Howard Dean's sealed records: supporting view from an "opponent"

[NV1962]

I am an avid supporter of Wes Clark, and I support Dean's position on his sealed records.

How's that for a surprise.

What sets Howard Dean's background apart from other Democratic contenders is that he was a governor. In that position, like anyone else with similar responsibility, he guided the state's government through the morass known as "politics as usual." Any government leaves a trail of reams of papers.

And I think it's pretty safe to assume that, in the course of it, he sent out letters of appreciation to political opponents co-operating in one issue or another.

Howard Dean didn't announce his candidacy with the intention of losing the presidential race, running against Bush. Not suprisingly, Bush's authoritarian and anti-democratic bent is exemplified in his sealing his records, an unusually secretive practice that preceded Howard Dean's announcement of his presidential bid.

I can understand why Howard Dean, by no means a roll-over pussycat, wants to have a level playing field: that's how I see and therefore accept Dean sealing his records.

Do I prefer candidates with an open record? Obviously. But I believe Dean's decision is an understandable and acceptable position, again: given his gubernatorial responsibility, which differs substantially in the nature of its paper trail, from that of a senator or a top military commander.

Let Bush come clean first, and then I'll wholeheartedly join those who call on Dean to release his records, as well.

What do you think?

PS: yes, I'm aware of Wes Clark's position - I simply make up my own mind!

[Padraig18]

1. And out of the wilderness there came a voice...

THANK YOU!

:hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya::hug::loveya:

[wtmusic]

4. Padraig, you're such a pushover!

:D

[Padraig18]

6. I may be easy, but I'm not cheap!

:P

[bain_sidhe]

11. Unlike me... I'm cheap, but NOT easy.

:hi:

But I agree with NV - or at least, what I THINK he's saying... Because it's possible that Dean will be our nominee, I don't want BushRove (I think of them as a single person in campaign/political terms - two bodies, one brain) to be able to get his grimy little paws on anything that they could *possibly* spin as "dirt." We all know, they have no problem just making dirt up, but at least the made-up stuff is easier to debunk.

[wtmusic]

2. Well I'm a Dean supporter and I think Dean's position sucks!

Not really :-)

Actually I have been disappointed with his 'tit for tat' approach, although I agree that not letting the public view every memo public and private that Dean created while in office would indicate some kind of coverup.

The Judicial Watch suit is good for everyone. Putting a dispute in the hands of the law can only help the situation.

[shance]

3. I think......

We need many more Dems like YOU**** :)

thanks for the post.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Thanks for your opinion

I've been loving the way the General has been going after Bush, using the best, most reliable weapon there is-Truth. Rest assured that, even though I support Dean, I appreciate the General and will work for him if he gets the nomination.

[mzmolly]

7. Applause applause.

:thumbsup:

[dorktv]

8. I believe in Howard Dean's position of not having his records unsealed.

Govenors should have some things sealed that might be embarrassing to various people and there should be some time distancing them from the events. For instance: what if someone during a meeting about the civil unions was recorded as saying something VERY bad? Should that be something put out so close to the events that occured just a few years ago? And considering how well Dean governed what do you expect to see?

[NV1962]

9. in fact, I could go further

I think it's not too far fetched to consider the vigorous calls on Howard Dean to unseal his records extended by fellow Democratic capaigns as disloyal to the common objective of having a strong nominee defeating Bush.

Of course, my whole point hinges on my trust that there's nothing grave among Dean's records; unless I hear of credible, substantial reasons to believe otherwise, Dean has my trust. As much as I deeply prefer and believe in Wes Clark being the best guy to take Bush down, head-to-head, if Dean gets the nomination I'll gladly switch to bust my back for him (or any of the other Democrats for that matter.)

It disturbs me greatly to see Democratic campaigns attempting to burn down the house of a strong contender on nothing else but that contender's (Dean's) right to a reasonable defense against a common opponent's (Bush's) unfair and anti-democratic behavior.

In a nutshell, that's why I wanted to post this topic...

[Upfront]

10. So-Of- A - Gun

I raise my glass to you sir. I also like the way the General is going after B###, and would work for him should he win.:toast:

[MercutioATC]

12. If it was 6 months from now and Dean WAS the nominee, would Dems still

think he should disclose?

Of COURSE not! I, personally, don't believe there's anything that damaging in them, but wouldn't it be great to have our candidate (whomever it may be) show up on a syage with 126 boxes (or however many) of sealed records and offer to submit them for public scrutiny if Bush does the same?