What was so wrong about Lieberman's question to Dean?

[Dookus]

I saw a lot of people complaining that Lieberman was really out of line.

First, let's pretend that we don't support any candidate. Seriously. I don't want facile responses from Dean supporters.

The bigger question is shouldn't ALL Democrats believe strongly in open government? Shouldn't ALL our elected leaders have open records?

And I'll stipulate up front that yes, Bush did it. He shouldn't have.

And I'll stipulate up front that confidential information from individuals shouldn't be released. But identifying information CAN be redacted, and the information still released.

If Al Gore had posed the SAME EXACT question to Bush in the 2000 debates, wouldn't everybody here have cheered?

[tedoll78]

1. I have no problem with it.

Although I wish he'd increase the Attacks-On-Bush:Attacks-On-Dean Ratio a bit.

[CWebster]

33. Really, I had the same thought

If they had expended a quarter of the energy attacking Bush on big issues rather than seeking any avenue of attack against the candidate who has been most vocal in his attacks against Bush, then maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't be in the the mess we are today.

[Dookus]

40. that's fine...

I think we should attack Bush at every possible opportunity. That doesn't mean, however, that I should accept Bush-like behavior from other people.

Open government. Transparent Government. I'm amazed people here don't believe in it.

[retyred]

125. I think Liererman was right in what he did

However it would've been just as right to ask the same of cheney.


retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[hellhathnofury]

2. I could go for some distributions in attack.

Maybe Joe would like to ask Dick a question once before the primary is over.

It's the repition of the same old lines of attack that have worn us down. If you noticed we've basically started mocking the attacks here on DU.

[auburnblu]

3. Problem is NIMBY attitude and Lieberman asked the question

In this country we see a lot of people who strongly believe in the "do as I say, not as I do" attitude. I lump that in with the "great for someone else, but not in my back yard" attitude. Hypocricy runs rampant in both parties, and in a primary season its something we see a lot of I guess. The fact that Lieberman asked the question probably ticks a lot of DU members off, as it seems like he's the least popular candidate on here.

[tedoll78]

7. Despite me liking Dean..

I still like Senator Lieberman quite much. (wait a sec.. lemme get my shield in-place:))

He'd be far superior to the Chimp we currently have, and despite his attacks on the Doc, I think he's a very decent man.

[Fleshdancer]

4. Nothing was wrong with asking

and nothing was wrong with Dean's answer. 60% of his records ARE open. Those that are not, a judge will determine what should be opened and what shouldn't. If Dean went through and decided what records he could/could not open, then people like Lieberman would still question him regardless.

The further Dean can stay away from the process when the judge makes her/his decision, the better. Is this not a reasonable response? Or would you prefer that Dean somehow forces all the records open even though it would violate the privacy and medical information of Vermont citizens? Really, what is the best way you think this should be handled?

[Dookus]

6. In my ideal world...

ANY public officer wouldn't seal his/her records in the first place.

If Dean does, in fact, have the authority to release the records by simply signing a form, he should do so.

I want to stress that I feel this is true for EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL in the United States.

I'm an old Common Causer who believes very strongly in open, transparent government, at ever level.

Yes, the Bush administration is the worst offender in this regard. But Lieberman isn't running against Bush now... he's running for the Democratic nomination.

Also let me say I loathe Lieberman. But I'm trying to take this discussion a bit above the current fray and have an honest discussion about open government.

Thanks all for the polite replies so far.

[Fleshdancer]

14. Your ideal world...

Do you think all records should be open regardless if the information violates the privacy of non-public officers? What if the information had the risk of putting someone elses life in jeapordy? Or their job?

There must be a good compromise somewhere. I can go along with the concept of politicians not being able to seal their records only if a nuetral party can search the records to remove/seal the pieces that could negatively impact others.

[Dookus]

16. I stipulated in my original post

that personal information about constituents could be redacted.

[Fleshdancer]

26. Well then aren't you getting what you want from Dean?

His records will be open so I imagine everyone would be happy about that, right?

Will people still make this out to be a big issue after the fact?

[Dookus]

30. Actually, no

I'm not getting what I want at all.

I want him to release ALL records immediately, redacting only identifying information in constituent correspondence.

I want that of ALL elected officials in the US.

[JVS]

32. Don't hold your breath

[Dookus]

36. I'm not holding my breath...

but I started working towards this back in 1979.

Open, transparent government should be the goal of ALL right-thinking Americans.

I'm disappointed that people are willing to skip over this principle for the sake of an individual candidate they like.

I think it's perfectly possible to love Dean and still believe he should release his records.

[Fleshdancer]

42. And I want world peace lol

With Dean, it's just a time issue. You can't have them released immediately AND redact identifying information at the same time.

With everyone else...well I don't know how we would do that other than lobby for it. I would be suprised though if politicians would go for it. It would probably be as fruitful as lobbying for Congress to take a pay cut. Can't hurt to write/call your representatives though.

[Dookus]

44. So your argument...

is that it's taken this long to use a magic-marker on people's names, addresses, or any other identifying information?

I don't think that's true.

[Fleshdancer]

50. Yes. It takes a long time.

We're talking about going through thousands of papers. No small task. How many people will do it? How many boxes can a person go through in a week?? Keep in mind this HAS to be thorough or else the State of Vermont could risk an ugly legal issue. It would be stupid for them to do it half-assed.

[Dookus]

54. First...

he was governor for many many years. Copies of individual correspondence could've been redacted as it came it.

But I will repeat: this is NOT just about personal correspondence. It's about RECORDS.

Furthermore, Dean himself is not asserting that it's simply a matter of delay in redacting personal information. You are.

I think 6 months after a person leaves office would be a reasonable time to prepare the records.

[Fleshdancer]

65. shoulda coulda woulda

Sure the documents could have been redacted as it came in (assuming the Governor's office didn't need the contact information for anything). But they weren't. So we deal with it now.

It really isn't neccessary to repeat yourself on the fact that you want all records to be open. You've said it many times and I've agreed with you many times.

Furthermore, you're right, I am asserting that redacting personal information takes time. You were the one who said you wanted them opened "immediately" and even if Dean didn't go through the judge, it would still be impossible to open them right this second.

They will be opened. This is a good thing.

[Dookus]

67. Thank you Gloria

we agree, then.

However, I suspect that the long delay is NOT caused by the length of time it takes to redact personal information. I think that's a red herring. The vast majority of records of a governorship are NOT personal correspondence.

Dean used that as AN EXAMPLE.

Would you agree with me that all voters are better served if his records are released before the primaries begin?

[Fleshdancer]

73. Of course

Voters are better served if the records are released before the primaries begin assuming there's something we don't already know in the records. The problem though is that the Iowa caucuses start in what, 2 weeks? Unfortunately I don't see them opening that quickly.

[Dookus]

79. neither do I...

and that disturbs me. It has been reported that Dean has even mentioned that locking the records was partially due to political considerations.

What if the primaries play out and then something really damaging comes out in the records?

I think ALL democrats, Dean supporters included, should be concerned about this.

[TLM]

107. You are right....

"The vast majority of records of a governorship are NOT personal correspondence"


Yep, and the vast majority of records of Dean's governorship are already public.

[Dookus]

119. 60% is not a vast majority

[funky_bug]

113. Played the Gay Card

Actually, Dean played the gay card. Lieberman put on a side show. No matter what Dean said or did after the pen was produced, the only thing the viewers will remember is the pen. It was classic theatrics, and though I dearly love my Uncle Joey (as my husband and I call him), it was bad politics, good theater.

That being said, all sympathy for Dean ended for me when he played the gay card. IF there is something in those sealed records, guaranteed it would make the headlines before, "Jim So-and-so is Queer!" That response was blatant pandering. I have a gay brother and my best friend is also gay. To see Dean use their cause and plight as an excuse and appeal for applause was sickening.

I want to like Dean, I really do. He may truly be our candidate. I just hope that if he wins the nomination, I don't have to support him in private, ashamed and dismayed.

[TLM]

106. Not only that....

But not just anybody can go through the records. It has to be some independant 3rd party like a judge, because if it was someone from Dean office deciding what information needed to be blacked out, Dean would be facing the exact same attacks and accusations that they were hiding stuff they shouldn't.

These folks keep saying Dean should release ALL his records, right now... then they say sure there should be personal information blacked out. But they do not want to allow for an independant thrid party to review and redact that information.

But the whole reason this is even an issue is that these guys have nothing else to run on but attacking Dean.

[KaraokeKarlton]

108. Boy, you don't want much, do you?

Dean was governor almost 12 years. There are A LOT of records to go through. The stuff in the sealed records is private correspondence to Dean from constitutents and advisors. That's all that's in there. That's a hell of a lot of "redacting" to do. Sorry, but you can't just snap your fingers and have the things open for your candidate's opposition research people to paw through. Someone has to look at the papers first and figure out which ones are letter written to Dean from private citizens and which ones should be open to public viewing. That takes time. Dean is handling right by completely removing himself from the process of deciding what stays private and what goes public. You're just going to have to wait for the process to take it's course. There's nothing in the records that will harm Dean anyhow, so this will all turn out to be a waste of time, energy and whining from Lieberman. :shrug:

[King Coal]

96. For that reasons, Gloria

I would say that Joe was out of line.

[Kathleen04]

5. As a Clark supporter..

I don't think the question was out of line, but I think Lieberman pursued it wrong. I'm satisfied that Dean is letting a judge pick what is going do be released, it sounds reasonable to me.

Lieberman said that he was unsatisfied with Dean's answer, saying that Dean "shouldn't need a judge to make him do what he needs to do".

I thought that argument was poor..he offered no alternative--should Dean release everything and disregard keeping anything confidential?
As Dean said, if he himself were to pick out what was to be released and what wasn't..people would suspect he was still hiding things.

So, I wish Lieberman had offered up what the alternative would be.

[hellhathnofury]

8. The alternative was no attack for poor Joe.

This is about politics nothing more, nothing less. Joe really just found something he thinks can be to stick and that's it.

I agree there is nothing wrong with letting a judge decide what get's released. Tell that to Joe.

[Dookus]

9. But why should a judge even be involved?

Shouldn't the BASIC PRINCIPLE be that public records do, in fact, belong to the public?

Dean can release EVERY paper from his administration TOMORROW, redacting identifying information in personal letters.

Any correspendence pertaining to his official duties should belong to the public, not Howard Dean.

[hellhathnofury]

15. Because there are very apparent legal issues.

You can't just blot out names. The correspondance was intended to be private not public.

We may disagree, but prove to me that this doesn't get the same results with less legal risk.

[Dookus]

19. Well.....

No. I've written hundreds of letters to elected officials in my life. Not once have I had the expectation that it was a private letter between the two of us.

But even given that, it's very easy to redact the personal information in such correspondence.

However, this is NOT just about personal correspondence. It's his RECORDS. It consists if thousands of documents, not just letters from constituents.

[hellhathnofury]

23. True and there is even more legal morass with those.

"prove to me that this doesn't get the same results with less legal risk." Try that one.

I like the idea of open government but sometimes records do need to be sealed, the judge can decide which ones.

FYI, Bush's aint exactly open open. You can request them, doesn't mean you'll get them. Plus they were sealed throughtout the 2000 election cycle.

[Dookus]

25. umm...

I KNOW Bush's records were sealed. I'm vehemently opposed to that.

How can I be vehemently opposed to Bush sealing his records, but believe it's OK for Dean to do it?

[hellhathnofury]

27. Level the playing field. You can have the law passed after Bush leaves.

Or if elected Dean. Otherwise it's unfair. Make the process a law, a judge goes through all major primary candidates records decides what can be put out. Applicable either 2008 or 2012.

That's reasonable.

[Dookus]

34. Huh?

What's unfair?

The Government, at every level, works for US. The "work product" of that government belongs to US.

Why should ANY individual, of any party, in any state, at any level, have the right to hide that from us?

I've worked for many companies. Do you think I EVER had any document I created as a part of my job that I could hide from my bosses?

WE are the bosses of EVERY government official. The records of their work belong to US.

[hellhathnofury]

39. Bush ran with his records closed against Gore.

I think it just makes more sense for a judged to go through them to look for legal issues before we throw open the door.

Who would you have redact the personal and legal issues?

[Dookus]

46. And if

Gore had asked Bush to unseal his records with the stroke of a pen, would you have objected? I suspect not.

[Kathleen04]

55. I don't..

know about this argument Dookus. From my own perspective, I care more about the people whose privacy may be violated, than for what's politically advantageous against Dean or even Bush. See my post #52.

[Dookus]

57. Kathleen...

I really don't know how many different ways I can say this.

I stipulated in the ORIGINAL POST that personal information should be redacted. This is NOT the issue. This is NOT why the records remained sealed.

Furthermore, I wouldn't even object to a law that said ALL correspondence from constituents is a matter of public record. But it's quite easy to mark out the names, addresses and other identifying information and release the rest.

But in the end, this is a canard. The sealed records are NOT primarily constituent correspondence. What is it, then? We have no idea. When it's released, we'll find out.

[Kathleen04]

63. If they can..

edit out all the names, etc. then I'm all for releasing everything.

Dean is framing this the same way that I have been, that it's about the people...maybe he's being deceptive and I bought into it, in which I guess we wouldn't KNOW until it's all released.

I'll agree with you--blot out the names and release everything.

On edit: Why haven't any of the candidates been saying what you've been saying--that any personal info can be redacted? It makes sense and I'm shocked none of them even said it.

[Dookus]

72. That is EXACTLY

what Lieberman said today. Unfortunately, because it was Lieberman, nobody gave a shit.

[Kathleen04]

78. But, Lieberman

didn't counter Dean's assertion that he's protecting people's privacy.

Lieberman just said open all of your records.

If Lieberman had countered Dean by saying: "this isn't about privacy, that information can be edited out." Than I would have agreed with him 100% as I do with what you're saying now.

Right message, poor delivery, because he didn't counter the privacy aspect.

[Dookus]

80. I watched the debate...

I thought he mentioned that. I'm trying to find a transcript now. If anybody has one handy, that would help. Thanks.

[Kathleen04]

83. Transcript:

LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Paul. My question, not surprisingly, is to Howard Dean. One of the most troubling decisions that Howard has made in this campaign -- made before -- is to close and seal his records, or most of them, when he was governor of Vermont.

And this troubles me because the people of Vermont have a right to know. The people of America, who are judging your candidacy for president now, have a right to know what you did as governor to determine whether you're suitable and capable of being president of the United States.

I have in my hand the memorandum of understanding between you and the secretary of state, which makes very clear that all it takes to open up your records, Mr. Governor...

ANGER: Get your question out, please.

LIEBERMAN: Yes, I will -- is one stroke of a pen.

Howard Dean, every day you tell people across America they have the power, and you're right.

You have the power, with one stroke of the pen, to open up your records to public view. You have the power; I'm prepared to give you the pen. Why don't you sign this agreement and open your gubernatorial records to full public view?

(APPLAUSE)

DEAN: I am told that Governor Bob Ray, who was one of the most distinguished governors of this state, had his records sealed for his entire lifetime.

Joe, the reason that -- first of all, more than half of my records are open. And I know that because you all have been poring through them for many months to bring up all kinds of details.

(LAUGHTER)

But governors seal records for particular amounts of time -- in my case, some of the records -- to protect people's privacy, to protect the privacy that was given to advisers.

For example, there are apparently in these -- among these records is a group of letters from people who wrote me during the civil unions crisis, or the civil unions bill-passing, which was a crisis in Vermont because it was the most contentious bill that we had for many, many years.

What we have done is we have stepped aside. We have turned everything over to the attorney general of the state of Vermont. And the attorney general of the state of Vermont will go to court, and a judge will look over every document in our records. And they are free to release whatever they'd like, and that's fine with me.

ANGER: Back to Senator Lieberman.

(APPLAUSE)

LIEBERMAN: That is an unsatisfactory and disappointing answer. Why should you have to force a judge to force you to do what you know is right?

Your records ought to be public. Look, there are always exceptions for private matters and for security matters. The Boston Herald reports today that, notwithstanding the fact that you kept your records closed, you have revealed some security matters and, in fact, some personal medical histories.

My question is, as we go into this campaign, how can you and we take on George Bush and Dick Cheney, who have run the most secretive administration in our history, if you refuse to open up the records of your time as governor?

I want to say this: As president, records will be open to the public view. My records when I was in a comparable state position as attorney general are open to public view.

We Democrats are better than Bush and Cheney. And your position on your records has undercut the high ground that we should be on.

ANGER: A quick comment from the governor.

DEAN: I think if somebody is gay and they write me that, and they don't care to have that information disclosed to the public, that's their right.

(APPLAUSE)

LIEBERMAN: That's not the answer you're...

(APPLAUSE)

Excuse me. You are ducking the question. Of course you've got a right to hold back private disclosures like that.

DEAN: Joe, a judge should decide that, because if we decide it, nobody is going to believe us, and they're going to say there's more stuff in the record. Why can't a judge look at every single piece of paper and make that decision?

LIEBERMAN: You are ducking the question. You should not force a judge to force you to do what you know is right, and which will assure public confidence.

(APPLAUSE)

I'm sorry...

ANGER: We'll ask you to take it outside if you need to.

(LAUGHTER)

LIEBERMAN: I'm ready. (LAUGHTER)

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/04/se.01.html

[Kathleen04]

84. Lieberman did..

say: "There are always exceptions for private matters". But, he didn't really scratch the surface of how it would be so easy to release the records with this info edited. I think he could have been more clear about how Dean was being deceptive by using personal matters to frame his argument, but Lieberman was being stifled by the moderators a bit at that point.

[Dookus]

86. Thanks for finding the transcript....

I think I was correct in saying Lieberman mentioned privacy considerations.

If in fact the whole reason for not releasing the records is that it takes a year and a half to redact personal information, then I will happily admit my concerns are misplaced.

[Kathleen04]

91. Agreed.

You were right about Lieberman's comments...they just didn't drive the point home to me at first.

[joefree1]

17. See #4

"As Dean said, if he himself were to pick out what was to be released and what wasn't..people would suspect he was still hiding things."

Thank you Kathleen04


Images from Dean Rocks the House of Blues, Hollywood
From wtmusic http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=919849
From Joefree1 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=921300

[Dookus]

22. why should anything be kept secret?

keeping in mind that I have already stipulated that any identifying information from constituent correspondence can be redacted.

[mouse7]

10. You don't write soundbytes for ads for Rove like Lieberman has

Lieberman has been putting together some lovely easily spliced soundbyte attacks for the neo-cons.

You need to word things and space things so Lieberman's own words cannot be used against the eventual nominee in neo-con attack ads.

We're gonna be seeing Lieberman's "Dean's in spider-hole of denial" line through Election Day if Dean gets nominated.

That's wrong.

[Dookus]

Again....

let's forget the individuals involved.

Do you believe in the principle of open government?

If Al Gore had asked George W. Bush the SAME EXACT question in the 2000 debates, would you have felt he was out of line?

[Dookus]

11. arrgh

one of those auto-dupes.

[tedoll78]

12. He's using all of this ammo..

and yet it's still just bouncing off of the good doctor's chest. Interesting, eh?

[Dookus]

13. I asked for no facile responses ....

I'm trying to discuss the BIGGER issue here, not the individual spat between two candidates.

Do you think it's OK for elected officials to seal their records?

[tedoll78]

18. in some scenarios, yes.

.

[Dookus]

20. what kind of official records

other than those pertaining to security, should be hidden from the public?

[tedoll78]

38. records in which..

individuals' identities should be concealed.

Look, no matter what answer I (or Dean) gives, many aren't going to be happy because of who he is. Sorry..

[Dookus]

41. Haven't I already said

at least four times in this thread that personal identifying information could be redacted?

[tedoll78]

48. ...

Dean has removed himself from the process; it's in the judge's hands now. It's obvious that this isn't enough for you, and it's pretty obvious that this - the latest of attemps to bring Dean down - isn't catching-hold. Time for Plan J, I suppose. That, or we could focus our fire on (*gasp*) Bush..

[Dookus]

56. No...

you deeply misunderstand the point of this thread.

My point is that ALL government records belong to the public. Barring issues of security or personal information about individual constituents, it should all be made public.

This is not about Dean per se. It's about open, transparent government.

Perhaps YOU will answer this question, since nobody else will: If Al Gore had asked George W. Bush the same question in 2000, would you have felt he was out of line?

Do you think it's OK for Bush to seal his records as Governor?

[tedoll78]

58. I like most records being open,

so I don't think he would be out of line. I don't think Lieberman was out of line; it's a very worthy topic for discussion.

For reasons mentioned above, I can understand portions of records being closed. I can also give partial credit to a candidate willing to place the situation in an independent arbitor's hands, rather than just shutting-down conversation on the topic.

[joefree1]

21. See #4

And yeah I do for National Security stuff etc. For awhile.

Are you worried that the Judge is a operative of Dean? :tinfoilhat:

[Dookus]

24. again...

let's pretend this isn't about Dean.

Let's pretend it's about Bush. Let's pretend Bush has locked his records (which he has).

Do you think it's OK for Bush to do so? Because you can't think it's OK for Dean, but not a republican.

*I* believe ALL elected candidates should never seal their records. The records belong to the public. The government belongs to the public.

Instead of a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived attack on Dean, why not think about exactly WHY it's important to have open, transparent government.

[Fleshdancer]

35. Sure.

I'm not against the idea of open records. So would this include all military personnel and politicians currently serving in office as well or just politicians who have left office?

[Dookus]

45. all.

n/t

[joefree1]

37. OK, in a better world

Everything would be out in the open. We would not need laws, etc. But in a real world there are some things that should be kept from the public. Like letters from Aids patients or victim of abuse or National security.

So, ...do you think the Judge is a Dean operative and won't release some thing important? :tinfoilhat:


Images from Dean Rocks the House of Blues, Hollywood
From wtmusic http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=919849
From Joefree1 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=921300

[Leilani]

29. No, I don't think it's OK for officials to seal their records

Politicians seem to forget that they work for us, the people.

We've gotten to the point where they are no longer accountable to the voters. They gerrymander districts, so the seats are safe. they raise money from special interests, & then legislate for these interests against what's best for the country.

I despise what Bush/Cheney have done, were everything is decided behind the scenes, people be damned. And I cannot in good conscience criticize them & then give Dean a pass.

As far as Dean letting a judge decide, when will this happen? People will be voting soon, & they deserve access to this info.

[Kathleen04]

52. I'd..

trust a judge to sort through the information. If there really are letters of personal correspondence, as Dean has said: regarding civil unions for gay couples in Vermont. Then I think the indentity of those people and their privacy should be protected. I would trust a judge to sort through this information.

I, too, want to see a more transparent government, but not at the expense of anyone who thought that their letter was going to be confidential. I'd trust a judge to sort through what is permissible to release and what isn't. I would like it to be done in a timely fashion though--before the voting starts, but I don't think that these people (should there be letters just as Dean claims) should have their privacy violated just so that Lieberman and the others can dig up dirt about Dean.

I think the voters should have access to any information that should affect their decisions, but nothing more (if there's privacy, security issues).

When is the judge releasing this information anyways?

If it's before the voting..then I'm 100% fine with the judge.

If not, I'm leaning a little more towards what Dookus is saying, because I think the voters should know.

[Dookus]

61. it will NOT be

before the first primaries. I don't know if there's a timetable, but I've read it will not be any time very soon.

And in that case, we're being asked to buy a pig-in-a-poke. I think we deserve better.

[CWebster]

28. True, I support Dean

but I thought he handled it fine. Lieberman so much as agreed with the reason Dean cited but continued to attempt to use it to attack. What a jerk.

[JVS]

31. He was Grandstanding

He wanted to do the whole pen thing and wouldn't drop it, even after his question was answered.

[Dookus]

43. so if

Al Gore had posed the SAME EXACT question to George W. Bush in 2000, you would've said he was grandstanding?

Please answer... nobody else has, even though I've asked it a few times.

[JVS]

47. It is grandstanding when you get and answer and cannot leave it at that

Lieberman asked a question
Dean answered it
Lieberman did not like that answer even though it made sense and started over

Kind of like you have been doing in this thread.

[Fleshdancer]

49. To be fair...

That analogy only works if Bush had already anounced that he would not legally challenge a judge to open his records. But he didn't.

Again, Lieberman knew the Dean's records would be open and he decided to bring it up anyway. Sure Lieberman had every right to ask, but really, how could it not be considered grandstanding when he already knew the records were going to be opened?

[JVS]

51. And the fact that after being told he still pestered Dean

Maybe he should take a lesson from Bart and Lisa Simpson

Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?
Will you sign this yet?

[Dookus]

59. First...

no need to pollute the thread with that kind of stuff. It just makes it harder for other people to read.

Second, I feel that Lieberman was right for not accepting Dean's answer.

I'll try you - i've asked 5 times now with no response:

If Al Gore had asked the SAME EXACT question of George W. Bush in 2000, would you have felt he was out of line?

Come on... answer, please. SOMEBODY has to.

[JVS]

60. Lieberman didn't ask one question, he asked the same thing several times

It is a matter of method here.

[Dookus]

62. Do you think...

that it would have been out of line for Gore to ask Bush that question in 2000?

Eventually SOMEBODY will answer.

[JVS]

66. Do you think it is appropriate to repeatedly ask questions that have...

been answered? Even if you might not like the answers

[Dookus]

68. I apologize

this thread is moving fast. Can you point me to the post that says it would've been inappropriate for Gore to ask Bush the same question?

[JVS]

70. No, it was Lieberman who repeated the question over and over

I was fine when he first asked it, seemed fair enough. But when he kept making a big deal out of it and wouldn't just make his comment, but had to keep asking over and over that my Bullshit-meter went off. That is where a question turned into grandstanding.

Now for your gore vs. Bush scenario, had gore asked fine, but had he turned it into a pestering of Bush it would have been lame and not helped his chances.

[Dookus]

74. OK...

we're halfway there.

If Bush had responded the way Dean did, you would've said "well gee, he has a point"?

If Gore had followed up with Lieberman's follow-up, would you have accepted his answer?

I'll find a transcript and post it with the names changed so you can see how it would've looked.

[JVS]

77. Replace Gore with McCain

the context of this being a primary election is also important.

[Dookus]

81. OK, fine...

replace Bush with McCain

As I said the OP, let's forget the individuals involved. If McCain had hammered Bush on it, would you have objected? Would he have been wrong?

I'm REALLY trying to raise this above the individual people involved and discuss the larger issue, which is do elected officials have the right to hide their records from the people who employ them?

[Dookus]

89. Here it is

GORE: Thank you, Paul. My question, not surprisingly, is to Howard Dean. One of the most troubling decisions that Howard has made in this campaign -- made before -- is to close and seal his records, or most of them, when he was governor of Vermont.

And this troubles me because the people of Vermont have a right to know. The people of America, who are judging your candidacy for president now, have a right to know what you did as governor to determine whether you're suitable and capable of being president of the United States.

I have in my hand the memorandum of understanding between you and the secretary of state, which makes very clear that all it takes to open up your records, Mr. Governor...

MODERATOR: Get your question out, please.

GORE: Yes, I will -- is one stroke of a pen.

George Bush, every day you tell people across America they have the power, and you're right.

You have the power, with one stroke of the pen, to open up your records to public view. You have the power; I'm prepared to give you the pen. Why don't you sign this agreement and open your gubernatorial records to full public view?

(APPLAUSE)

BUSH: I am told that Governor Bob Ray, who was one of the most distinguished governors of this state, had his records sealed for his entire lifetime.

Al, the reason that -- first of all, more than half of my records are open. And I know that because you all have been poring through them for many months to bring up all kinds of details.

(LAUGHTER)

But governors seal records for particular amounts of time -- in my case, some of the records -- to protect people's privacy, to protect the privacy that was given to advisers.

For example, there are apparently in these -- among these records is a group of letters from people who wrote me during the civil unions crisis, or the civil unions bill-passing, which was a crisis in Vermont because it was the most contentious bill that we had for many, many years.

What we have done is we have stepped aside. We have turned everything over to the attorney general of the state of Vermont. And the attorney general of the state of Vermont will go to court, and a judge will look over every document in our records. And they are free to release whatever they'd like, and that's fine with me.

MODERATOR: Back to Vice President Gore...

(APPLAUSE)

GORE: That is an unsatisfactory and disappointing answer. Why should you have to force a judge to force you to do what you know is right?

Your records ought to be public. Look, there are always exceptions for private matters and for security matters. The Boston Herald reports today that, notwithstanding the fact that you kept your records closed, you have revealed some security matters and, in fact, some personal medical histories.

My question is, as we go into this campaign, how can you and we take on George Bush and Dick Cheney, who have run the most secretive administration in our history, if you refuse to open up the records of your time as governor?

I want to say this: As president, records will be open to the public view. My records when I was in a comparable state position as attorney general are open to public view.

We Democrats are better than Bush and Cheney. And your position on your records has undercut the high ground that we should be on.

MODERATOR: A quick comment from the governor.

BUSH: I think if somebody is gay and they write me that, and they don't care to have that information disclosed to the public, that's their right.

(APPLAUSE)

GORE: That's not the answer you're...

(APPLAUSE)

Excuse me. You are ducking the question. Of course you've got a right to hold back private disclosures like that.

BUSH: Joe, a judge should decide that, because if we decide it, nobody is going to believe us, and they're going to say there's more stuff in the record. Why can't a judge look at every single piece of paper and make that decision?

GORE: You are ducking the question. You should not force a judge to force you to do what you know is right, and which will assure public confidence.

(APPLAUSE)

I'm sorry...

MODERATOR: We'll ask you to take it outside if you need to.

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: I'm ready. (LAUGHTER)

[eileen from OH]

95. I'll bite. If Al Gore had asked that QUESTION on W

I'd have said, "good." If he'd done the stoopid pen trick and proceeded to be a goober after it was answered I'd have thrown something at the tv. To me, the problem wasn't the initial basic question it was the tired "challenge" shtick (didn't work for Rick Lazio against Hilary, either. Hmm, has it EVERY worked? ) and then not even listening to the answer so he could keep banging on it. It was so obviously a cheap stunt. I swear, I thought that if Dean had actually taken the pen and signed it, Lieberman would still have kept on going on about it in order to get all his lines in.

If Gore had behaved that way I would have thought he was not only out of line, but out of his mind. Because it was just so LAME.

How's that?

eileen from OH

[JVS]

115. I agree with your post 100%

[Dookus]

116. Thanks Eileen...

But Dean didn't answer the question to Lieberman's satisfaction. In fact, he didn't answer it to MY satisfaction.

I would've cheered Gore if he pressed Bush on the issue, because I think the answer is weak. I honestly suspect that if Bush had answered the same way, a lot of people would've thought it was weak, too.

[eileen from OH]

122. Ahhhhh c'mon Dookus. . .

You said all you wanted was a response to "If Al Gore had asked that question of George W. Bush in 2000, would you have felt he was out of line? Come on... answer, please. SOMEBODY has to."

And I did respond. And Dean responded. Now you're moving the goal posts and saying it wasn't "really" a response cuz it didn't satisfy Lieberman (or you.)

You got your response and don't agree with it. Okay, fair enough.

I maintain that even if Dean had taken the pen and signed the damn thing and pulled a notary public out of the audience to stamp it, it wouldn't have been enough for Lieberman and he would STILL have had to get his talking points in cuz they were all planned and he was gonna do 'em.

Don't know 'bout you. Would that have been enough to satisfy you?

eileen from OH

[Dookus]

123. heheh....

probably.

Thanks for answering. I guess we just disagree on it - I would've loved to see Gore nail Bush on a weak answer.


thanks!

[patricia92243]

53. In all honesty, he did have a right to question Dean - this is just an

example of if you don't like someone- then everything they say or do is wrong. Unfortunately, most people do not like Lieberman - including myself.
'This surprises me, because I did like him last time as the VP candidate - oh well - such is life

[Dookus]

64. Thanks patricia...

it makes it hard to have a real discussion about an important issue.

Open government SHOULD be a primary goal of all progressive people. But because of the individuals involved here, we see all sorts of contortionism.

[Fleshdancer]

69. "Contortionism???"

I'm baffled by this statement. I really don't understand how many Dean supporters need to agree with you about opening Dean's records before you realize we're all saying the same thing. Open the records but make sure sensitive information (names, addresses, phone numbers of private citizens, etc) isn't released. This has been said over and over again.

[Adjoran]

71. These records are not sealed to protect privacy

Typically names and private addresses are blacked out on publicly released documents where appropriate. This is customary; while it takes some amount of time depending on the number of documents, there is no reason not to release those which have been redacted while others await review.

Bush tried to keep his records sealed by transferring them to his daddy's library, but the Texas Attorney General ruled they belonged to the state, and they were moved back to the Texas archives and are available to the public.

Dean said of Bush, "I'll release my records if he'll release his."

Well?

[Fleshdancer]

75. I invite you to come down here in Austin and try to look at W's records.

I've got a spare bedroom. Come on down.

The archive office is still claiming Bush's records can't currently be viewed because they're still being "archived". Cute, isn't it?

[Dookus]

76. yes, exactly

redacting names and addresses is easy. Dean uses the AIDS patient example, but I'm sure such records are a very small part of the whole.

Dean should be better than Bush. Any democrat should be better than Bush.

[Dookus]

82. to GloriaSmith and Kathleen04

Thank you both very much for engaging in a reasoned discussion about a difficult issue.

I appreciate it very much.

[Kathleen04]

85. You're welcome..

Thank you for the discussion...I feel differently about it now than I did originally.

[Dookus]

87. wow...

thanks a lot. That is such a rare phenomenon here in GD'04.

[Kathleen04]

92. lol, VERY rare n/t

[Dookus]

88. And here's an excerpt from a new story from today from the AP

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean (news - web sites) has demanded release of secret deliberations of Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s energy task force. But as Vermont governor, Dean had an energy task force that met in secret and angered state lawmakers


Dean's group held one public hearing and after-the-fact volunteered the names of industry executives and liberal advocates it consulted in private, but the Vermont governor refused to open the task force's closed-door deliberations.


In 1999, Dean offered the same argument the Bush administration uses today for keeping deliberations of a policy task force secret.


"The governor needs to receive advice from time to time in closed session. As every person in government knows, sometimes you get more open discussion when it's not public," Dean was quoted as saying.

[clarknyc]

102. I checked today's AP stories and didn't see it listed.

Maybe I just missed it, but this sounds like an older story to me. Would you please provide a link? Thanks.

[mazzarro]

90. Shouldn't open record requirement apply to people in the

legislatures and government agencies as well? I'll venture to include people in high military positions. After all average people do consider all these people as public officials and do write letters seeking their assistance in one form or another.

[bowens43]

93. Has Clark opened his military records to public scrutiny?

[Dookus]

94. yes he has

next question?

[Padraig18]

101. Only partially, Dookus.

He's only opened those records HE controls; there are lots of DoD and dept. of the Army files he can't open. Didn't meant to imply you weren't truthful, because I don't believe that *at all*, just meant to illustrate that 'records' is a somewhat ambiguous term.

[Lefta Dissenter]

118. Pad,

We've been through this before, though.

Clark has released all records that he has any control over. The records of 3- and 4-star Generals are, by law, under the control of the U.S. Government. Don't you believe in your heart of hearts that if there were anything negative in the records, we would have seen some 'leaks' by now?

I know it wasn't your intention, because we've talked about this before, but since some people don't thoroughly read all posts, I just don't want any implication to slide through that might allow people to think that Clark has held ANYTHING back. He even went as far as to fax records to reporters. Can't get any more open than that!

Now, as I've said before, if ALL of the other candidates would release ALL records that they have any control over, that would be just swell! :toast:

[Lefta Dissenter]

97. Dookus gets an A+ for persistence

and staying on message.

I have been really unhappy with Dean's handling of this issue.

The high road: open the files IMMEDIATELY, no need for judge, just get people busy with their sharpie's and get those doc's out. That would get the issue off the table BEFORE the first primary!

the not-so-high road: "don't know what might be used against me if I run for the presidency," "I'll do it when bush does," "I'll do it after the election," "I don't want anyone's privacy to be violated," "I'll let a judge take months to decide what should be out." None of these quotes are verbatim, but you catch my drift.

It is a scary replay of the Ahnold run for office, when allegations of sexual abuse surfaced, and he said that he'd answer questions AFTER the election! I was shocked at that, shocked that so many people accepted it, and I'm shocked and disappointed with Dean and many of his supporters now.

If there is, indeed, nothing incriminating in his records, why doesn't he just get the damned things open NOW? This is an enormous issue for me, and it puts him WAYYYYyyy down my list of choices to vote for. It does, indeed, make me wonder what might be lurking in there that he is so protective of.

And I'll repeat the now-standard disclaimer that of course, all names and other identifying information would be redacted. But as far as I know, THAT process hasn't even started - NOoooo all the records are in the judge's hands, so if, after months of perusing the records, he decides that they should all be released, then how much longer do we have to wait while they're being cleaned up? Hopefully this will be a non-issue by the time the General Election comes along (1st choice is because Clark is the nominee, second choice is because Dean has released all records and they're so boring that the issue quickly disappears)

[Killarney]

98. My only problem with that exchange

was that Dean answered the question and Lieberman kept repeating over and over that he didn't answer the question. He answered it! There are things in there that are private (such as letters to Dean from citizens saying they are gay that they wouldn't want public). Dean is letting the judge go through and decide what should be public and what shouldn't. Lieberman said why don't you just do that. Dean said, if I went through and decided what should be public and private, I would get criticism and people wouldn't believe me that I had made all the correct records public. Letting a judge do it instead lends more credibility to it.

I don't understand why Lieberman didn't understand that. I understood it. :shrug:

[Padraig18]

99. I would have no problem with it IF every candidate did the same.

Until then, the overpowering stench of hypocrisy fills the room every time some candidate raises the issue.

[Padraig18]

103. No one's gonna bite? Hmmm...

:shrug:

[Dookus]

114. I'll bite...

I went to bed. I'll try not to do that again :)

Do you really think "well other people do it" is a legitimate defense on such an important issue?

I stipulated MANY times in this thread that ALL public officers should have open records. I think it's a mainstay of good government.

Let's try to forget the individuals involved. Let's take the argument to a higher level.

Either you believe that open records are a de facto good thing or you don't. If you DO think it's a good thing, then it shouldn't matter WHO is sealing the records - you should be opposed to it.

Obviously, the attention is on Dean right now over this, but can we try to ignore the individuals and discuss the principle.

I honestly don't find your argument persuasive. If you're for open government, it's intellectually dishonest to give a pass to ONE politician simply because you like him.

[KaraokeKarlton]

100. It wasn't the question that was the issue

It was the fact that Dean answered it with the truth, which was very reasonable and Lieberman refused to let it go. The "Why are you forcing a judge to force you to do what's right?" crap made him sound like a third grader whining over a game of four square. Dean didn't bring the court action, some group that wants to see the records did and Dean chose not to fight it and is letting the judge decide what should be opened and what is left sealed. Then he can't be accused of hiding anything. Lieberman sounded like a whine ass and his statements stopped making sense after the initial question. He looked petty and foolish.

[janx]

112. He came off as very desperate.

It looked as if his intent was to sound very righteous, but you're right--it came off instead as very juvenile. As another poster pointed out, he was clearly grandstanding.

[cms424]

104. As a New Yorker...

I couldn't help but be reminded of Rick Lazio's soft-money debacle at the Senate debate a few years ago...with the whole, "Here's a pen, sign it!" thing.

[BurtWorm]

109. I thought the same thing.

I'm surprised when politicians try stunts like that because they just scream GIMMICK! And the pen in hand gimmick has LAZIO written all over it. I can't be the only person to get turned off by political gimmickry. Do they take into account the ratio between people who hate gimmicks and people who love them or need them?

[Hep]

105. Screw rights to privacy!

This is all nonsense. What are people really expecting to find here?? Hoffa?

You're asking why the sherriff doesn't give the bad guy a gun when he runs out of bullets. WTF?

[Dookus]

117. Perhaps

you could've read the original post, or the dozen or so OTHER posts in which I specifically state that protecting the privacy of individuals is necessary.

If you believe every single paper under seal right now is a letter from a gay constituent, well... wanna buy a bridge?

[mumishka]

110. Lieberman-nothing but an attack dog.

The Problem is that all Lieberman seems to know how to do is to attack Dean. Lieberman seems to have no plan to attack the problems in America-----maybe in part because he has spent his life supporting the insurance industy--- but the fact remains that Lieberman, Kerry and Gerhardt but especailly Lieberman don't seem to get it. Everytime they attack Dean, Dean is stronger and they are shown to be what they are--- oldtime inside-the-beltway types without real solutions to the nations problems.

[mumishka]

111. Lieberman-nothing but an attack dog.

The Problem is that all Lieberman seems to know how to do is to attack Dean. Lieberman seems to have no plan to attack the problems in America-----maybe in part because he has spent his life supporting the insurance industy--- but the fact remains that Lieberman, Kerry and Gerhardt but especailly Lieberman don't seem to get it. Everytime they attack Dean, Dean is stronger and they are shown to be what they are--- oldtime inside-the-beltway types without real solutions to the nations problems.

[Scott Lee]

120. I encourage Joe Lieberman to keep up his mindless attacks!

With every one, Dean gets stronger.

Go Joe!

[Dookus]

121. Do you have anything

to offer on the actual topic being discussed?

[adamrsilva]

124. The question itself wasn't too bad, it was his tone and the fact that he

pressed on it, AFTER DEAN HAD RESPONDED, and his dramatic pen waving crap...