Previous political experience should be disregarded (slight sarcasm ahead)

[boxster]

Ok, new rule. Candidate records are to be disregarded when making your decision on whom to vote for in the primaries. No longer are you allowed to question the past records, experiences, or actions of the candidates. Or at least some of them.

Silly?

Not accordingly to a significant number of DUers.

Apparently, some people feel that a politician's political records should not be a topic of debate. All requests for specific information that could help an individual determine their preferred candidate are to be shouted down by the masses.

Perhaps I am exaggerating, but I'm not so sure. I am, of course, speaking of Dr. Dean’s sealed records.

Frankly, I cannot believe the number of people who shout down anyone who has the nerve to be interested in Dean’s political background and question the content of the sealed documents. Inquiries are met with claims that the requesters are simply displaying vengeance, jealousy, hatred, "bashing", and so on.

I’m quite confident that I’m not jealous of Dean or his candidacy or his supporters. I’m not out for vengeance. I certainly don’t think this is bashing. In fact, Dean is likely my #2, behind Clark.

I honestly couldn’t care less if there’s something there that will hurt him against other Democrats. I’m concerned that there is something there that will hurt him in the general election, if he becomes our nominee. I’m afraid that some court will order that the records be unsealed after the primaries and before the general election, and we’ll be faced with something Bush can spend $200 million beating us over the head with.

There is, of course, the famous retort, "Bush didn’t release his, so why should Dean?"

Versions of that statement are all over DU. Dean even said something very similar quite recently.

Why shouldn’t he release them if Bush won’t release his?

I’ll tell you why.

First, because Dean is a better person than Bush. Stooping to Bush's level is a losing battle. I certainly don’t think that our goal should be for our accomplishments to be judged by a standard labeled "just as good as what Bush did". I think we’re striving for more, personally.

Second, it was a flippant remark he would have been better off not making. Flippant is not his good side.

And, of course, Bush partly called his bluff, as many of Bush's records are (surprise!) already public: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A31328-2003Dec3

The other oft-quoted claim is that there is "sensitive" information in the records. Private information.

Ok, fine. There are government employees who are paid to do nothing but redact documents. Put them to work.

Better yet, let’s find some unemployed redactor and get back one of those 3,000,000 jobs lost under Bush the past three years. I got your job creation program right here.

As an aside, I do find it quite humorous that some of the people who want Clark’s votes for Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1980 to disqualify him as a candidate (because he’s so obviously a Republican for those very reasons!) could very well be the same ones protesting the loudest that we don’t have any right to know what Dean did as Governor just a few years ago.

If there is something there, we need to be ready to fight it if Dean wins the nomination. If there's nothing to worry about, then I’m not sure why he hasn’t had them redacted and released well before now. He could certainly do so pretty much anytime he wants.

And yes, I do realize that he's "allowing" a judge to determine what to release and when. This process will, of course, likely take months. Very convenient for Dean, considering that by then, the primaries could very well be over.

Some of us jealous, bitter, hateful, spiteful voters just want to be sure that Bush loses next fall. While I seriously doubt there is a Willie Horton or anything quite so serious in Dean's past, I'd rather that we deal with it now than be surprised by it later and lose in November.