Records Sealed To Protect Gays Dean Says

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/01/010504deanRecords.htm

Howard Dean Sunday said that his gubernatorial records in Vermont will remain under seal. Dean was clearly the target of fellow Democratic Party presidential hopefuls in the first debate of the new year.

Debating in Iowa, where voters in two weeks will meet in caucuses, the first contest for national convention delegates who will select a Democratic challenger to President Bush.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) pressed Dean on the records, which the former governor sealed shortly before leaving office. They contain all of the information and correspondence of his term as governor

[redqueen]

1. All the records he wants sealed are about gay people?

Sorry... that has to be the weakest excuse ever.

[Scott Lee]

3. Does it have to only be about Gays to be valid?

I think not, and I suggest you not default to hyperbole on this one.

[redqueen]

4. Wha?

Does what 'only have to be about Gays to be valid'????

The title of this thread is "Records Sealed To Protect Gays Dean Says". Notice that part in the middle, where it says "To Protect Gays".

Apparently he cited the issue of protecting gay correspondents (which can be done with a magic marker) as a reason for keeping his records sealed in the debate. Even if there is more than just a name which is sensitive, then you could just hold back certain documents from public review.

But keeping hundreds of thousands of documents secret (is it that much? I think I read that here) just because some of the documents are about gays? Come on...

[OrAnarch]

8. Thats not at all what the point has been...Its an EXAMPLE

Its more been an example of how publicizing records of private people infringes upon their personal rights to privately correspond with their governor. Countless times I recall when countering this claim, he literally says, "for example...". It is the most profound case that I could imagine, but certainly not the only reason. Another reason I could think of for an example would be medical marijauna, etc. There is a real concern here, and no matter how anyone feels about Dean, you must admit that such actions should infringe upon people's rights to privacy.

[redqueen]

11. Magic Marker; Keep 'sensitive' documents secret

The answer is not to lock up all of his official documents. Sorry, this answer will not fly with the public.

[killbotfactory]

23. He didn't lock up all of his official documents..

And he's going to let a judge decide what further documents are reasonable to release. If Dean had his staff go through and pick which further documents to release, there'd still be an outcry by people saying they're more stuff in there they are trying to hide. That's why he's letting a judge figure it out, and the point that Lieberman ignored.

[Pobeka]

98. Bingo. And Lieberman was an asshole about it.

I'm pretty neutral on the candidates except Lieberman. But Lieberman especially showed his true ability to be nothing but a spoiler to the party in that juvenile exchange, in which I thought Dean gave a lucid and reasonable answer, and Lieberman had to be dense and political.

[Scott Lee]

55. What if some of your official documents contained private info

that could hurt an innocent, outside of the questions in the election?

A quandry for your Monday.

[polpilot]

101. See lastest polls for 'public's response'.

Dean '04...

[maxr4clark]

76. A hypothetical example, at that

Seriously, it is irresponsible to label this thread the way you did on the basis of the article you referenced.

[Scott Lee]

54. Are you saying that protecting Gays in his records

is the only valid possibility for him retaining the seal on some of them?

You have to be joking.

[sandnsea]

47. Gays are being exploited

He's using gays as an excuse for his own choice to keep the records sealed for whatever reasons. There's no way 40% of his gubanatorial records are about gays.

[Ramsey]

50. And he never said they were

It is really sad how people willfully ignore the facts!

Dean has used the issue of a gay person writing to him during the civil unions fight in Vermont as AN EXAMPLE of the type of record that was sealed. This is to protect the privacy of individuals who may not choose to become the fodder of political opportunists. That is appropriate. Dean has never ever said that the 40% of the records that were sealed were all letters from gay constituents. It's an EXAMPLE. As he always points out. As he did in the Iowa debate:

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

Dean: 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.

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.


Dean is also correct when he surmises that if he and his staff went through and redacted the personal information themselves and then released the records, that Lieberman and his other critics would certainly STILL cry foul. They would accuse the Dean campaign of picking and choosing and of still hiding something. Dean is doing the right thing to have an impartial throed party from the judiciary make the decision. He is right to remove himself from the process. Lieberman is being an idiot to suggest that Dean should open 100% of his records, even if that means violating the privacy of private citizens.

[babzilla]

89. Vermont View: Past governors’ sealed papers are revealing

Here is a great article that gives some perspective on the history of the sealing of governors' records in VT.

In 1864 the Legislature approved a joint resolution stating "that all official correspondence of the governor of the state is the property of the state; and upon retirement of any governor from office he shall deposit with the secretary of state all such correspondence, and the same shall be properly filed or bound, and forever preserved."

That same resolution directed the secretary of state "to apply to each ex-governor of the state who is living, and to the heirs or legal representatives of each ex-governor who is dead, and procure the official correspondence of such ex-governor."

more....

http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/75645

[sandnsea]

94. 40%???

No, 40% of his papers are not private letters. Especially when various private letters are already part of the open documents. It's so obvious he's covering up something. Especially when he turns it over to his good buddy to be sorted out.

[babzilla]

97. of course they aren't all private letters

take it up with the VT state Supreme Court.
http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/75645

"At first, only outgoing letters written by governors were saved, but in the 1890s the official correspondence began to include incoming letters. Little changed over the next century - with governors pretty much on their own to determine what was deemed official correspondence and left with the state, and what was considered private and taken home.

In 1990, though, the state Supreme Court gave governors authority to assert executive privilege to preserve "the confidentiality of intergovernmental documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising parts of the process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated."

That decision gave governors a new power to close records. It also provided a new mechanism for governors and the state to work out agreements that would ensure more records would be saved for historical review."

Another recourse would be to join up with Judicial Watch in their never-ending "non-partisan" efforts

http://www.judicialwatch.org/

[sandnsea]

99. The governor closes records

The governor can open them. Obviously they're being sealed because they're "advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations" and not because he's protecting a whole bunch of people's confidentiality. It's ridiculous that he even made such an assertion.

[babzilla]

103. actually it is the Sec. of State who has the power of procurement.

http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/75645
"That same resolution directed the secretary of state "to apply to each ex-governor of the state who is living, and to the heirs or legal representatives of each ex-governor who is dead, and procure the official correspondence of such ex-governor."

[Scott Lee]

68. In your opinion

And of course you never show any proof that Dean is "exploiting" gays....only loud cries that he is doing so.

[Scott Lee]

2. If he'd have opened them, opponents would have cried foul

due to his "outting closeted Gays".

Another page in the Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't book against Howard Dean.

[funky_bug]

7. Weak

I actually felt a bit sorry for Howard during the debate. What Uncle Joey did was nothing short of theatrics. No matter what Dean said in response, all anyone would remember was "the pen." I actually thought that no matter what Dean said, it would shy in comparison to that grandstanding that Lieb. pulled out. But then Dean played the gay card. As the sister of an openly gay man, and the best friend of an openly gay man, I was infuriated with his response. Dean stated early on that he wanted his records sealed in light of his presidential hopes. For him to say he was protecting gays was a ludicrous attempt at pandering.

If he gets the nod, I'll still vote for him. ABB is alive and well in my soul. But I will never forget how he attempted to exploit a real and deserving cause to excuse the fact that he refused to take the pen.

[Scott Lee]

21. Nonsense

Don't you think it's possible that Governor Dean wanted some of his records sealed for MORE than one reason? I think he brought up two excellent reasons for keeping some of them sealed - refusal to provide Rove with material, and protecting some privacy issues that have nothing to do with the election.

You've got to come up with more multi-dimensional argument to attack Dean on this issue than what you did. THAT was weak.

[funky_bug]

26. As I recall

Dean specifically stated the hypothetical, "What if...blah blah blah...gay...blah blah." It was as much grandstanding as Uncle Joey's pen. If he has stated previously that he sealed the records because of the race to the white house, then he should have stuck with that... not pandered to the gay and lesbian community for some weak applause. He did duck.

I don't really need to look for reasons to "attack Dean" as you say. I simply stated that what he said in the debate was a weak response.

[Scott Lee]

39. To reiterate - an additional reason does not negate the first one.

And I got a big laugh at your insinuation that Dean "panders" to the Gay community. The record shows that he, more than most public servants, stood firmly for Gay rights in a public climate harsh to them. "Panderers" don't do that sort of thing.

[funky_bug]

42. Glad to make your day

He said it, I didn't.

I maintain this: If his previously stated reasons are so noble, he shouldn't have any problem sticking to them. And seeing as he knowns a thing or two about the gay community, then he should know better than to exploit them when backed into a corner.

[Scott Lee]

57. Protecting gay people's anonymity is "exploitation"?

Gotta say that's a new one.

What's law then? A shameless boast of Hammurabic Code?

[funky_bug]

58. Duck and Run

No - it's called a red herring. He can release those records without releasing any names. Exploitation is using a cause to duck an issue.

Duck and Run. That's what it's called... and if there isn't a code for it yet, Dean will invent one based on his record of doing just that very thing.

40% sealed records... is Vermont short on permanant markers? He's not protecting the identity of gays or any other of his constituents. He's already released records containing personal information.

He pulled the gay card - pure and simple. If you don't want to look it at way, I respect your right to follow your convictions. Attacking my views on his statement doesn't make it go away.

[Scott Lee]

71. That's a prevelant opinion against Dean, but without proof

So far none of Dean's distractors have provided a shred of proof that Dean is "exploiting Gays" by his record seal. He has stated it as one of his reasons, nothing more and nothing less.

Tell us, if you can, what knowledge you have become privy to that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dean really cares nothing about Gays, and is doing this only to "duck and run" as you put it.

I'll wait.

[funky_bug]

75. Actually

I don't believe that Dean is anti-sympathetic... on the contrary, his record shows great empathy toward the rights of gays in Vermont. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Vermont is the only state (thanks to Dean) where gay couples can legally adopt a child.

I admire and respect Dean in his fight for equal rights for all Americans, regardless of gender preference.

That made his statement all the more alarming. If he truly cares, he would know why it was inappropriate to hide in such a way. When fervently backed into a corner, he did not reiterate his previous reasons for his sealed records. He quite adamantly played the gay card. It seemed (in my opinion, mind you) to be a shameless attempt to pull some sympathy from the audience. Unfortunately, he didn't realize that if he had risen above the fray, he would have come up smelling of roses against Uncle Joey's theatrical grandstanding. Instead, he looked like a kid caught with a piece of 10cent bubble gum in his pocket to which he hadn't payed for. It was a red herring. "Look over there..."

[babzilla]

80. Correction below: you are wrong

Vermont is not the only state where gay couples can legally adopt a child.

There are only 3 states that ban adoption for gay couples: Florida, Mississippi and Utah.

Utah is not gay specific, they ban any unmarried couple from adopting.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/ABCNEWSSpecials/primetime_020314_gayadoption_feature.html

[Scott Lee]

83. And I still wait......

"I admire and respect Dean in his fight for equal rights for all Americans, regardless of gender preference.

That made his statement all the more alarming. If he truly cares, he would know why it was inappropriate to hide in such a way. "


The two paragraphs above simply do not make sense. Why would he be "hiding", to use your terminology, simply by preferring to err on the side of anonymity for Gay people who still wish it?

Question: Do you know how important it is not to "out" Gay people contrary to their wishes? If you know any Gays or have them in your family, I'm sure you are aware of the gravity of such a thing. Howard Dean is. He's proven it by standing up for their privacy.

Now, why would you have a problem with that? It mystifies me.

[Dolphyn]

73. Dean's record on gay rights is not so great

My understanding is that Dean "stood firmly for gay rights" solely because the Vermont Supreme Court forced his hand.


According to Mark Steyn in the Washington Times:

Three years ago, Vermont became the first state in the nation to recognize a form of legal relationship for same-sex couples, and that puts Mr. Dean on the cutting edge of the issue du jour. Bringing civil unions to Vermont was "the most important event in my political life," he says, though at the time he was going round the state telling folks he was only doing it because the Vermont Supreme Court made him, and, instead of the usual showboating public ceremony, he signed the legislation behind closed doors

Source: http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030705-111500-7368r.htm


According to Mark Singer in The New Yorker:

Before the Vermont court case was decided, he refused to discuss the issue with reporters. Then, with the ball in the legislature's hands, he said-referring expressly to same-sex marriage, even though civil unions are a different species-"Like everyone else, I'm uncomfortable with it, too." When the time came for Dean to sign the bill, it was walked from the House clerk's office to his office, where, behind a closed door, he unceremoniously did so. This infuriated the press and the left, but they eventually got over it.

Ellis described for me an encounter with Dean at a pivotal juncture, four months before the bill was signed. "Our firm handled the civil-union campaign, on behalf of the gay and lesbian community in Vermont," he said. "Two lawyers who had argued the case before the Supreme Court hired us. I took those lawyers up to see Howard. This was a week after the court decision. He greeted us with 'This is not a civil-rights issue. You're not going to get everything you want. We disagree on this.' There was no 'Hello, congratulations, what an exciting time this must be.' Instead, it was 'You guys aren't going to get marriage-I'm not going as far as you want me to go.'" Ellis added, "Bear in mind, Howard never announced publicly that he didn't regard this as a civil-rights issue. He said that to us privately."

Source: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040112fa_fact


According to Keith Rosenthal:

Dean says he will not push for national civil unions, but will let the states themselves decide (in other words, he shares the same position as many Republicans). This is like being opposed to Jim Crow laws but willing to let the states decide whether or not to impose segregation.

Source: http://www.isreview.org/issues/32/dean.shtml


Here is Dean's policy statement on LGBT issues:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_lgbt
While better than what the Republicans have to offer, it does indeed stop short of saying anything about civil unions on the national level.


Contrast the Kucinich statement:
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/gayrights.php
Today, Congressman Kucinich proudly endorses a comprehensive non-discrimination policy, including non-discrimination based on gender identity. His overriding philosophy is that same sex couples and opposite sex couples should be equal in the eyes of the law, including in marriage. All benefits and legal entitlements available to heterosexual couples should be available to homosexual couples.

[funky_bug]

77. I did say correct me if I'm wrong

Thank you for that informative post. Looks like the doctor is still out on gay rights.

[Cheswick2.0]

59. Lots of us have gay friends and family

many of us don't think Dean was pandering. Of course if you find furry and outrage convenient then so be it.

[dsc]

111. I wrote him about civil unions

and said I was gay. I also included some things that would let peoople who knew me know I was gay. I am out to my friends and family so I don't really care much. But that isn't the case for all. And no, the details I provided would not be likely to be redactied. It was things like occupation and education. Not name and stuff like that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. This lie conflicts with Dean earlier statements on the issue.

In the course of negotiating an unprecedented 10-year period for keeping his official papers confidential, former Vermont governor Howard Dean through his legal counsel explored the possibility of making the privacy period contingent on whether he was running for president, according to newly released documents.

Discussions between the counsel and the state archivist about a potentially longer sealing period centered around the possibility that a future political opponent of Dean's might seize on a document and use it as ammunition, according to the correspondence.

State archivist Gregory Sanford noted that in the talks a primary concern was "the `Willie Horton' example," referring to the furloughed Massachusetts prisoner whose crimes surfaced as an issue in the 1988 contest between Vice President George H.W. Bush and Michael S. Dukakis.

A seal longer than 10 years would have significantly eclipsed periods sought by previous Vermont governors, who traditionally received six-year seals for their official papers.

Dean, who left the governor's office in January 2003 and is now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, agreed in the end to a decade-long seal -- with no extension -- for nearly half of his official correspondence, meaning the documents will be available for public viewing in 2013. Shortly before he left office, Dean told 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."

In an interview with the Globe in July, he said in response to a request that he waive the seal, "No, it's sealed for a reason."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/09/dean_feared_a_horton_scenario

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. Care to back up your assertion with an argument?

The earlier statements, the news articles, as well as the official state documents all say that the reason the records were sealed is to protect Dean from embarassing revelations during his Presidential campaign. Now he says something different. Either he was lying then, or he's lying now.

[Scott Lee]

36. Wrong. He gave you an ADDITIONAL reason for the seal

And added reason does not negate the first one. Do you follow?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

40. Laughable spin.

No one who isn't drunk on Kool-Aid would take that seriously.

Do you follow?

[Scott Lee]

48. Koolaid's not my favorite, but truth is.

And having more than one reason for sealing some of your records is not an invalidation of any of them.

Do YOU follow?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

60. You are repeating yourself.

[Scott Lee]

72. I've found that necessary with Dean's detractors.

There's a really tough filter to penetrate...it keeps out any information that casts Dean in a positive light.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

84. Dean's biggest detractor is Dean.

He is clearly the most divisive figure in the Democratic party today.

[Scott Lee]

93. I'm sure that's true in some alternate reality

But here in this one, he's the leader of a wake up call against business as usual.

You of the Traditional DLC politic, your time is over.

[babzilla]

91. why would any candidate set themselves up for a Willie Horton scenario?

http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/75645

In 1990, though, the state Supreme Court gave governors authority to assert executive privilege to preserve "the confidentiality of intergovernmental documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising parts of the process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated."

That decision gave governors a new power to close records. It also provided a new mechanism for governors and the state to work out agreements that would ensure more records would be saved for historical review.

In 1990, as Madeleine Kunin was leaving office after six years as governor, she and then-Secretary of State James Douglas signed an agreement under which she would give to the state all of her papers - with the understanding that the state would seal those documents for which she was claiming executive privilege.

The agreement set the time lock at six years. The agreement says "six years was chosen as a reasonable but brief period in comparison to the executive privilege periods used in other jurisdictions," noting that the papers of former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean were closed for 20 years and that Maryland set 30 years for such closures.

[KittyWampus]

6. This Has Been Debunked & Dean Admitted As Much

Will Dean have yet ANOTHER news cycle eaten up by this?

[Cheswick2.0]

62. proof please

?

[dolstein]

9. I do believe Mr. Dean's nose is growing

The fact is, if he wants to protect the identities of gay people, he could simply have released the correspondence in redacted form (i.e., with the names and addresses of the writer blacked out). This is done all the time.

Besides, this is all beside the point. Howard's "I want to protect the privacy of gay people" defense is a red herring. Howard Dean KNOWS that the complaints aren't about sealing letters received from gay contituents. A lot more records have been sealed than that. We're talking about records of cabinet meets, task forces, official reports, etc. Dean's simply trying to duck the issue, which is that he DELIBERATELY sought to keep records sealed in order to protect him from embarassment during the presidential campaign and, if he was successful, during his term(s) as president. The ten year period was NOT pulled out of thin air.

[Scott Lee]

25. You mean his LEAD is growing.

*chuckle*

[dolstein]

45. Classic Dean maneuver -- avoid the questions, change the subject

Sorry, but I don't like it when government officials prevent the public from gaining access to their records simply to protect themselves against potential embarassment. It's even worse when those government officials lie about their motivations.

If Dean thinks it's none of the public's business, fine. Just say it. If Dean thinks it's ok to impose a ten year ban on access to administration records because every other governor does it, fine. Just say it. But don't insult my intelligence by claiming that this secrecy is designed to protect the identities of gay constituents, becuase that don't just ain't gonna hunt. The order that currently prevents public access to the records of the Dean administration in Vermont goes FAR beyond simply protecting access to the names of constituents who wrote in to express support for civil unions.

[Scott Lee]

49. Or you could just misrepresent Howard Dean

Which is what you did.

You say:

"If Dean thinks it's none of the public's business, fine. Just say it. If Dean thinks it's ok to impose a ten year ban on access to administration records because every other governor does it, fine. Just say it."

He has said so. Numerous times. How many times do you need to hear him say he didn't want to give ammunition to his political opponents? Should he make those statements in several languages so they finally get through the all the filters of denial?

One aspect of the Dean detractor always holds true; they cannot be led, pushed, shoved or carried to the truth about Howard Dean.

[dolstein]

65. Excuse me, but did you bother to read the first post in this thread?

If you did, you'd realize that Dean is now offering a lame and patently false justification for keeping his administration records secret, to go along with all the other justifications he's offered. You keep avoiding this -- the claim that his records were kept secret to protect the identities of gay constituents is patently false. It wasn't a motivating factor. Even if it was, there are far less restricting means of accomodating the privacy interests of gay constituents.

While I'm not happy about either the "it's none of your damn business" or "everybody else does it" justifications -- both of which Dean has offered at one time or another -- at least those have an element of candor which is patently lacking in his latest justification.

[Scott Lee]

81. Certainly - and you wasted no time in parsing it.

Meaning that you simply made a bunch of assumptions and referred to them as fact. To wit:

That Dean is not telling that truth when he says he wants to protect some gay aquaintences' anonymity.

That Dean is hiding something evil and foreboding in his records that the world needs to know in order to keep western civilization from crashing.

That Dean only has one reason to keep some of his records sealed, and that having several show that all of his reasons are somehow invalid.

All of which remain your assumptions, purely. When you can come up with some facts about his SEALED records to back up your assumptions, please feel free to post and we can jibber jabber about those.

[polpilot]

102. The Dean camp will waste no time on this non-issue. Disappointed

supporters of the also-rans will have MANY issues they want discussed but Dean is on to the Bush race and these questions of 'his records' are no longer even annoyances. Feel free to characterize them as ___________________(fill in the blank).

Joe really connected didn't he?

Dean '04...

[Cheswick2.0]

63. no. actually Dean's lead is growing

thanks in great part to Lieberman's "OUTRAGE".

[Scott Lee]

82. and proportionately, so is the sour grapes outrage against him.

[ima_sinnic]

10. much ado about NOTHING

The article is misleading when it says his records "will remain under seal." He has unsealed them, which he clearly said during the debate, and a judge is going through every single one and deciding which can and cannot be made public. This is why LIEberman was way off base in pursuing this dead horse. Those who are whining about it--what will they do when nothing that can be used against Dr. Dean turns up? And anybody who cries "foul" at the idea of a judge's going through them is a horse's a**--I would much rather the good doc continue campaigning than start devoting himself to sorting papers--not to mention that if he makes those decisions himself he will be accused of cherry-picking.

[redqueen]

12. So Larry Klayman and JudicialWatch are just flat out lying?

Do you have another source for that? (other than Dean, thanks.)

[janx]

19. Off topic a bit:

Is your screen name by any chance taken specifically from the title of a book?

I could have sworn I once ran across a book by that title.

[redqueen]

30. Heh nope.

Most people think "Alice in Wonderland", but it's actually a reference to a principle which states that in complex evolutionary systems, continual change / adaptation is necessary to stay competitive. The name came from the character in "Through The Looking Glass" who said "we must run as fast as we can just to stay in the same place".

[fricasseed_gourmet_rat]

31. running fast and going nowhere...

...You just reminded me that I have a biology exam this month. I hate you. :-)

[redqueen]

32. Sowwy!

Enjoy it! Cubicle dwelling sucks oh so much more than exams. :)

[Cheswick2.0]

64. HA HA HA, HELL NO, Larry Klayman would never lie

Tell me, did klayman ever get Clinton imprisoned for murder?

[blm]

13. The Koch brothers are gay? The funders of the CATO Institute are gay?

The guys who own Koch Industries/Entergy are gay?

The guys who are topnotch BFEE loyalists are gay?

Hmmm....do they know that?

[Padraig18]

17. And you KNOW that info about them is contained in the records, huh blm?

:eyes:

[blm]

29. It wasn't released was it?

If YOU saw all the papers related to the Entergy deal then please share them with all of us so we, too, can be assured that the Koch brothers weren't out trolling for a deal to ensnare a potential rival for Bush.

Or has everyone forgotten what Conason told us in The Hunting of the President? Right after Bush1 was inaugurated in 1989, their operatives targeted those Democrats who were potential adversaries and tried to set up deals where they could trap them, at least with an appearance of dirty dealing in office. They targeted Clinton then and he didn't bite.

Now, why would the BFEE loyalists like the Koch brothers choose to do a deal with the gov. of Vermont who also happened to be an advocate for electricity deregulation and was regarded highly by their foundation, the CATO Institute? Maybe because everyone knew since back in 97 that Dean planned to run for office?

[Cheswick2.0]

66. the secret letters and documents Kerry has access to because

he is actually supreme dictator of the milky way.

[blm]

107. Turn it into fun and games. Yuk it up when the Koch brothers open up

to Rove with all their documents.

Guess you missed Conason's book The Hunting of the President and how the GOP operatives try to set up potential rivals.

It seems only Dean made a deal with BFEE loyalists during the recent cycle.

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. And I own a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell ya!

What a crock. He could very easily remove any "personal" gay civil union correspondence and open his records. He's hiding SOMETHING.

[Loonman]

15. Sounds like an excuse

Excuses, excuses, Mr. Dean.

[jumptheshadow]

16. Well, then he'd be free to release the Vermont nuke plant files

Wouldn't he?

[Loonman]

18. One would think so

}(

[janx]

20. At this point, he has no say so in which files get released

and which don't.

That's why it's best left up to a judge; if he (or his campaign) were the one(s) deciding, all kinds of allegations would continue. It's best left to someone impartial but judicious about sensitive material.

[jumptheshadow]

27. Isn't the judge a friend of his?

So what's so impartial about it?

And why did he feel the need to send files that didn't involve personal documents to a friendly judge?

[babzilla]

92. no, the secretary of state is the son of Dean's political mentor.

Maybe that is who you are thinking of.

[TorchTheWitch]

22. what a bunch of hoooey

He used that privacy excuse before and it didn't wash then either. He's already got records out there that were never sealed to begin with that infringe on Vermonters' privacy, even some records that were marked "not for public diclosure and even threaten civil or criminal penalties... but they weren't sealed.

http://news.bostonherald.com/national/national.bg?articleid=117
<snip>
Also readily available are letters written to and from Dean detailing personal struggles and medical conditions of his constituents.

They include correspondence with a couple about the care of their daughter with Down syndrome and Alzheimer's and a couple who detailed to Dean the medication they take.

Also made public: a 1991 letter to Sheri Arpin of St. Albans, who wrote Dean looking for help with her depression.

Arpin said she was shocked the letter was released, given Dean's claims that he's protecting those who wrote to him. "I figured he read it, sent it through the shredding machine or in a personal file," she said yesterday. "I wish he had. That was a time when I was extremely ill."

Some of the records he DID seal are all of his press releases and some of his speeches, which surely won't have personal information in them.

I don't blame Lieberman for getting on his case about this. He knows Dean's just using that as an excuse, and it's basically a lie seeing as a lot of that personal info was never sealed and out there for public scrutiny already.

[jumptheshadow]

33. Yikes

With this kind of shifty manuevering, Dean is waving a red flag in front of the nation's investigative reporters.

He's just asking to get clobbered.

[redqueen]

35. Does it matter, though?

It seems as if the Dean crusade is not bothered by it. Those that seem to be bothered on the Dean blogs are all 'freepers' and 'trolls' and shouldn't be listened to.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

28. One Word: Redaction

This is a complete and utter smokescreen. Privacy can easily protected by redacting names and identities.

DTH

[DoveTurnedHawk]

86. ONE WORD: REDACTION

In case no one heard me before, conveniently.

DTH

[Scott Lee]

37. I demand to see Dean's family photo albums.

After all, we don't know what's really in there.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. Simply untrue to say or imply that this is about Dean's personal mattters.

This is about official papers -- it has nothing to do with Dean's personal correspondence or - duh - photos.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/09/dean_feared_a_horton_scenario
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2003/dean.pdf

[blm]

46. They use hyperbole to distract from REAL Dean problems.

Like this. They know it's wrong so they use distraction methods.

[Cheswick2.0]

69. and you use that hyperbole to distract from Real Kerry problems

which are way bigger than you imagined Dean problems.

[Scott Lee]

52. Actually, it does. On several fronts.

He has rejected unsealing all of his records for the following reasons:

1. Some of whats in them could be used by his political opponents against him.

2. Some of them could violate the privacy of his past patients.

3. some of them could out Gay people who might not want to come "out" at this time for their own reasons.

ALL valid reasons. And if the law is on his side, which it seems to be so far, then I hope he gets his wish.

[TorchTheWitch]

85. nice try

1. Some of whats in them could be used by his political opponents against him.

Good. If there's something stinky in them, they should.

2. Some of them could violate the privacy of his past patients.

A) No. Any personal info would be redacted (which a lot of use have been saying for months already)
B) A LOT of personal info of constituents was never sealed to begin with, and among those unsealed records are also records that clearly state "not for public disclosure" and cite civil or criminal penalties... yet they WERE NOT sealed.

3. some of them could out Gay people who might not want to come "out" at this time for their own reasons.

Poop. Redaction. Again, personal information about certain constituants were already out there for public scrutiny because they WERE NOT sealed (and obviously, nobody bothered redacting anything from them... so much for caring about the privacy of constituants).

http://news.bostonherald.com/national/national.bg?articleid=117
<snip>
Also readily available are letters written to and from Dean detailing personal struggles and medical conditions of his constituents.

They include correspondence with a couple about the care of their daughter with Down syndrome and Alzheimer's and a couple who detailed to Dean the medication they take.

Also made public: a 1991 letter to Sheri Arpin of St. Albans, who wrote Dean looking for help with her depression.

Arpin said she was shocked the letter was released, given Dean's claims that he's protecting those who wrote to him. "I figured he read it, sent it through the shredding machine or in a personal file," she said yesterday. "I wish he had. That was a time when I was extremely ill."
<end snip>

ALL valid reasons. And if the law is on his side, which it seems to be so far, then I hope he gets his wish.

ALL crap. If the law is on his side, why did he refuse to open the records under ANY circumstances until he was sued? The ONLY reason he put the records in the hands of a judge is because the lawsuit left him no other choice other then agreeing to open them himself by waiving executive privilege. He could have waived executive privilege and have an independent party do the redacting. He can STILL waive executive privilege and have an independent party remove any papers that have been called for, have anything redacted from them that needs to be and those papers could be seen before people cast votes. If he had not faught the issue for so long we would have the the whole pile by now including any redactions as he's faught this for AGES.

He wasn't even legally allowed to seal those records to begin with as there is a Vermont law that says you can't seal records under the reasons that he used to seal them to begin with. Read the suit.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/107/deancomp.htm
<snip>
This action seeks Defendants' compliance with the Vermont Access to Public Records Act, 1 V.S.A. §§ 315 to 320. Defendants have steadfastly refused to disclose hundreds of thousands of pages of public records and papers of former Vermont Governor and current United States presidential candidate, Dr. Howard Dean, based solely on an unsupported, blanket claim of "executive privilege" as memorialized in a "Memorandum of Understanding" that Dr. Dean negotiated with the other Defendants. However, some five months before officially announcing his candidacy for president, Dr. Dean acknowledged (on Vermont Public Radio) that this secrecy is motivated by "future political considerations" and the desire to prevent "anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor." This is not a legitimate basis for refusing to release public documents.

...

Vermont's Access to Public Records Act declares: "Officers of government are trustees and servants of the people and it is in the public interest to enable any person to review and criticize their decisions even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment." 1 V.S.A. § 315. The Act permits "ny person" to "inspect or copy any public record or document...." 1 V.S.A. § 316.

...

There is no Vermont statute or other law that authorizes a governor (or anyone else, for that matter) to enter into a "Memorandum of Understanding" as a means of preventing public review of a governor's official correspondence.
<end snip>

Some of the records he DID seal are all of his press releases and some of his speeches, which surely won't have personal information in them... so why were they sealed?

This privacy issue isn't even the last excuse that was used... I guess Dean forgot that during the debate. Then again, he's made up a new excuse every time the one he had been using got debunked that he must be getting confused on which excuse is the current one. :eyes:


<On edit: those stinking italics again>

[Scott Lee]

95. and yet, the law refutes you

Vermont's Access to Public Records Act declares: "Officers of government are trustees and servants of the people and it is in the public interest to enable any person to review and criticize their decisions even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment." 1 V.S.A. § 315. The Act permits "ny person" to "inspect or copy any public record or document...." 1 V.S.A. § 316.

Then why, praytell, have the courts allowed him to keep some percentage of his records sealed?

You say any personal info in the records would be "redacted". Tell us by whom, and by what mechanism. Take your time. While you're figuring that one out, explain to us how people who's info is not in his records has a bearing on that which is (pursuant to this little thought nugget in your post "A LOT of personal info of constituents was never sealed to begin with, and among those unsealed records are also records that clearly state "not for public disclosure" and cite civil or criminal penalties... yet they WERE NOT sealed.")

Next, tell us how you know that every single one of Howard Dean's patients information is now public knowledge. ("Also readily available are letters written to and from Dean detailing personal struggles and medical conditions of his constituents. ") You suggest that the existence of one or a few such bits of info mean that there is not some privileged information in the Good Doctor's records that should remain.

Next, explain to us how Dean is still allowed to keep some of those records sealed even after being sued - and in the face of a judge on the matter. Does he have the power of the Gods or something? Or is it, at the end of the day, this whole records thing nothing but another fleshy sour grape on the long vine of discontent among the Dean detractors?

Redact THAT.

[TorchTheWitch]

112. oy

Then why, praytell, have the courts allowed him to keep some percentage of his records sealed?

Have they? Seems to me he's allowing the judge to unseal them all and keep whatever papers that have to do with constituants' personal information undisclosed... REDACTION. Nobody gives a shit about the personal information of constituants anyway. That has nothing to do with why people have been calling for him to unseal his records low these many months.

You say any personal info in the records would be "redacted". Tell us by whom, and by what mechanism. Take your time.

I don't need to take my time. I guess you didn't take enough time to read the post I made that you're responding to since I already said how he could have that done. Have an independent party redact the personal info... essentially, that's what he's finally doing now since he was sued except Sorrell is hardly an independent party since he was involved in sealing those records to begin with.

While you're figuring that one out, explain to us how people who's info is not in his records has a bearing on that which is (pursuant to this little thought nugget in your post "A LOT of personal info of constituents was never sealed to begin with, and among those unsealed records are also records that clearly state "not for public disclosure" and cite civil or criminal penalties... yet they WERE NOT sealed.")

Did you not read the article? What the hell isn't there to understand??? Obviously the problem with his using the excuse that the REASON the records were sealed and why he wants to keep them sealed is to protect personal and private information of constituants. Yet, as I said, this excuse doesn't fly because there are a lot of records that ARE public and had never been sealed that SHOULD have been according to his excuse. BTW... it's not a "thought nugget" - it's right there in the f'ing article. I would have been more then happy to quote the whole thing, but as you are aware, we're restricted to four paragraphs.

Next, tell us how you know that every single one of Howard Dean's patients information is now public knowledge.

SAY WHAT??? I never said any such thing, and I'll thank you not to put untrue words in my mouth! I said that some of this information was not sealed or redacted to protect privacy and is out there for anyone who wants to read it.

("Also readily available are letters written to and from Dean detailing personal struggles and medical conditions of his constituents.")

That's a quote from the article - not from me.

You suggest that the existence of one or a few such bits of info mean that there is not some privileged information in the Good Doctor's records that should remain.

Read the damn article. It isn't one little bit or a few little bits that are public. I never said a single thing about there being no privileged information in the records that should remain out of the public eye. I DID say that any private information having to do with Vermonters can be redacted out. Obviously, anything that was marked as "not for public disclosure" and cites civil or criminal penalties if disclosed SHOULD have been sealed.

There is NEVER a good reason for any public official to seal "privileged" information as "privileged" can mean anything. That excuse would be one that Cheney would love. All he'd have to do is claim that his sealed records are all "privileged" therefore, no one should know what they are.

Next, explain to us how Dean is still allowed to keep some of those records sealed even after being sued - and in the face of a judge on the matter. Does he have the power of the Gods or something?

Is he? Apparently, the judge is going through them and deciding which information in the records should remain out of the public eye such as personal information of constituants. Obviously he doesn't have the power of the Gods... what a ridiculous comment. If he had the power of the Gods, he would have told everyone wanting his records unsealed to stuff it, and he'll keep them sealed - nah, nah, nah, so THERE... which was exactly what he did before the lawsuit. So I guess it could be said he TRIED to have the power of the Gods.

Or is it, at the end of the day, this whole records thing nothing but another fleshy sour grape on the long vine of discontent among the Dean detractors?

Absolutely nothing to do with with sour grapes... seems like some Dean supporters can't think of a more plausible excuse then that. At least Dean was able to come up with excuses that sounded somewhat relevant... until they were debunked. If you can't understand that sealing records because of something "embarrassing" that may hurt his run for presidency and/or a Dean presidency is unlawful according to Vermont law but also appears very shady, then I feel sorry for you.

He's hurting his own campaign fighting this and he bloody well knows it. He's making it worse by coming up with several excuses and changing those excuses every time the last one he used doesn't wash. If he didn't feel as though there was something in those records that would hurt him he wouldn't have sealed them to begin with, and the more he fights opening them up, the more shady it looks... he knows that, too.

It's sad that some Dean supporters are grabbing at straws trying ot make this look like it's no big deal and perfectly ok when they should be concerned about how his handling of this situation makes him look just as shady and unbelievable as Cheney and beg him to open the damn things up... if his own supporters pressed him to do it he might actually listen to them instead of coming up with excuse after excuse that doesn't wash thereby making him look even more shady. You know very well that if one of the other candidates was doing this or a republican was doing it you'd be all over it like flies on a turd.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

87. Dean said the reason to seal the records was to avoid embarassment.

Now he says something different.

Shortly before he left office, Dean told 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."

In an interview with the Globe in July, he said in response to a request that he waive the seal, "No, it's sealed for a reason."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/09/dean_feared_a_horton_scenario

[Scott Lee]

96. Obviously he has more than one reason. Thats legal, you know.

And in light of the continuing childish attacks on him from within his own party, it's clear that he was right in doing so.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

104. I guess you'll believe what Dean says no matter how far-fetched

or self-serving. lol

[DancingBear]

38. This is getting to be more than a weekly occurrence

with the good doctor, isn't it? I, too, sat with mouth agape when he used the "protect the gays" line. Does he not think before he speaks? While I realize that any explanation satisfies most (but not all, and these folks who view with a critical eye I salute you) Dean supporters, cavalier answers like this will not fly in the GE. Dean has, by his inability to be straightforward with the simplest of answers, provided * with a commercial that will blast out of SC et al non-stop. For all you Dean folks that accuse any other supporters of bashing, I beg you to look at the ammo your OWN candidate provides. When is the last time Clark or any other candidate had to explain their statements away on an almost daily basis? Clark at the beginning of the campaign, Kerry for the expletive tirade, but NOTHING like this.

For every one of these "missteps", I ask the simple question - what if this were *? We would all be on him 24/7, and rightfully so. Candidates who provide this much fodder are ripe to be plucked. We are all Democrats, and those of us not on the bandwagon see a large cliff ahead. We would much prefer to stop at the edge rather than be led mouth-first into the abyss.

[sandnsea]

41. 40% of his records are about gays???

You betcha. Come on people, common sense here. I never thought much about these records until Dean made such nonsensical statements about keeping them sealed. Then to turn the process over to his good friend, Sorrel. The whole think stinks.

[Ramsey]

51. No, and he never said they were

Since you need to make this point twice, I'll reply again:

Dean has used the issue of a gay person writing to him during the civil unions fight in Vermont as AN EXAMPLE of the type of record that was sealed. This is to protect the privacy of individuals who may not choose to become the fodder of political opportunists. That is appropriate. Dean has never ever said that the 40% of the records that were sealed were all letters from gay constituents. It's an EXAMPLE. As he always points out. As he did in the Iowa debate:

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

Dean: 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.

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.


Dean is also correct when he surmises that if he and his staff went through and redacted the personal information themselves and then released the records, that Lieberman and his other critics would certainly STILL cry foul. They would accuse the Dean campaign of picking and choosing and of still hiding something. Dean is doing the right thing to have an impartial throed party from the judiciary make the decision. He is right to remove himself from the process. Lieberman is being an idiot to suggest that Dean should open 100% of his records, even if that means violating the privacy of private citizens.

[Dookus]

56. If Al Gore had posed the same

question to George W. Bush in 2000, would you have accepted Bush's answer if it was identical to Dean's?

[Cheswick2.0]

67. I can't imagine Gore ever being that much of a desperate looser

He didn't have to play those games.

[SahaleArm]

79. Right so Dean won't question the Cheney's sealed Enron records? n/t

[Ramsey]

74. Since I don't have a problem with the explanation

I'd have to say yes. Of course I don't trust Bush, so I'd probably assume he was lying. I have no reason to distrust Dean's explanation at this juncture, and if it is true, it is a reasonable stance.

Keep in mind that Bush sent ALL of his gubernatorial records to daddy's library, where they are theoretically available, but have never been cataloged, where there is no one to search them for you (and you aren't allowed to search for them yourself) and to request a document you have to know the date and subject. That's transparency?

[jumptheshadow]

108. We need to be able to question Cheney's energy meetings

That question gets at the core of the corruption in the Bush administration.

It gets at the core about the character of this country.

If we nominate Dean, we won't be able to ask that question. This is one of many areas where he's extremely weak.

[neverforget]

44. The perception, right or wrong, is that he's hiding something. He

could easily release the records and be done with it and this issue would go away.....and he could do it while protecting the privacy of those that need protecting.

[Scott Lee]

53. But that's already the case.

Some 60% of his records are already public. Now unless you suspect something is in the remaining 40% which have a bearing on the election or national security, then your fears here are pretty vacant.

[dnbmathguy]

61. If he'd say that he was keeping them sealed because of his White House bid

I'd respect him more. There are probably letters from people admitting that they are gay, and/or that they have AIDS (from an earlier debate). Those should remain sealed. There are probably also lawsuits that are still pending that need to be kept sealed.

Dean admitted that he had them sealed for political reasons back in December 2002/January 2003, I believe. It seems like now, he's being forced into revealing some of them. A judge is reviewing the documents right now, true. But will they be available to the general public before January 19? January 27? February 3? Or will they be available only AFTER the primary process is over?

[LuminousX]

70. Dean should open up his medical records as well

How do we know he didn't overprescribe or made a bad diagnosis as a doctor? I think we as voters have a right to know. I also want to know the average income level of his patients and what insurance they had. We may be seeing a scandal of kickbacks and such with insurance companies. We should be allowed to sort and sift through all those records for any indication of malfeasance. He wasn't exactly head of the class in medical school. I am certain there are issues with at least one of his patients.

I also want any juvenile records that may exist regarding Dean. Schools should cough up his permanent record.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

90. Simply untrue to say or imply that this is about Dean's personal mattters.

This is about official papers -- it has nothing to do with Dean's personal correspondence or - duh - medical records.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/09/dean_feared_a_horton_scenario
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2003/dean.pdf

[TexasSissy]

78. Prior Dean statement: If Bush releases his, I'll release mine.

Does that sound like someone who won't release records to protect some people who wrote him letters?

He thought up the latter story, when he was told that Bush had, in fact, already released his gubernatorial records. Oops. Dean does it again. Backstep backstep backstep...think think think...oh, what I meant was......

[Toucano]

113. You're right.

That's a pretty disturbing realization.

[zulchzulu]

88. Dean made his bed, now he has to lie in it, no pun intended

He should have figured out that Bush had released his records before his puffery about how he'd release his if Bush released his...

[blm]

100. Records Sealed To Protect BFEE Loyalists - Koch Brothers

and Dean's role in their acquiring Vermont Yankee.

[in_cog_ni_to]

109. What's THAT story?

I have never heard it. Can you tell me what happened?

[in_cog_ni_to]

110. dupe

[molly]

105. Yuck-yuck-yukity-yuck

what a lying piece of shit. Dean does not care about gays, lesbians, straights - only himself.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

106. It's such transparent, self-serving BS

that it amazes me there are actually folks here willing to defend it.