:

[AP]

176. Edwards's entire career is in public records in NC courthouses, and,

since he's never dealt with lobbyists and PACs, everything you get is everything you've already seen from his files. What more do you want to see?

[Padraig18]

179. What about his office files?

His correspondence from constituents, notes from staff meetings, inter-office meos, etc.? That's precisely what he's demanding that Gov. Dean release? My question remains: Where and when can we see YOUR files, Senator? :eyes:

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Padraig18]

183. He's never waived his privilege.

If you understood the law about congressional office records, whcih your comments make apparent that you don't, you would know that none of his records are subject to FOIA requests--- the privilege is automatic.

PS--Quit calling me McCarthy.

[AP]

185. Are you threatening me?

You don't understang the historical reference do you? These "when did you stop beating your wife" questions are what McCarthy did.

Also, privilge, as far as I know, only applies in a Federal context to national security secrets. If you want to see those docs, you can't. (Note, Dean isn't asseting THAT kind of privilege.) Anything else you'd have to assert a privilege. Now, which documents do you want to see?

[Padraig18]

188. I understand the historical reference just *fine*, thank you!

Your understanding of the law is flawed. I want to see in Senator Edwards' files the exact same things HE wants to see in Gov. Deans'--- personal correspondence, notes from staff meetings, inter-office memos and other 'work product. If Edwrads isn'tr going to be hypocritical about this issue, all of that should be made ewveailable for public vierwing, which it is not and will not be until he waives his privacy privilege over it.

[AP]

190. Gep asked for correspondence back and forth with Enron.

When a company and the Governor's office exchange letters, they should NOT expect privacy. This is a public company, and the governor's office represetns the people of VT.

If you asked Edwards to provide evidence that he wasn't in the pocket of big business in the form of correspondence with the banking industry, or insurance companies, I'm sure he'd provide it.

Furthermore, I'm sure that Edwards has nothign in his record which would lead him to say something like, "I'm hiding this stuff because it's embarassing."

Furthermore, we're talking about whether Dean is suitable to be the Democratic nominee, so full disclosure is key. I don't see anybody else trying to hide their records.

[Padraig18]

192. It's easy to be 'sure' he'd do it, when he's never been asked.

Pure smoke and mirros speculation on your part.

[AP]

193. THAT's the sort of argument McCarthy used. (+)

So unless someone asks for the records, then Edwards is guilty of hiding his record?

Man, you are not doing your candidate any favors by associating this kind of 'logic" (and I use the term losely) with his campaign.

What you have to focus on is that Dean WAS asked and he's doing little to answer the quesitons asked, and he's on records as giving contradictory explanations for his evasivemeness, and he mislead the public about the content of the records.

[Padraig18]

195. YOUR candidate isn'ty doing HIMSELF any favors...

... by piling on in this cheap, lame, gutter tactic, either.

[AP]

196. What are you talking about? Now it's wrong to say the emperor has no...

...clothes?

If Dean's going to pull shit like this, he's not ENTITLED to a free ride on it.

I would be more worried if the other candidates DIDN'T point out the obvious.

(and where did Edwards say the little emperor has no clothes?)

[Name removed]

198. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

178. As for dean, why is he hiding from VT docs that VT owns?

?

[Padraig18]

180. What the hell does that mean?

:shrug:

[AP]

182. Who do you think owns Dean's governor's records?

The ONLY records Bill Clinton claimed executive privilege over were files the CIA and FBI requested remain confidential due to national security concerns. EVERYTHING else, including correspondence related to clemency requests were made public.

Now, why is Dean claiming privilege over docs granting special favors for big businesses?

[Padraig18]

184. You know that's what those documents cover, do you?

Since you've never seen them, how do you KNOW that's what they cover?

When and where may I examine the files kept by senator Edwards' offfice?

[AP]

186. He said in that interview that they cover embarassing things that he does

not want people to see.

I'm only guessing they're evidence of him kissing the ass of big business. I suspect Gephardt is on to something.

[Padraig18]

189. You are right--you're guessing.

I suspect Gephart is behind that nasty ad, too, but I can't prove it. Guess/suspect in one hand and sh*t in the other, and see which one fills up first... :eyes:

He did not say they were 'embarrasing'--- that's a word YOU chose, not Gov. Dean.

[AP]

191. Dean said there was stuff in them that could be used against him.

He's got somethign to hide. That's why he wants to hide it.

[Padraig18]

194. When may we examine John Edwards' files.

You never seem to directly answer that question. is he planning on opening his office files for public and press examination? Did I miss the annopuncement?

This is crass, craven, polirtical opportunism that would shame the lowest gutter politician in Chicago's old 1st Ward.

[AP]

197. Why are you asking me? If there's something you want to see, go ask them.

Go post on the blog. Make your argument for why Edwards is worse than Dean.

I could use a laugh.

[TorchTheWitch]

212. bs

He did not say they were 'embarrasing'--- that's a word YOU chose, not Gov. Dean.

That is EXACTLY the word Dean chose. He is on the record on that.

<snip>
Governor Dean has cited his presidential run as the basis for denying the public access to these government records, reportedly telling Vermont Public Radio, "Well, there are future political considerations. We didn’t want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor." Judicial Watch uncovered, through a public records request, that, in negotiating the agreement to seal the records, lawyers for Dean and Vermont state officials repeatedly discussed Dean’s presidential campaign as a basis for keeping the records secret.
<end snip>

It's easy to see that you have done absolutely NO research on this subject at all. There is documentation all over the internet about this issue. People have been providing links and quotes and you must be typing away with your eyes shut. What's really interesting is that so many Dean supporters here are making claims about what is now going on with his records with NOTHING to back it up. No wonder this thread is full of falsehoods from Deanies. How can you people embarrass yourselves like this? You're either refusing to find out what's going on or your actively lying in a wasted effort to try and protect your candidate.

[Padraig18]

213. No, what this thread is full of is...

... hypocrisy and 'nuancing' from the supporters of certain candidates other than Gov. Dean, with the exception of Gen. Clark, as I have noted herein and hereinbefore. Dean did NOT say the records were 'embarrassing', per se; what he said, as your own quote proves, is that he didn't want the information contained in the sealed records to be used in an embarrassing fashion during the campaign. You can already see that he had good reason to fear that that would occur, given the gutter tactics being used by certain imploding campaigns: distortion of statements, blatant lies and misrepresentations about historical facts, etc. .

Reading a single in context of the quote is often helpful, I find.

[TorchTheWitch]

222. it is you who is distorting

or can you not read?

"Well, there are future political considerations. We didn’t want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor."

"We didn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers" does not translate to "information contained in the sealed records to be used in an embarrassing fashion"

Incidently, that was the worst attempt at distortion I've ever seen. You would have done much better to just ignored the content of my post and responded with an irrelevant question about when you can see Candidate X's records.

If you're going to dig yourself any deeper, you're going to need heavy machinery.

[AP]

224. It is time to look in the mirrore. You are accusing others (me) of...

... "distorition of statments," "blatant lies," "misrepresentaitions of historical facts," hypocrisy and "nuancing", yet, in this post, you are doing EXACTLY that to deny that Dean said something he clearly saiid.

[Padraig18]

226. You're doing *exactly* that.

You have yet to explain when, where and how we can view Sen. Edwards' office files, including correspondence, telephone logs, inter-office memos, etc. . Until your candidate releases the same things he's calling on Gov. Dean to release, he's just a garden-variety hypocrite and crass political opportunist, and so are the other candidates who join in.

[AP]

229. Nice dodge. Again, time for a mirror.

How can you call me a hypocrite, when you just gave a "hypocrticial nuancing" of the truth to get arround the FACT that Dean said he doesn't want to be embarassed by the contents of his governor's records?

[AP]

221. Thanks for doing the research and confirming, TtW.

I'm embarrassed that I didn't.

(and I was called the "dissemlber"!)

[TorchTheWitch]

246. no problem

This thread just sickens me as I'm sure it does a lot of us. I'm so angry about what Dean is doing, and it just makes him look even more guilty. I searched the Dean official site with every combination of relevant key words I could think of and I couldn't find a single thing about this issue there. I'm hoping somehow that the search feature wasn't working correctly, but I have a terrible feeling he's also trying to hide this issue from his supporters. Seeing how they reacted on the site about that Osama attack ad, one would assume that if he had nothing to hide, they would have reacted the same way on the records issue.

On edit: no reason to feel embarrassed. took me quite awhile to get over being shellshocked at what i was reading here.

ugh... it's snowing AGAIN and it's not even christmas yet!

[incapsulated]

152. What "records"?

Please tell me which candidates have personally, deliberately sealed records that others have demanded acess to and what they were?

[Padraig18]

153. Please explain to me why...

... Dean's sealed records are relevant, but others' records may be kept 'private'? Don't see the hypocrisy there? :eyes:

[incapsulated]

157. Please answer the question

What candidates have personally and deliberately sealed their records when others have demanded access to them and what are they?

Because your poll doesn't make any sense if you don't have an answer.

If you can provide one, I might agree with you, you know.

[Padraig18]

158. By law, theirs' are already sealed.

The FOIA grants every member of Congress an automatic exemption of office records, etc., and they remain 'sealed' (closed to public scrutiny) unless the office holder makes them available for public access. They are being extremely deceptive/selective in their call for Dean to release his records, all the while secure in the knowledge that the FOIA seals their records every bit as effectively.

How's them apples? :hi:

[incapsulated]

163. That depends..

On what records are automatically sealed. And what records are out there in public view. Quite a lot, for House and Senate members.

Sure, it's easier to call for records to be unsealed when some of your's are under lock and key and there is no way for you to change that (edit: or you can "defer" to their automatic seal). I will agree with you there. But there isn't much room for fairness and polite behaviour in politics. You attack where your opponent is weak.

But Dean's records are a little different. His sealing of them was criticized when he did it. Third parties, not involved in the primaires, have asked for them to be unsealed. Fair or not, this isn't going away. He will have to deal with it.

I have a theory that whatever is in those records has to do with subjects that would hurt him in the primaries. Things his opponents would use against him. If he is not contesting the court case, and knows they may well be made public after the primaries, I would guess it has something to do with deals made with engergy companies and the like. Stuff Bush can't touch him on.

[Padraig18]

164. As you point out, he's not contesting the court case.

The records that were sealed were largely correspondence and 'work product', i.e., memos, etc.; those very same things in the other candidates' files are NOT being opened to the public. Do you see why I think it's hypocritical as hell on their parts?

To his credit, Gen. Clark made public what he could make public legally.

[incapsulated]

165. Hypocritical? Yes.

Double-standard? Hmmm... Maybe if Dean didn't use so many double-standards himself, he might be getting less heat on this.

But, yes, technically, it is hypocritical.

[molly]

211. Nick's post may explain what you are asking

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=96196&mesg_id=96859&page=

Among the things still unknown are Deans telephone records to key players in the sale of Vermont Yankee to Energy/Koch Industries.

His telephone logs and the people to whom he spoke while Dean was involved with the decision to grant the sale to this company, rather than other companies who requested the purchase agreements earlier, and who did not give donations to Deans campaign presidential campaign.

Dean statements on Hardball about protecting confidential information such as correspondence between him and someone who was H.I.V. positive, or other similar personal communications of a confidential nature, say someone who worked for a Vermont Department who was aware that their boss was doing something illegal, but wanted to remain private are also the types of communications that would be ROUTINELY sealed and would be totally unavailable even if Dean had not sealed his records, as well as any information that was of a senatitive nature regarding national security, such as a letter to Dean about possible terrorist activity that might be of a nature that would compromise an investigation to prevent a terrorist bombing, too would be sealed, and kept confindential under both federal and Vermont State laws. These would automatically be redacted under both state an federal privacy laws, so Deans argument in this area holds no water.

The only thing Dean is trying to do is to keep the public from knowing things that he has done that might cause some people to decide that they did not want to vote for a person who made decisions of a pericular nature. These might not necessarily be bad, or illegal, or unethical, but they are of value to those who take particular stands or have particular beliefs about certain issues, and for these people Dean would not be the optimal candidate in their opinion and so they would perhaps decide to not vote for Dean and then vote for Clark or another candidate.

Deans actual statement that he didn't want the public who might decide not to vote for him because of decisions that he made as a Governor, or conversations he had while acting in the capactity of Governor which people had the right to know in order to make an informed decision about their voting for Dean however is a clear violation of the Vermont Constitution as well as the First Amendment.

Wanting to keep parts of ones record as an elected public official performing ones duty as chief executive of a state is not a legal reason for wanting records sealed. They are not legal for Bush either and legal rights organizations in Texas and nationally are engaged in trying to have Bush's records as Governor unsealed.

Dean sole reasoning for sealing the record was to keep the electorate in the dark about questionable acts and decisions while he was governor. Not to protect individual's privacy, or for reasons of security. To protect himself.

I knew that this would the issue to be brought up as near to the first primaries and caucuses. It is the most damning aspect of Deans campaign and if Dean does not open them, there will be people who decide they will change their vote, and if he does open them, there are other people who will decide that they do not want to vote for Dean any longer becasue of some of the contents of the records.
Some will simply decide that they do not want to risk another Bill Clinton type scenario, in which something that is "EMBARASSING " pops up and creates a situation which is favorable for the Republicans.

Others seeing that Dean perhaps had a lot of telephone calls to the people who gave him donations while Vermont Yankee was being sold might not be comfortable with that.

Others who see the full record of his phone calls and memos regarding the veto of pharmaceutical legislation in 1996, who would have benefited from the legislation that Dean veto'd after receiving campign contributions from the pharmaceutical companies who were lobbying for the bills defeat might not want to vote for Dean if they had full knowledge of why Dean veto'd it, regardless of whether it was done because they beleive that Deans Veto was bought, or just do not feel comfortable with the fact that Dean did not behave in a manner that they thought ethical by taking the money and not being open about the situation until AFTER it was revealed by others that this happened, rather than Dean immediately stating, yes, the donated to me, but that had not effect on my decision. Dean had to be caught in the appearance of having his hand in the cookie jar beore he started explaining.

Either way, this situation is not favorable to Dean and is favorable to Bush.

As Sancho Panza said in Man Of La Mancha

"Whether the Stone hits the pitcher, or the pitcher hits the stone, its going to be pretty bad for the pitcher"

[robbedvoter]

154. I the voter have a right to see the records. My candidate released his

They all should. period. It's not a candidate's right, it's a voter's right.

[Padraig18]

155. He didn't release them ALL.

He couldn't. But I *do* agree that if anyone has to, everyone has to---otherwise it's nothing but hypocrisy, and the cheapest of gutter-campaign tactics.

[John_H]

156. Clark FAXED his records to reporters!!!

vive le differance.

[Padraig18]

160. He faxed SOME to reporters.

Some he could not, of course, but he didn't release ALL of his records. I have already commended the general for doing what he could previously.

[Lefta Dissenter]

166. not to nitpick

but I just want to make sure it is clearly stated that Clark has released ALL records that he has any control over. Can you say that about your candidate? Any of Clark's records as 3- or 4-Star General are held by the United States Government and, as I said before, you can bet your ass that if there were any, and I mean any negative bits and pieces about Clark in those records held by the current government, they'd be to the press in no time at all.

I want a president who will rise above the bullshit of bush, not sink to his level in the gutters.

[Padraig18]

167. I agree, he did.

:hi:

[stickdog]

175. Wow! That way he can shred the others without fear! (nt)

[TorchTheWitch]

208. and just how would he do that

when they are the property of the U.S. Government and he doesn't have access to them?

[PSR40004]

214. I like Dean but won't vote for him...

Unless he unseals those records, thats in the primaries or the national in the fall....