MSNBC: What’s in Howard Dean’s Secret Vermont Files?

[wyldwolf]

DEAN—WHO HAS BLASTED the Bush administration for excessive secrecy—candidly acknowledged that politics was a major reason for locking up his own files when he left office last January. He told Vermont Public Radio he was putting a 10-year seal on many of his official papers—four years longer than previous Vermont governors—because of “future political considerations... We didn’t want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time.”

---snip---

Late last year, NEWSWEEK has learned, Dean’s chief counsel sent a directive to all state agencies ordering them to cull their files and remove all correspondence that bore Dean’s name—and ship them to the governor’s office to be reviewed for “privilege” claims. This removed a “significant number of records” from state files, said Michael McShane, an assistant Vermont attorney general.

--snip--

The sealed papers include Dean’s correspondence with advisers on, among other matters, Vermont’s “civil unions” law and a state agency that critics charged was used to grant tax credits to Dean’s favored firms. Rocchio said the sealing agreement was driven by “legitimate” policy concerns, but also by, he later acknowledged, political factors. “All you have to do is look at what are doing with the existing records,” he said. “They’re distorting his record.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/999347.asp?cp1=1

[curse10]

1. This doesn't sit well with me

what's he got in there that is so damaging?

[wyldwolf]

2. I think all the candidates have skeletons in their closets...

...all of them, however, may not have/had the resources and clout to hide them.

Although the article raises legitimate questions, the timing is pure politics... (just as the Iowa primary battle is making the news.)

But... that's politics!

[curse10]

3. of course

I think most people have skeletons in their closets-- there's stuff about me I wouldn't want out in public (which is why I won't be running for office anytime soon! :-) )

But it is very interesting to see someone so blatantly trying to cover his up.

[Closer]

140. Yo, curse

When you changed your avatar to feign support for Dean, you forgot to change your sig lines and pics :eyes:

Get it right.

I know when I smell a bitter Kerry supporter :eyes:

[curse10]

145. Um, I know I didn't change my sig line

and I'm not bitter, I just have a sense of humor

[Closer]

153. Ya think?

Could have fooled me... (and so many others)

[curse10]

178. It's not hard to fool some

n/t

[okieinpain]

184. I love it, shows the man is thinking ahead of the curve.

I bet there is stuff on kerry, gephardt, and liberman. that the repugs could use. but the demmies haven't thought about that at all, it's just sitting there waiting on bushco to use. dean is smart enought to know that there is probably something that could be twisted against him and has taken steps to do something about it.

yes this is the person to take on bushco.

[PaDUer]

30. Heard it was..

something to do with his earlier years when he interned or something in an abortion clinic. BUT, it's ok when the bushitas hide and lock their files! Let's open pops and the moron's records, bet we'd have them all on the frontline!

[ima_sinnic]

97. and that is a crap-loaded, BS statement

[MIMStigator]

170. Same here. Richard Milhouse Dean?

nt

[Pale_Rider]

176. Just as did Bush ...

... Dean only removing any possible ammo that could be used against him (twisted or not) in the general campaign. I believe Bush's documents as Governor of Texas are still under lock and key.

[TLM]

219. WHat he's got in there are the names of a lot of gay folks

who were involved in the process of developing the civil unions bill, who probably don't want to be outed.

But the Dean bashers from CLark's camp will stop at nothing to attack Dean, even draging him through the mud for protecting gay folks' privacy.

[wyldwolf]

223. Proof?

No.

Just more of that pyschic ability some Deanies are known for.

You have no proof. You just "know"....

[ima_sinnic]

4. it is the same philosophy that is behind not giving any statements

when one has been charged with a crime.

No matter how innocent one is and how well-meaning one's statements, there is always terrific potential for words to be taken out of context, twisted and distorted, and used against the person.

There is nothing evil, sinister, or fraudulent in any of Dean's records--I would bet everything I have on that--and I have absolutely no problem with his action. Sealing records is a tradition, I believe. Bush sealed his records from his Texas governor days, didn't he?

on edit: I notice all the "what's he got to hide" statements are coming from Kerry supporters. So if you were an innocent person charged with a crime, how would you feel about being accused of "hiding something" when you observed your legal right not to make any statements?

[wyldwolf]

5. Bush sealed his records from his Texas governor days, didn't he?

Yes, and we all howled, "What is he hiding?"

[booksenkatz]

10. Yeah, DUers sure did

...but not a peep from the media.

[wyldwolf]

22. If the media didn't mention it how did we hear about it?

[booksenkatz]

93. What I mean is

they don't dissect it or hit him over the head with it. They mention it and then move on to Laci and Kobe, etc. King Bush can do no wrong.

[wyldwolf]

95. A few comments...

they don't dissect it or hit him over the head with it. They mention it and then move on to Laci and Kobe, etc. King Bush can do no wrong.

I recall reading many pieces on it from many sources. Maybe you missed them?

And it doesn't matter who did it - it still makes it appear that something is being hidden.

[dsc]

15. several things

Bush violated the law by sealing his records Dean didn't. The sealing of Dean's record was negotiated with people who were independent of Dean, Bush's were spirited away. Dean has not sealed all his records, Bush did. Dean had legal precidence on his side, Bush didn't. Finally, where, oh where, can I look at similar records in regards to Clark? Where can I find his memos about his decisions? Where can I find his corespondene? Where oh where?

[curse10]

55. Why turn this into a Clark issue?

This is not about Clark. This is about Dean. Stay fucking focused.

[KittyWampus]

104. Doesn't Matter- Dean Still Can't Confront Bush About His Secrecy

becasue Dean would then be subjected to attacks REAGARDLESS of whether what Dean did was legal.

[mzmolly]

110. Apples to Oranges...

secrecy about 911 and Iraq, does not compare to the common act of sealing gubernatorial records.

"." In other words, the paper trail that shows how the governor came to a decision can, and usually is, kept secret."

"The files are stuffed with letters to constituents on subjects ranging from leghold traps to portable toilets at state rest areas."

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

[KittyWampus]

112. Was Referring To Junior's Sealed Papers As Governor As Well

and if Dean were to play ANY of those cards against Bush, Rove most certainly bring up Dean's sealed records...

and the media wouldn't help Dean much and most people couldn't make the finer distinctions.

You and I agree there ARE distinctions but we are typing away on DU and we might write letters to the editor but that woun't help much with the general public.

[mzmolly]

118. I disagree, I think the public is much more interested in 911 then

Dean's record as gov KWIM?

I understand your point however. But, I think the public will see it for what it is.

~Peace

[Jerseycoa]

114. Huh?

What on earth does Clark have to do with this?

[dsc]

144. The person who posted this thread is a Clark supporter

and I am sick to death of the hypocracy coming from people like that poster.

[wyldwolf]

146. You didn't answer the question...

What does Clark have to do with Howard Dean hiding embarassing things in his records?

Nothing.

And the person who made the initial post in this thread is a Clark supporter.

The thread is comprised of backers of several candidates.

[dsc]

152. You candiate is hiding his records too

and you are being a hypocrite to bitch about Dean and accept Clark's use of miliatary regs to seal his. Either it is right to do this or it isn't. Either you are engaging in honest criticism or being a hypocrite.

[wyldwolf]

155. bwahahaha... But Clark did this and Clark did that... boo hooo...

Got a link on Clark doing this? Start a new thread.

That's what is good about non-Dean supporters. We're not scared of honest criticism.

[dsc]

159. neither am I

but you are engaged in dishonest criticism. It is dishonest to say Dean is sealing records, pretend he is somehow unique, when you candidate has his records sealed too.

[wyldwolf]

161. Find a good source that says Clark sealed his records...

...and start a thread.

SHOW us.

[TLM]

221. Show us Clark's record of corrispondance from his lobbyist days....

oh wait I forgot, there is a double standard for Clark... right?

[wyldwolf]

231. oh wait, you forgot.... this thread is about Dean's sealed records...

..stay on task.

And I see you gave up on your lame attempt to show Clark sealed his records.

LOL!

[curse10]

149. so... now only dean supporters can post things about dean

nice.

[wyldwolf]

151. Right...

Only Dean supporters can post things critical of Dean...

...and since none of them will...

...nothing critical of Dean will be posted. Problem solved.

[dsc]

154. No only those whose candiate meet the standards they are advocating

You wouldn't see word one from me if Clark weren't doing the precise and exact same thing this Clark supporter is whining about. If this behavior is wrong it is wrong for Clark too.

[wyldwolf]

158. Find a good source of Clark doing this then start a thread...

Be my guest!

[dsc]

162. Why should I

I don't think the conduct is wrong. You evidently don't either or you wouldn't support Clark. The difference is that I am being consistent and you aren't.

[wyldwolf]

163. Why should you? People typically prove their assertions or...

...are considered dishonest.

[dsc]

164. I will provide a link here

but I am not going to start another thread.

[wyldwolf]

166. Go for it...

waiting to see how Wesley Clark had his records sealed. Perhaps, like Dean, had them sealed longer than usual to avoid embarassment.

[dsc]

168. Here you go

Notice what wasn't released. No records of what lead to his firing, no memos to or from staff.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-10-16-clark_x.htm

You can go read the article yourself.

[wyldwolf]

173. OK, so? This doesn't say Clark sealed his records...

... and Clark voluntarily released records that he didn't have to.

Has Dean?

Clark himself did not seal the records.

Dean sealed his.

Dean admitted potentially embarrassing things were in the records.

Has Clark?

The media has written about, and so has Clark, the high-level bickering that ended his career.

Has Dean spoken about the accusations of graft?

No.

When Dean unseals previously sealed papers then you'll have a point.

[mikehiggins]

179. BZZZZT!! Wrong answer

Clark didn't seal anything. He didn't even know he was getting bounced until he got the phone call telling him adios.

He put his side of what happened in his books.

Shelton, Cohen, et al, are the folks that haven't been forthcoming as to what happened.

Dean deliberately recused years of documents regarding his activities as Governor of Vermont. It is easy to discredit any criticism of Bush's secrecy from Dean's camp as a result of Dean's own actions.

That isn't hard to understand, is it?

Nixon and the boys learned a long time ago that stonewalling is not a winning strategy. Dean should open up the records and take whatever flak comes his way now, instead of having "surprise" after "surprise", some of them deliberate lies, dropped on him during the general election campaign.

How many "secrets" will show up on Drudge before Dean catches on?

An enquiring public wants to know.

[retyred]

180. Your post says nothing that it was Clarks decision

to seal any of his records:

<But the records end after Clark was a two-star general. Above that rank, officers no longer fall under the normal personnel system, and their duties most directly reflect national policy.>

It is the Army's policy to seal records after a certain period, not Clark's, if you have a problem with this, contact the proper authorities and request this info.

What is hypocritical is dean and his supporters challenging bush and then saying it's ok for their guy to do the same thing.



retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read the book

[Jerseycoa]

189. I read it (again)

And I am really trying to understand you, but Clark released personnel records. A military policy of not compiling ordinary personnel records of three- and four-star generals: How does it translate to Clark sealing his own personnel records? It doesn't.

As the article says about the records he did release: "...Clark was a two-star general. Above that rank, officers no longer fall under the normal personnel system, and their duties most directly reflect national policy." He released his records up to and including two-star general, after which wouldn't national security enter into the equation? This makes any comparison between state records and military records far-fetched.

As far as the original poster being a Clark supporter, I didn't know that, but whose supporter posted the Waco nonsense? This goes back and forth, back and forth. It is completely tiresome. It's getting to be like another conflict. You stop bombing! No you take down that fence! No you stop bombing! No you take down that fence!

:crazy:

[retyred]

172. Question is

Where oh where can you find that Clark had his records sealed...any of them!



retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read the book

[TLM]

224. Easily found right along with teh record of the last office CLark held...

Oh wait, what docs could CLark seal if he's never held any public office.

Maybe those from when he was a lobbyist for defense contractors.

WIll CLark be making those records public?

[wyldwolf]

233. Now stay on task, tlm...

... this thread is about Dean. Dodging and diverting to Clark shows desperation.

[Zomby Woof]

216. no end to the spin

No surprise that the Dean-os were going to spin this like a greased top. Then you bring up Clark, which is a non sequitir. Plus, he was not an elected official like Dean. Stay focused!

[TankLV]

109. Yes - and since it has been given a blessing from the powers that be...

...what I think Dean did is smart politics.

Any response to this should be "you first, bunker boy and your "dick", too".

If it's good enough for georgie and his gang of criminals, it's good enough for Dean.

Do whatever is required to win.

Get down and dirty - but do everything possible to WIN.

Dean is not in this to "be nice" and "gentlemanly" even tho he is - he is in this to WIN.

The repukes redefined the rules of this "game", and we are/should be playing accordingly.

It is not be hypocritical - it's simply playing by the new rules.

And I can still condemn bushco from sealing all and everything away while simultaneoulsy praising Dean's wise decision.

"Again, you first, bunkerboy!"

[Spazito]

6. It is interesting that the overriding consideration seems to be...

political. “All you have to do is look at what are doing with the existing records,” he said. “They’re distorting his record.”

How can Dean, if this is correct - DEAN—WHO HAS BLASTED the Bush administration for excessive secrecy— then turn around and seal his records. Seems like a dumb move to me, even if he has little to hide, it makes it seem there is some bad stuff in those records.

[ima_sinnic]

11. the potential for abuse is too great

--as I ask above, if you're charged with a crime, do you give the public free access to your diaries, letters, e-mails, etc. because you "have nothing to hide"?

[curse10]

42. No, but he's not running for office, is he?

:eyes:

[Spazito]

86. If I were running for office, you bet I would...

it would be foolish not to. Running for the highest office in the land necessitates, imo, the availability to the public of records when you were in public office, redacting names that would violate the privacy act, of course.

[markus]

80. I'll show you mine if you show me yours

Probably the only way out of this hole for Dean is to go after all of Bush' records as governor and president.

If Bush won't show his, the attack is largely negated and people move on to other issues.

Voters are always looking for things that differentiate candidates. That's why a response that successfully tags your opponent with the same problem works so well.

[KittyWampus]

108. Well, If Dean Does This He Makes Secrecy A Larger Issue Doesn't He?

The mediawhores are giving Dean the Schwartzenegger treatment but they might not be able to help him out much in that case.

[mzmolly]

7. This is a cheap shot with an article from last December wyldwolf.

We've discussed this several times here. *sheesh*

[wyldwolf]

16. Once again, you leap before you look...

It's from next month's (DEC 2003) Newsweek issue.

[maddezmom]

25. thanks n/t

[mzmolly]

34. Well given the story is so old and tired I assumed it was from last year.

However, a bit of history regarding the author my be interesting.

http://www.newsweekmediakit.com/us/bios_isikoff.html

"Isikoff’s exclusive reporting on the Monica Lewinsky scandal gained him national attention in 1998, including profiles in The New York Times and The Washington Post and a guest appearance on "Late Show with David Letterman." His coverage of the events that lead to President Clinton’s impeachment earned Newsweek the prestigious National Magazine Award in the Reporting category in 1999."

[wyldwolf]

46. He also did some investigative 9/11 Bush exposing stories, too...

..but those must have been lies.

[mzmolly]

50. Why not post them instead Wyldwolf...

:shrug: as we've been over and over this hear.

S'alright, I think I know why.

[wyldwolf]

57. Because the thread is about a current news story...

... right?

[curse10]

58. what? now we aren't allowed to post possibly "bad" stuff about Dean?

this is rich! Yet, sadly, all too common.

[mzmolly]

61. As I said I misunderstood the date of the article, and by all means

trash Dean to hell if you wish.

[curse10]

63. Oh, thanks for the permission

I'll be sure to take that into account :eyes:

[Closer]

142. Are you kin

to BLM and Nicholas_J?

Better yet, or you their lovechild?


What a disaster!

[curse10]

147. LMAO

that's the best you can come up with? is that supposed to be an insult? Wow. A new low, Closer. A new low.

[Closer]

157. You're calling that a "new low"?

Does that mean you have no respect for BLM and Nicholas_J?

Why, being their lovechild could be quite a compliment, don't ya think? That is, if you respected them...


I just notice such a similarity in your styles of attack and bitterness. So stand up, be proud, and keep fighting for John "this campaign is about service" Kerry. :hi:

You're doing just a FAB job so far :hi:

[curse10]

167. LMAO again!

You, Closer, are a never ending supply of amusement!

And I love blm and Nicholas. But the immaturity of your "attack" was the new low, not the attack itself.

And I love how I'm being called bitter. That's FAB. Perhaps I'm just sick and tired of the same bullshit being uttered by dean supporters. It really does get tiring having to sift through the wet dream mess of Dean support spew in all the threads. It's really disgusting.

I can see fault in my candidate of choice. Kerry is not perfect. But neither is Dean.

The point is, I am not rabid about my choice. I like Kerry a lot-- but I also like Clark, DK, Gep, Edwards, and Sharpton.

And it's not that I dislike Dean. I just think he has a shitty platform with some wishy-washy stances. So sue me for disagreeing with the almighty Dean.
:hi:

[maddezmom]

19. this isn't from the current issue? n/t

[curse10]

33. well, please

point us in the direction of the threads discussing this issue.

This is the first I've read an article on it

[mzmolly]

59. OH goodness, do a search it's been all over DU.

:)

[curse10]

66. no thanks, I don't do searches for Deanie bullshit

n/t

[ima_sinnic]

84. could have fooled me, with that Dean avatar

:crazy:

[curse10]

88. being slowly assimilated

that's all... must...believe...dean...can...do...no...wrong!

[booksenkatz]

8. If the Bushes can hide stuff

then why can't Dean? I don't see anyone in the media berating Bush for hiding his gubernatorial papers, his daddy's prez papers, Reagan's prez papers, Cheney's energy policy papers, etc. etc. etc. Oh, wait, Dean is a Dem, so the standards are different, right?

[wyldwolf]

9. yes, but WE berated Bush for doing it...

Would it be ok for any dem to follow Bush's lead on any number of things?

[ima_sinnic]

14. he's not HIDING anything

sheesh

oh well, believe what you want. tradition, legality, the right NOT to share every last little detail of your life and open yourself up to all kinds of abuse--hey, that doesn't matter I guess. And the repukes certainly can't hammer him on it because Bush had the exact same right and used it. Who cares? Bush's blatantly obvious bad record is enough to go on. His misdeeds are writ large.

[wyldwolf]

17. You have access to these files?

You must because how else would you know he isn't hiding anything.

[ima_sinnic]

26. oh gee, I guess I just have faith in the guy

you seriously think there is some corruption that went on during his tenure? you don't think there would be SOME evidence of that somewhere? or are you that paranoid that you think Dean is secretly an evil megalomaniac or corporate puppet? sheesh.

why was that law giving governors the right to seal their records made, anyway?

[wyldwolf]

29. um...

you seriously think there is some corruption that went on during his tenure? you don't think there would be SOME evidence of that somewhere?

Sure. Sealed away in his files.

[ima_sinnic]

45. whatever

see mzmolly's post #23 above for a definitive answer. I see you're one of those bitter antiDeaners who will not let up with the divisive, bashing remarks no matter what reasonable arguments are given. You probably also feel the Patriot Act is okay because, hey, it should only worry those who are guilty, who have something to hide--right? I assume you will either vote for Bush or abstain from voting altogether when Dean gets the nomination?

[wyldwolf]

49. Yeah, whatever...

1. Never known mzmolly to have a definitive answer to anything and it surely isn't in this case.

And remember, He told Vermont Public Radio he was putting a 10-year seal on many of his official papers—four years longer than previous Vermont governors—because of “future political considerations... We didn’t want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time.”

[ima_sinnic]

62. of all the drivel

"embarrassing" = words taken out of context, distorted, etc.
So sorry about "your" candidate (whoever it is). you sound bitter.

[wyldwolf]

70. How do you know...

... "embarrassing" = words taken out of context, distorted, etc.?

Again, have you seen the files? Psychic? Or just making that up?

[TLM]

227. Embarassing like say.... names of gay folks

dean corrisponded with about the details of their relationships and need rights they were seeking and why?


Can't find dirt on Dean and the shit you make up won;t stick... so now you've got nothing left but to insinuate wrong doing that is beign hidden.

[wyldwolf]

238. Proof?

No.

[TLM]

226. You have access to these files?

You must because how else would you know he is hiding anything.

[wyldwolf]

237. Unfortunately I don't have access to these files... but I know he's hiding

something because he said, "We didn’t want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time.”

[booksenkatz]

20. At the moment, I'm more interested in seeing

how the media treats it, to see if they give him a pass the way they did with Bush. Apparently they won't. I haven't decided how I feel about it myself yet (I'm undecided between Dean and Clark, BTW). I'll have to read more about it. From what I have read/heard about Dean, it seems uncharacteristic, he's not normally a sneaky type. It gives me pause for thought until I learn more.

But the way the media is blasting it, that really takes the cake...!

[mzmolly]

23. This is a common act for a Governor to take part in...

What this is really about is:

"All year, Howard Dean has been gaining ground in the Democratic presidential race. And all year, Democratic centrists have been scrambling for a candidate to stop him. He's too liberal, they said. He's soft on defense, a Vermont lefty, an evangelist for expansive programs. To stop him, they turned to Joe Lieberman, then John Kerry, then Wes Clark..."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/999347.asp?cp1=1

And it would appear futile.

As I said sealing gubernatorial records is not unusual in the least...

"By law, the governor is supposed to leave his official correspondence with the secretary of state. But Dean was allowed to close files under the doctrine of executive privilege. The Vermont Supreme Court in 1990 ruled that executive privilege allows a governor to keep confidential documents that reflect "advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations." In other words, the paper trail that shows how the governor came to a decision can, and usually is, kept secret.

In addition, the contents are quite boring:

"Christie Carter, the assistant archivist, pulls boxes off the shelf for a peak. But these public files seem pretty mundane. There's nothing, for example, that gives an inside glimpse into Dean's sudden ascension to power after Governor Richard Snelling died in 1991. The files are stuffed with letters to constituents on subjects ranging from leghold traps to portable toilets at state rest areas. The files on hot-button issues - such as the civil unions debate or the sale of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant - appear to document events that are already well known."

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

Now, lets put this to rest and get on with the business of defeating * shall we.

[ima_sinnic]

31. thank you for a sane and factual post

. . . I'm in a hurry this morning, must get back to work, so didn't document or back up any of my statements.

[wyldwolf]

36. So, in other words...

...any criticism of Dean's actions is only to try and stop him.

Therefore, we should ignore anything he says or does that doesn't quite sit well with some of us because it is futile. We can't stop him! :eyes:

[ima_sinnic]

53. it doesn't "sit well" with you that he exercised his right

to seal correspondence leading up to decisions?
TS
:nopity:

[wyldwolf]

74. It doesn't sit well with me that he...

added SIX YEARS to the standard amount of time Vermont governors seal their records.

It doesn't sit well with me that there is a charge of tax credits to favored firms.

[mzmolly]

87. Dean never sat well with you wyldwolf...

:)

[wyldwolf]

91. That is so true...

..and it's because of things like this - that we condemn Bush for but then want to give Dean a pass for.

[mzmolly]

96. Sealing records about toilets does not compare to sealing records

about 911.

"In other words, the paper trail that shows how the governor came to a decision can, and usually is, kept secret."

...

"The files are stuffed with letters to constituents on subjects ranging from leghold traps to portable toilets at state rest areas."

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

[wyldwolf]

102. references to portable toilets at state rest areas are in the public files

NOT the sealed files ...anyone can look at those... that still doesn't alter the fact that he sealed his other files years longer than what is standard or traditional, admitted there could be embarrassing things in the records, and is being accused of graft - and hiding it in the records..

[mzmolly]

111. Nope...

Christie Carter, the assistant archivist, pulls boxes off the shelf for a peak. But these public files seem pretty mundane. There's nothing, for example, that gives an inside glimpse into Dean's sudden ascension to power after Governor Richard Snelling died in 1991. The files are stuffed with letters to constituents on subjects ranging from leghold traps to portable toilets at state rest areas. The files on hot-button issues - such as the civil unions debate or the sale of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant - appear to document events that are already well known.

As we leaf through the files, Archivist Gregory Sanford stops down for a look. Dean is the third governor that Sanford has dealt with on their gubernatorial papers. He says that the closed files seldom contain embarrassing information.

(Sanford) "With our limited experience with executive privilege records, there doesn't appear to be anything that is of embarrassment, if that is a criteria. My understanding in negotiating with several recent administrations now, is that it's a desire protect the decision making process, the free flow of ideas within an administration."

As I said the sealed files are mundane...

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

[wyldwolf]

120. Yep!

Christie Carter, the assistant archivist, pulls boxes off the shelf for a peak. But these public files seem pretty mundane... The files are stuffed with letters to constituents on subjects ranging from leghold traps to portable toilets at state rest areas.

Clearly this statement is about the public files.

Now,

Archivist Gregory Sanford stops down for a look. Dean is the third governor that Sanford has dealt with on their gubernatorial papers. He says that the closed files seldom contain embarrassing information.

Here, Sanford is mentioning the closed files as they look at the public files.

Of course they're referring to the public files. Christie Carter, the assistant archivist, and Archivist Gregory Sanford would not have access to the sealed files, and they wouldn't be pulling down a box of sealed files for anyone else to peak into.

To think otherwise is silly.

And although Archivist Gregory Sanford says closed files seldom contain embarassing information, he hasn't seen Dean's closed files and he contradicts Dean himself, who said, " We didn’t want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time.”

[mzmolly]

192. Oh no...

"As we leaf through the files, Archivist Gregory Sanford stops down for a look. Dean is the third governor that Sanford has dealt with on their gubernatorial papers. He says that the closed files seldom contain embarrassing information.

(Sanford) "With our limited experience with executive privilege records, there doesn't appear to be anything that is of embarrassment, if that is a criteria. My understanding in negotiating with several recent administrations now, is that it's a desire protect the decision making process, the free flow of ideas within an administration." :boring:

And Dean's tongue and cheek comment is hardly newsworthy wyld and in no way does this compare to 911, sorry :)

BTW, the 'toilet' example is an example of the type of dull redtape these records typically consist of.

[wyldwolf]

197. most definitely... and it is very clear...

Christie Carter, the assistant archivist, pulls boxes off the shelf for a peak.

Christie Carter could not pull sealed records for a reporter to peak at...

But these public files seem pretty mundane...

Confirmation that the files being "peaked" at are the public files...

The files are stuffed with letters to constituents on subjects ranging from leghold traps to portable toilets at state rest areas.

Clearly this statement is about the public files.

Archivist Gregory Sanford stops down for a look.

Now we have THREE people looking at SEALED records?

Dean is the third governor that Sanford has dealt with on their gubernatorial papers. He says that the closed files seldom contain embarrassing information.

Here, Sanford is mentioning the closed files as they look at the public files.

Of course they're referring to the public files. Christie Carter, the assistant archivist, and Archivist Gregory Sanford would not have access to the sealed files, and they wouldn't be pulling down a box of sealed files for anyone else to peak into.

To think otherwise is silly.

And although Archivist Gregory Sanford says closed files seldom contain embarassing information, he hasn't seen Dean's closed files and he contradicts Dean himself, who said, " We didn’t want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time.”

Sanford says, based on his experience, sealed records have nothing embarassing in them.

Dean says otherwise.

And I never made a 9/11 comparison. Another one of you famous assumptions.

[mzmolly]

201. my assumption was based on the Bush/Dean comparison made by others

and you missed my point ...

AS I said previously,

"BTW, the 'toilet' example is an example of the type of dull redtape these records typically consist of."

Allow me to reiterate the obvious once again:

"...In other words, the paper trail that shows how the governor came to a decision can, and usually is, kept secret."

...The files on hot-button issues - such as the civil unions debate or the sale of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant - appear to document events that are already well known."

Once again the actions of Dean were:

1. Typical
2. Uninteresting

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

[wyldwolf]

204. ..but directed at me....

..regardless...

"...In other words, the paper trail that shows how the governor came to a decision can, and usually is, kept secret."

But in this case, they've been sealed... and for a longer time than usual to avoid (Dean's word) embarassment.

...The files on hot-button issues - such as the civil unions debate or the sale of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant - appear to document events that are already well known."

They APPEAR to be but we'll never know - because the records are sealed...

Once again the actions of Dean were:

1. hypocritical
2. Bush-like

[mzmolly]

206. Once again your grasping at straws, this is a NON story...

Off to more interesting threads.

Nice daily Dean slam Wyldwolf, I look forward to tomorrows venom :hi:

"But in this case, they've been sealed... and for a longer time than usual to avoid (Dean's word) embarassment."

Yes infact he was so afraid of being *gasp* embarassed that he jokingly admitted as much to a reporter. :eyes:

LOL, sorry charlie. G'bye.

Once again the actions of Dean were:

1. Dull ... yet
2. Politically savvy

[wyldwolf]

208. Once again, you WISH it could be written off that easy...

Nice daily Dean slam Wyldwolf, I look forward to tomorrows venom :hi:

Dishonest on both points. Reporting a news story isn't a slam and I don't even post daily.

Yes infact he was so afraid of being *gasp* embarassed that he jokingly admitted as much to a reporter. :eyes:

Since the reported has no legal way to confirm Dean's words (remember, the files were sealed for 10 years!)Dean could say anything without worry that his words would be verified...

LOL! C-ya!

Once again the actions of Dean were:

1. Hypocritical
2. Bush-like

I doubt you're gone from this thread. You are well known for saying you were through but then continuing.

LOOK! You're reading this now! LOL.

[TLM]

235. It doesn't sit well with you

That Dean is wining.

[wyldwolf]

240. Winning what?

?

[mzmolly]

56. Not at all, just look at both sides wyldwolf, as we've shed light on this

before. However, I understand now that the article is current, and it's bound to surface again so uhm, thanks I guess... :)

[TLM]

234. Poor Dean bahers just can get it up...

the meme I mean...

So when fact are presented to show the meme is BS, the response is to try and do a full court reverseal and act as if the act of disproving his rant somehow equates to nobody being alowed to criticise Dean.

THis is an all too typical tactic.

Clark Corps basher posts crap...

Someone post reason why Clark Corps basher's post is crap...

Clark Corps basher says "Therefore, we should ignore anything he says or does that doesn't quite sit well with some of us because it is futile"

Nope, you should stop posting dishonest repuke talking point crap, if you do not want to be called on posting dishonest repuke talking point crap.

[wyldwolf]

239. Out of ammo and answers, TLM resorts to penis puns...

So when fact are presented to show the meme is BS

What facts?

[WilliamPitt]

65. You should post this in every reply you make,

imho, because your other arguments sount reactionary and (I'll say it) nervous. This pretty much settles the thing.

[mzmolly]

90. Oh hell I've had that bookmarked for several months, I'm not nervous

LOL, but thanks for the suggestion and observation. ;)

[KittyWampus]

129. No, Because It Doesn't Address Dean's Inability To Confront Bush

not only about the 9/11 records but Bush's own records from Texas and also his Father's records from office.

If Dean does then it's an easy call for Rove to bring up Dean's own sealed records.

And the general public will NOT here the finer distinctions.

Should Dean get the nod he will no longer be granted the Teflon so the media won't help clear this up.

Face it, Dean's arsenal against Bush is limited.

There is no PLUS in this for Dean.

Bush may not bring up Dean's sealed records but if Dean were to take the initiative against Bush Dean wouldl be vulnerable.

[mzmolly]

193. comparing a 'typical' gubernatorial action to 911 is a moot point.

:)

[TankLV]

115. And we were right in doing so.

And now, since bunkerboy has changed the rules of the "game", what Dean is/has done is smart politics.

Any response to this would have to be:

"You first, bunkerboy and your "dick", too."

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. We are blasting Bush for hiding records

Specifically his records of how Bush responded to the warnings he recieved about Osama when he took office, which he is playing tight to his vest. Alos there has and should continue to be a lot of blating of Cheney going on for not revealing any of the records covering his secret Energy Task Force that created an Oil Industry sweetheart policy. The point is, Dean can't expect to have it both ways. He rightfully toutes his experience running a State government, and I think overall he did a very good job in Vermont. But it makes it harder for Dean to use "transparency in government" as a campaign theme when he is busy sealing records for admittedly political concerns.

[curse10]

35. No, it's not right for either of them to do it

it's not a double standard by any means-- but to justify dean doing something just because w does it? That's appalling!

[TankLV]

119. No, it's smart politics!

Again,

"You first, bunkerboy, and your "dick", too!"

It's a new game, and he's only playing by the new rules.

[KittyWampus]

133. Again, This Is A Matter Of Dean Being Unable To Hit Bush

Dean loses an issue with which to hit Bush.

Dean has one arrow deducted from his quiver.

It is NOT about Bush being unable to bring up Dean's sealed records.

It is about Dean not being able to confront Bush about sealed records from Texas and also his fathers Presidential records.

There is no way the media would help Dean make the distinctions between what he did and what Bush did.

Or if they did, the damage would already be there.... as the public wondered What DID Dean have inhis records.

Remember, about 50 % of the population voted for Junior and are in denial about his failure right now.

[TankLV]

136. You have a point, but I think the other, more salient point is

that Dean - if nominated - can issue the "you first" strategy.

If it's good for bunkerboy, it's good for everyone else.

We are/were right to condemn bunkerboy for doing it.

Bunkerboy changed the rules.

The new reality dictates we play by the same rules.

The arrow is only partially damaged by this gambit.

Brilliant chess strategy.

[retyred]

191. The response will be

deans gubernatorial records vs bush's gubernatorial records and since bush's records are in poppy's library it would be up to poppy to allow viewing given jr's approval. The press has already given bush a pass on these so it remains for the press to give dean a pass as well, it ain't gonna happen.

As for 9/11 and anything else bush has hidden, we've all run into the national security excuse and there's no reason to think it won't be used again should dean bring it up, it's been glossed over by the media before, it will again.

I don't think deans records will be a major issue, but if it is, bush's accusations will be far more damaging because dean is trying to be president and appears to be hiding something than for dean to accuse bush who has weathered that storm before.

deans best bet would be not to go there and hope bush doesn't attack him first as the guy with something to hide, bush's team is much better at accusing then dean will be at defending.

Besides, this might only be an issue if dean gets the nod and we all know that's a big if right now.


retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read the book

[curse10]

148. Hmmm, then why doesn't he say that's what he's doing?

Or perhaps that's just what Dean supporters have come up with in an attempt to support this! It's amazing. I wish I could spin as well as the dean supporters. It's quite a talent.

[wyldwolf]

150. It only looks good to other Deanies...

...it's comedic to the rest of us.

[TankLV]

174. I'm glad I'm not as irrational as the Dean haters.

I'm supporting Clark right now for his recent statements - but still haven't made up my mind.

[mzmolly]

196. Uhm, he has said it....

;) Just ask wyld, he has posted his comments on this subject before.

[retyred]

241. Dean is a Dem, so the standards are different, right?

I for one would hope they would be since the RW standards are set so low, without a higher standard what's the difference between us and them?



retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read the book

[mikehiggins]

12. It makes it difficult to smack Bush for stonewalling on 9/11

to have Dean sitting on public records that might have a bearing on his current campaign.

I guess the GOP gloves are coming off in regard to Dean; the rallying cry on MSNBC, FAUX ("the WWE of journalism") NEWS and CNN, will be
"what did he do, and when did he do it?" Maybe the GOP has decided he might be a much bigger threat than Rove is supposed to have thought. Could be.

Dean would be better off opening the books right away than either opening them after they become an issue in themselves or waiting until the GOP manages to find someone willing to leak them for some political favor (Hey, Kitty Harris is a Congressperson now). Either way, the "lock" on the records becomes more of an issue than anything likely to be found in them.

You can expect to see/hear that quote (He told Vermont Public Radio he was putting a 10-year seal on many of his official papers—four years longer than previous Vermont governors—because of “future political considerations... We didn’t want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time.”) over and over during the coming months.

[ima_sinnic]

21. oh BS

there is nothing to "leak"
and, again, Bush, who will be running against him, used his RIGHT to seal his records and would have to be called on it too. Do you fault an accused criminal for not making statements??

[drfemoe]

117. If there had been a terrorist attack in VT

"It makes it difficult to smack Bush for stonewalling on 9/11"

I would join you in shouting to high heaven to open the f'ing records.

The media needs to focus on 9/11, energy policy sealed records, PLAME, abuses of the 'patriot act', lies before the war, intelligence tampering, disrupting legislative procedures, etc. etc. etc.

I am so sorry that folks who consider themselves 'progressives' seem to enjoy the low brow 'entertainment' provided by the wh spin media machine. There's at least one manufacturing job left in America.

If you feel this justifies giving jr a pass on telling the truth about 9/11, you just might be in Luck! -what honor- -what justice-

[HuckleB]

13. Did MSNBC give this much coverage to the Bush's action?

when he closed Reagan's files?

I dunno. I don't think he can hide anything big. Someone is going to say something about anything he did wrong. I think he's just making it harder on the Bushies.

[JNelson6563]

24. I was under the understanding

that many of these "records" include much potentially embarrassing correspondence dating from the civil unions debate in Vermont.

But of course others have provided much greater detail on this issue during the last dozen or so threads we've had on Dean's records.

I give you a Zero in "originality for slam material". Thanks for playing though. :hi:

Julie

[wyldwolf]

27. Oh, another cutesy line...

Why are Deanies so good (or bad) at the silly "I give you a Zero in "originality for slam material". Thanks for playing though" lines.

This is a current article.

Deal with it.

[JNelson6563]

121. same shit, different day

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=615367

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=503963
(a previous effort by you--exact same topic)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=65346
(here is an omnibus-slam effort, Gov records included)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=30830
(nicely couched within thread, answered thoroughly though)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=1954
(again, tucked within lengthy screed)

Boy the Kery folks and just a handful of Clarkies are getting to the point where they've no credibility and can only rehash ancient stuff repeatedly to try to bring down Dean. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Paints a clear and rather disturbing picture of the future of the Democratic Party IMO.

And I think "thanks for playing" is jsut about right for you and your ilk. To you this is a game. To some of us it's a lot more serious than that. That would be why most of us don't waste our time devising ways to try to tear other Dems down and look at those who do with increasing disdain.

Julie

[paulk]

134. "ancient stuff"????

The election is in the FUTURE, and if you think issues like this are going to just disappear - think again.

This is a legitimate political issue that's going to come back and haunt Howard Dean again and again. He sealed his records so they wouldn't hurt him politically. It can't be spun any other way.

It looks bad because it is bad.

Attacking the messenger or attacking "Dean Haterz" isn't going to change that. Being verbally abusive to people you don't agree with certainly isn't going to do anything but destroy your credibility here at DU.

[wyldwolf]

138. Her credibility has already been destroyed...

The "Dean can do no wrong so don't you dare imply he can" camp has become a joke in political circles.

[JNelson6563]

186. projecting again?

Geez, you're starting to make Republicans look like amatuers.

You know it's rehashing old shit. This indicates at least two things. You've got nothing new on Dean to regurgitate for your little jihad and no new positives to post about Clark.

Here's a thought, if we're talking credibility, how about you do a search and see how many of the Clark threads I'm in? In fact, see if you can find anywhere on here what my issues are with Clark. Not only do I keep them to myself, I refrain from posting and reposting the same doubts/questionable items and then, avoiding being called on it and falling back on the old stand-by "oh but they're so mean to my candidate!".

Really, take a look at your posting history and take a look at mine and then come on back and let's talk credibility.

Julie

[wyldwolf]

187. As it was so well put above...

Attacking the messenger or attacking "Dean Haterz" isn't going to change that. Being verbally abusive to people you don't agree with certainly isn't going to do anything but destroy your credibility here at DU.

That's you.

[JNelson6563]

213. Hey, any day dear, let's pull up

those posting histories....

Lemme know when you're ready.

Julie

[wyldwolf]

214. Go ahead... here's what you have to prove...

..that credibility is dictated on how many threads I'm in that is critical to a candidate that I don't support.

If you're sure that all the issues about Howard Dean that I have either raised or am in agreement with are rendered null and void simply because I support someone else, bring them on.

Right now, it sounds like a big tobacco company denying their products cause cancer simply because an anti-smoking entity raised the issue. Instead of dealing with the issue, you attack the messanger because he is against your product.

So pull them threads up and we'll take them on one by one. Let's see if you can actually defend the issues raised without copping out and saying I lack credibility because I don't like Dean.

I'll make it easy. We won't even take your posting history into account.

[JNelson6563]

244. Your posting history demonstrates one thing

and that is your primary activity here is to post critical items about Dean and to his supporters.

With such a clear agenda why would anyone consider you credible when you claim no malice or ill intent? You like to claim you are simply trying to be helpful and getting all the facts out but is that believable? Does anyone see this as a credible claim from you? Nto anyone who doesn't share your purpose.

Let me break it down for you: You Are Transparent.

Easy-peasy. But thanks for taking time out of your hate-mongering to chat. :hi:

Julie

[wyldwolf]

245. Cop out...

List all my posts and prove that my "primary activity here is to post critical items about Dean and to his supporters."

Go WAAAAAY back into the archives, too!

But let's set a standard to agree upon. How shall we define "primary?"

40% of my posts? Half of them? What?

I think since "primary" means "main" or "most important," a good number should be 80%

I didn't expect you to deliver.

Easy-peasy!

[JNelson6563]

188. How many times does it need to be rehashed?

Should we just speak slower when we address the issues? Would that cut back on the repetitiveness of the slams?

Oh and as to records being an issue in a General Election I'd love to see the boy king even approach the topic of transparency. While you have been quivering in fear of the Rove Machine some of us have kept up and know that the FOIA may as well not exist in this misAdministration.

But go ahead and be fearful of the boy king's smear team, they only have fiction on their side. Any topic they want to broach will hurt them twice as bad as Dean. Take a peek out from under your bankey sometime, you'll see what I mean.

Julie

[paulk]

218. You think it's a slam. I don't . I think it's a legitimate issue

open to discussion. I would hope that discussion would be civil - apparently you disagree. You not only disagree, you feel the need to insult me personally.

I don't know if these records will be an issue in the general election. I do know they are an issue for me in the primaries. That Gov. Dean feels his record needs to be hidden makes me question his worthiness to represent me as my presidential candidate.

[mzmolly]

195. Nice work JN, I have seen the work of the OP before on this very subject

I believe it may have been on more than one occasion. hmmm ;)

[Octafish]

28. Don't let the truth get in the way of a crummy candidate.

Yeh. It's better that we all keep quiet now so Karl Rove can bring up whatever is in the files later. I'm sure Karl or his minions kept a carbon.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

131. Does that mean once something gets discussed once here...

...it never will again?

Should we petition for a new rule that says as much?

[Octafish]

200. Turnabout is Fair Play. Deanieweenies have smeared JK since 2001.

It's OK for DU's Deaniweenie contingent to slam away at Kerry. Just don't slam Ho-Ho. Right. Whatever you say.

From the old DU to the new, the line on John Kerry was:

A. Aloof.

Then, when it became obvious Kerry is a great Liberal, it became:

B. Skull & Bones.

Then, when that got to be code for Kerry bashing, it became:

C. IWR.

Then, when it became obvious to even idiots that Kerry was no war monger, it became...

You get the picture.

Here's a link to some of the nice things people were saying in January on DU1:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=30767&forum=DCForumID60&archive=

[mzmolly]

32. We know what this is really about JN

It's about a certain candidate falling in the polls...

So sad :cry:

Oh, and look at the 'unbiased' photo the author chose to showcase.



ROTFLMAO.

Oh and about the author, it would appear the covered the "White Water and Lewinsky Scandals" :eyes:

"Isikoff’s exclusive reporting on the Monica Lewinsky scandal gained him national attention in 1998, including profiles in The New York Times and The Washington Post and a guest appearance on "Late Show with David Letterman." His coverage of the events that lead to President Clinton’s impeachment earned Newsweek the prestigious National Magazine Award in the Reporting category in 1999."

http://www.newsweekmediakit.com/us/bios_isikoff.html

[WilliamPitt]

37. I don't think this is one year old...

The bottom says 'Copyright 2003,' and there are links to other current stories:

1. What's in Howard Dean's Secret Vermont Files?
2. Conventional Wisdom: Stealth Bombshell Edition
3. Provincetown, Mass. Readies for Gay Honeymooners
4. Hazing: A Dangerous New Drinking Game
5. Fast Chat: Walter Shapiro on Campaign
6. What's in Store this Christmas?
7. American Girl: Where are the Dolls?
8. CD-ROM Business Cards
9. Primaries a Budgetary Concern
10. Advertising: Sponsoring the Slopes
11. Transition: Warren Spahn, 82

As for Isikoff, you're right about the Monica crap. But he has put up six or seven excellent 9/11-investigation articles in the last few months.

[wyldwolf]

38. Are you not even reading this thread, Mzmolly?

The article appears in NEXT WEEK'S Newsweek.

It IS NOT a year old.

It's current.

Deal with it.

[mzmolly]

48. I corrected myself, the article is 'current' the story is old trash.

Consider it dealt with.

[drfemoe]

125. Most of the copy of the story

is taken from the Boston Globe
Dean is asked to release gubernatorial records
Documents sealed under 10-year deal
By Sarah Schweitzer, Globe Staff, 10/2/2003

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/02/dean_is_asked_to_release_gubernatorial_records/

It is not 'news' to anyone who has been following the Dean campaign.

[curse10]

39. What's so embarrasing?

and since when is this "slam material"? What? Dean does something questionable and must be "slam material"? It couldn't possibly be something that might concern people :eyes:

[JNelson6563]

123. Gee if it hadn't been addressed so often

your comments might have merit.

Julie

[curse10]

137. Hmmmm

like Dean supporters constantly bringing up the IWR vote??? Doh.

[liberalmuse]

40. Anyone know if Clinton sealed his records?

I don't find any problem with Dean sealing his records as governor and his calling for openess on the part of the Bush administration regarding 9-11 and energy policy documents. Granted, I'd really like it if he didn't seal his records. He isn't asking Bush to open his own records from Texas. The Bush administration is withholding evidence from a commission chosen to investigate a crime. Dean is not. The Bush administration is also withholding documents from Cheney's meetings with the heads of energy corporations in the process of dictating our national energy policy. This could definitely be considered a conflict of interest and I feel these meetings need to be looked into.

[wndycty]

41. I am not going to hold Howard Dean . . .

. . .to a standard the George W. Bush will not live up to. This should not be held against Dean and its unfair. Especially when there are others who will not share their records.

[Corgigal]

43. Let me guess

He was dating a stripper? His wife killed someone in a auto accident which wasn't investigated? He was arrested several times for DUI? Was arrested and did community service for cocaine use?
Went AWOL from the service during war time?

Well since he's a Dem, then I'm sure the press will make sure they know the facts on these issues. Other political jerks can get away with these questions but Dems can't.

[mzmolly]

44. More about the author of this trash piece...

"First at the Washington Post, and later at Newsweek, Michael Isikoff researched the stories that helped turn Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, and Monica Lewinsky into household names. Uncovering Clinton is his version of All the President's Men, a play-by-play account of how he put the pieces together and gradually came to the conclusion, based on the allegations surrounding Bill Clinton's sexual behavior, that the president of the United States was "psychologically disturbed."

And...

"Isikoff, who is credited with breaking the Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Monica Lewinsky stories, is universally acknowledged as the leading reporter who brought to light the revelations about Clinton's personal and political lives that have consumed this country and shocked the world. As a reporter for the Washington Post and Newsweek, Isikoff has established himself as an astute observer and chronicler of Clinton's conduct throughout his presidency, following a trail of presidential misconduct from Little Rock, Arkansas, to the Oval Office. Uncovering Clinton will surely be the definitive account of our nation's biggest political scandal since Watergate."

You can purchase his book about Clinton here.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375407596/ref=ase_absolutsearch05/002-9108823-1551220?v=glance&s=books

[wyldwolf]

52. Now, tell us mzmolly, what part of the article isn't factual?

...and is everything he writes trash (be careful here) or just this about Dean?

[WilliamPitt]

60. And a little more, to be fair, about Isikoff

The Secrets of September 11
By Michael Isikoff

http://mtpartymc.org/Issues/9-11-2001/secrets_of_september_11_by_micha.htm

The White House is battling to keep a report on the terror attacks secret. Does the 2004 election have anything to do with it?

---

September 11 Showdown
Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/050903A.shtml

Will the White House block a terror panel’s access to critical documents?

[wyldwolf]

77. That's all trash, Will

I'm being sarcastic, of course.

[mzmolly]

83. Thanks...credit where credit is due.

However at this point I prefer to credit his co writer Mark Hosenball for obvious reasons ;)

[depakid]

47. If you show me yours, I'll show you mine

Regardless about how anyone presently feels about Dean, wouldn't you just love to see that gambit sprung on Bush....

[Rose Siding]

51. Dean mentioned this in an interview last week

snip>
Dean defended the sealing of records during his five terms as governor.

“There are some things under law that every governor in every state in the country seals,” he said.

Asked what they were, Dean answered: “I don’t honestly know, but I can guess. Pardons, personal letters somebody wrote in to me and say ‘I have HIV/AIDS,’ I really don’t know.”

Dean insisted he played no role in what stayed private and what did not.

“I had very little to do with it. What gets sealed and doesn’t get sealed is a matter of state law. There’s not much flexibility on that. We never went through letters to see if this gets sealed and that doesn’t get sealed,” he recalled.

http://nashuatelegraph.com/Main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=354&ArticleID=94054

Is this Newsweek article just more of the media showering heaps of praise on their unexamined choice, Dean? Strange way to show their adoration.

[wyldwolf]

64. I see an odd discrepency here...

Late last year, NEWSWEEK has learned, Dean’s chief counsel sent a directive to all state agencies ordering them to cull their files and remove all correspondence that bore Dean’s name—and ship them to the governor’s office to be reviewed for “privilege” claims. This removed a “significant number of records” from state files, said Michael McShane, an assistant Vermont attorney general.

yet the above says Dean insisted he played no role in what stayed private and what did not.

Are we to believe Dean had no part in it?

[ima_sinnic]

75. are you just innately distrustful of people, or what?

yeah, Dean is a pathological lying mass murderer. He is part of the Illuminati and is secretly in cahoots with the BFEE.

He did what was within his power to do--he called for his papers and then whoever was supposed to go through them, did.

I believe I will make you my first "ignore" and give my spirit a much deserved break from useless nonsense.

[wyldwolf]

79. Can you be anymore reactionary?

Deal with the issue.

And I will be honored to be on your ignore list. That way, I won't be burdended by your whiney "avoid the issue" relplies.

[Philosophy]

54. Perhaps it's all part of a secret plan

If Dean gets the nomination the media whores will be falling all over themselves trying to get at Dean's secret evil documents, and they won't be able to do that without making the Bush* administration's far more excessive secrecy an issue too without betraying their bias.

[Donna Zen]

143. Disagree

If the whores want to know what is sealed, and they will, they will simply use the backdoor. IOW, they will ask questions of those who might know, and they will speculate along with pieces of tangential evidence.

Also assuming that the press will hold republicans to the same standards as Democrats, is a very shaking premise.

[polpilot]

67. What's there? His inauguration plans?? Short list of bands for the gala??

Dean '04...

[dusty64]

68. A perfect example of

the media double standard. WTF about the reagan/poppy papers,the energy papers, 9/11 documents, not to mention chimp's own papers from his time in Texas as well as his "service" records from his time in the national guard and what about the Harken papers? Funny, how all of a sudden the media gives a shit about secrecy. Its only an issue when a Democrat does it. I really do not fault Dean for this, but he ought to turn it around. Tell the media he will release his when chimpy opens up his, wonder what the spin would be then?

[Q]

69. I think I'd rather see a thread...

...on why Bush* 'sealed' the presidential papers of Reagan and his Poppy.

- This is nothing more than an attempt to smear Democrats and redirect attention away from the criminals in the WH.

[mzmolly]

71. No smoking gun...

I posted this in a reply, but thought I should have an independent post as well.

Dean sealing his records is not unusual...

"By law, the governor is supposed to leave his official correspondence with the secretary of state. But Dean was allowed to close files under the doctrine of executive privilege. The Vermont Supreme Court in 1990 ruled that executive privilege allows a governor to keep confidential documents that reflect "advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations." In other words, the paper trail that shows how the governor came to a decision can, and usually is, kept secret."

In addition, the contents are quite boring:

"Christie Carter, the assistant archivist, pulls boxes off the shelf for a peak. But these public files seem pretty mundane. There's nothing, for example, that gives an inside glimpse into Dean's sudden ascension to power after Governor Richard Snelling died in 1991. The files are stuffed with letters to constituents on subjects ranging from leghold traps to portable toilets at state rest areas. The files on hot-button issues - such as the civil unions debate or the sale of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant - appear to document events that are already well known."

There you have it folks, articles on portable toilets... ;)

More here.

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

[WilliamPitt]

72. Excellent.

:)

[wyldwolf]

89. Now Will, if you'll honestly say...

..that you see nothing odd about Dean sealing his records 4 years longer than the average time - for a total of 10 years - and then admitting there was potentially embarassing things in them - with charges of tax credits from favored companies (graft)- then I'll take you at your word.

And remember, the paragraph mzmolly provides that begins with "Christie Carter, the assistant archivist..." is speaking of the public records. Of course they're mundane!

[mzmolly]

101. Thanks

:*

[wyldwolf]

81. Easy...

Dean sealing his records is not unusual...

"By law, the governor is supposed to leave his official correspondence with the secretary of state. But Dean was allowed to close files under the doctrine of executive privilege. The Vermont Supreme Court in 1990 ruled that executive privilege allows a governor to keep confidential documents that reflect "advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations." In other words, the paper trail that shows how the governor came to a decision can, and usually is, kept secret."

He told Vermont Public Radio he was putting a 10-year seal on many of his official papers—four years longer than previous Vermont governors—because of “future political considerations... We didn’t want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time.”

Why the extra time? Something being hidden?

[mzmolly]

94. Sorry Wyld, there just isn't much of a story here.

Your article closes with this:

“All you have to do is look at what are doing with the existing records,” he said. “They’re distorting his record.”

Pretty much says it all.

[wyldwolf]

98. The article is balanced and gives both sides... but...

..but that still doesn't alter the fact that he sealed them years longer than what is standard or traditional, admitted there could be embarrassing things in the records, and is being accused of graft - and hiding it in the records..

[mzmolly]

103. I expanded on your concerns below.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

99. Nope, it's a brilliant political move from our next President

Dean knows that the *'s have enough $$ to make mountains out of molehills. When he's up for re-election in 2008, it'll make perfect sense. :)

[wyldwolf]

105. Hiding embarassing and potentially unethical things is brilliant...

... just ask Bush!

[mzmolly]

113. Yup,

The Bush comparison is a stretch wyld. I'm off to let you 'spin.' :crazy:

Carry on :hi:

[wyldwolf]

124. The Bush comparison is spot on... talk about spin!

[mzmolly]

194. Riggggght. Sealing gubernatorial records *which happens all the time*

is much like covering up the deaths of the worst Terror attacks this country will likely ever see :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

198. No, but it's very much like Bush sealing his governors records...

..and his father's presidential records.

:eyes:

AND... Dean just had to seal is records for extra years, which DOESN'T happen all the time.

[mzmolly]

202. He said he did so because he was running for office, unlike pappy

Bush...

And, I did not weigh in on Bush sealing his gub records, butttt it just goes to show you:

1. Bush can't bring it up.
2. It's typical for Govs to do so.

[wyldwolf]

212. ..but he still sealed the records to hide things...

..like Bush.

it just goes to show you:

1. Dean can't bring it up.
2. It's typical for Govs to do so - but not for 10 years.

[TankLV]

130. You said it, finally!

Again,

"You first, bunkerboy, and your "dick" too!"

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Etc, etc.

Glad you're finally getting it!

Dean's actions are brilliant political moves.

It's about doing everything possible to WIN!

[wyldwolf]

132. So that means...

if Dean is elected, he can hold secret energy meetings with corporations and pre-emptively invade countries?

After all, if it's ok for the Bush gang, Dean can do it, too!

[TankLV]

139. First off, Dean wouldn't do that.

As opposed to bunkerboy, who is a criminal and a lying, thieving, spoiled rich kid who LOST the election and was illegally installed into his position, Dean is an honerable man, honest and intelligent, as are all the other democratic candidates running to end america's misery.

Also, if Dean is elected, I hope he unseals ALL records. Bunkerboy and dickies first!

[wyldwolf]

141. Now hold on...

I didn't say Dean would. I said he could. It would be alright. Afterall, you're saying what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Where is the line drawn.

Do YOU decide that?

[TankLV]

177. You obviously didn't read my post above.

And you are creating a straw man.

Dean wouldn't do what you suggested.

There is no point in discussing a hypothetical unlikly to happen.

You still don't get it.

It's a new game, defined by the repukes.

We are free not to play - and loose - or to embrase the new "rules" and WIN!

I can condemn playing dirty by the other side while at the same time playing dirty to counter them.

I might be against violence, but fighting back is not being hypocritical - after you "turn the other cheek", too many times, you run out of cheeks to turn!

They started this - we'll finish it - on their terms!

[wyldwolf]

182. yes I did...

And you are creating a straw man.

I think you must not know the definition of "strawman."

Dean wouldn't do what you suggested.

How do you know that? Fact is, by your logic, he could and it would be ok because Bush did it.

There is no point in discussing a hypothetical unlikly to happen.

Sure there is.

You still don't get it.

You're blinded by your "dean can do no wrong" outlook.

It's a new game, defined by the repukes.

ok...

We are free not to play - and loose - or to embrase the new "rules" and WIN!

Right! So we can act like republicans and it will be ok.

[Tom Rinaldo]

199. "It's about doing everything possible to WIN!"

God, I hope not. That's a very slippery ski slope. (hey, I'm joking with that ski reference, OK? - Dean did nothing wrong back then). Jokes aside, I am serious about the concept of a "win at all costs" mentality being a dangerous "slippery slope" though. Think Watergate. No I am not comparing Dean legally sealing records with Watergate! I know I am just responding to an off the cuff comment by a Dean supporter, not to a stated policy of Howard Dean's campaign manager. And I realize "win at all costs" was not the language you yourself used in your post. I am just saying that I hope we Democrats are never even tempted to embrace that political philosophy.

[ozone_man]

122. Running for president can take many years, no?

Six years is customary, when these ex-governors are moving on to other areas. To someone running for president, and who might not make it the first time, a four year extension of the rules seems in order. None of our other goverors have run for president.

What if Dean makes it to VP, and has an eight year wait to run for president. 10 years seems about right.

The Bush team will spend many millions trying to blow up the smallest thing that they might find. Let's start with Bush and Cheney opening his records and we'll go from there. Can you imagine the good Haliburton or 911 reading we might find.

[Octafish]

82. Any Thank-You notes from Walmart?

Gee. That would be embarassing to read. Here's what we know:

Walmart opened four stores in Vermont during Dean's tenure. So, the state with only 602,000 people is now pretty well saturated top-to-bottom with Walmart. That's a lot of mom-and-pop stores that have been negatively impacted, as well as communities changed by the megastores.

Oh well. Such is progress: Vermont now has a few more non-union jobs.

[mzmolly]

106. OMG, you mean Walmart opened stores in the past 11 years...

There arent' any walmarts where I live, oh well, perhaps a few, ok a lot... And, Dean were'nt no whare near here. I'm not sure what to make of it?

All in good fun :P

[dvddrone]

73. Kinda glad to read this...

I'm not big on secrecy, in fact I loathe it in most instances, but I doubt the man's got anything serious to hide. With what... eleven years as governor?... they'd have found anything major already. People in Texas knew Bush* was a womanizing cokehead and a convicted drunk driver long before the national press got hold of it. Whatever Dean's been up to in Vermont, people in Vermont know about it. Some of them will doubtless be compelled to share it with the rest of the class should Dean secure the nomination.

Given that Republican swine will cull through used kleenex, distort and contort the kleenex, interpret the kleenex out of context, choke an opponent with the kleenex by shoving it down his or her throat, then jump up and down shouting that he/she must have committed suicide-by-kleenex - good for Dean. If he had the tools to pre-emptively shut down these dumpster-diving hacks, I applaud him for having the smarts to do so.

I know we're 'the good guys' and all, but we aren't fighting other good guys, we're not even fighting old-school respectable Republicans (yes, Virginia, they used to run their Party). We're fighting the fucking neo-clowns. To beat Bush* we're going to have to take the gloves off, hold our delicate noses, and shut down the damned dumpsters. We may even have to do a bit of diving ourselves. Update your shots!

Elizabeth (Not a Deaniac, a Dennis-ette - which scans kinda wierd)

[ima_sinnic]

78. yes yes yes

. . . and thanks so much, Kucinichite! :)

[Tom Rinaldo]

107. Just don't count on everything that was sealed staying sealed

Leaks have a way of happening, and they often get much more play as a secret being leaked than they would as a simple straight news story. There's twice the news play as a leak.

[dvddrone]

126. We'll know more than we want to...

know about Dean, and any other candidate with chops. It's not as if the Republicans are going to give anybody a free pass in a tight election (and it will be tight - we can count on that).

As I said, the people in Vermont know exactly what Dean's been up to for the years he governed there. My presumption, and I grant that it's totally presumptive, is that whatever's in the "secret" files is minor. It could be off the cuff comments made in an in-house memo, ideas expressed, possibilities kicked around - basically used kleenex. Maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal to release it all now, maybe it would save Dean a lot of sturm-und-drang if it gets leaked later on. But then again - why hand over the kleenex to the neo-clowns if he doesn't have to?

Fuck 'em.

Elizabeth (Again - not a Deaniac, a Kucinichite which still scans wierd)

[wyldwolf]

128. He's been accused of graft...

[dvddrone]

156. Howard Dean??

Graft? Oh for fuck's sake.

Could we PLEASE use that kind of cheap shit against REPUBLICANS???

From what I read, the man literally wore out his damned suits and I got a gander at his kitchen last night. MY kitchen is bigger and swankier (and tidier - ahem) than Dean's. He's on the take? I certainly don't see it. Besides, I get a distinct 'boy scout' vibe off of this guy. Not as cool/nerdy a scout as my main man Kucinich, but a scout nonetheless. (Yeah - formerly a hard-drinking scout, but still a friggin' boy scout where it counts, ya know? As in - I ain't buying that he's taking payola.)

The 'graft' thing sounds like a classic political smear. Whether it's coming from Rove or other Dem candidates, it's the old LBJ pig-fucker groove:

Dean's clean? Shit. Accuse him of graft!

But sir, that's not true!

That's not the point. Make the son-of-a-bitch deny it!

I think we Dems need some of the LBJ groove nowadays. He was a tough old bastard and mean as a snake. I just don't like to see it used against our own people. Use it against BUSH* and his band of merry fuckwits - not against fellow Democrats.

Elizabeth (Still not a Deaniac, but feeling pretty sorry for him this morning. Graft? WTF?)

[wyldwolf]

160. He's been accused of graft... spin it anyway you'd like...

The sealed papers include Dean’s correspondence with advisers on, among other matters, ... a state agency that critics charged was used to grant tax credits to Dean’s favored firms.

Is that not an accusation of graft?

[dvddrone]

183. Spin? Omigod...

Did I wake up as Bill fucking O'Reilly this morning? Man, my beau's gonna be mucho pissed. He doesn't find O'Reilly attractive at all.

So, to answer your question, YES - that is certainly an accusation of graft. But what does it mean, exactly? How did Dean benefit financially from it? Isn't that a required element of any graft accusation? Cronyism is different, and imo a less serious charge.

What I'd like to know is who made that accusation, who are these 'critics of Dean' mentioned? Karl Rove (I'm paranoid about Rove and his mega-goons, I see them everywhere)? Dem candidates trying to knock him out of front-runner status? Understandable. Old local foes with an axe to grind? Fuck 'em. Are there other, less incindiary, explanations available for tax credits he may have advocated or actually granted? Were they high-tech companies that Dean wanted to come to, or expand operations in, Vermont? Were they Vermont businesses in trouble who needed a break in order to stay in business? Were they old school chums who didn't need a break and in whose companies Dean invested financially? I'm not trying to 'spin' anything - I don't even know how. If it's the last case, it actually IS graft and then it's a serious matter.

So do you know what it is, or is factual knowledge blocked by the hold on Dean's files? If it's actually graft and there's evidence of it, then the Republicans will use it to beat us to a pulp if Dean gets the nomination. No question about that. So - we'd better suit up for some dumpster diving of our own. Quickly. I'd hand this particular diving expedition to Kerry - his New England peeps will know how to find out.

Elizabeth (still not a Deaniac, still feeling sorry for him today)

[wyldwolf]

185. Yes spin...

How did Dean benefit financially from it? Isn't that a required element of any graft accusation? Cronyism is different, and imo a less serious charge.

I guess we won't know unless Dean unseals the records or addresses the issue.

Isn't that the point?

[mzmolly]

203. Yeah, let's give Rove a chance to grasp at straws shall we?

Heck, I'd be all for it if Bush unsealed his. Deal??

[wyldwolf]

205. Since Dean is obviously the better man..

... and he has been critical of Bush's secrecy ...he should take the high road and go first. Deal??

[mzmolly]

207. Sure, if Bush goes second. But we both know that's not gonna happen.

By the way Dean didn't criticize Bush for sealing gov. records, he criticized him for being secretive about a war, and a massive terrorist attack. Can you see why I noted the 911 comparison in my previous post. It's because you Looove to compare Dean and Bush :7

Last word goes to you as I hate to keep kicking this crap.

[wyldwolf]

209. Dean should still go first. He was critical of Bush for doing this...

..not the other way around.

[dvddrone]

210. Really? Well, fuck spin and fuck...

nevermind. Let's just move on to our continuation of this delightful conversation.

--------------------------
I wrote:
How did Dean benefit financially from it? Isn't that a required element of any graft accusation? Cronyism is different, and imo a less serious charge.

You wrote:
I guess we won't know unless Dean unseals the records or addresses the issue.

Isn't that the point?
---------------------------

Of course it's not the point. Those are not the only options. Beyond that, financial gains are reflected in tax records, unless he's also being accused of tax fraud this week? That would be *so* charming. The POINT is to BEAT BUSH*. That is the ONLY point. All other points need not apply.

So, what is the best way to accomplish that? Is it to have one Dem candidate's supporters destructively hack away at another candidate without genuine cause? Is it to take the feverish musings of Karl Rove and trumpet them to others, discrediting a fellow Democrat without genuine cause? I don't think it is. I think that it's, you'll pardon the expression, BUSH LEAGUE. (should be called Rove League, but sadly I am not in charge of the English language)

I'm from Massachusetts, born and raised a Bostonian. (I live in Cali now, all hail the Gropinator, vomit troughs are located to the left of the exits.) If there was something going on, it's easy to investigate it QUIETLY. There is NO reason for Democrats to run around giving each other vicious public beatings. We can argue a bit onthe real issues, but we really need to rest up for the $250 million dollar beating that Bush* is going to give our nominee, whomever that nominee turns out to be. Again, as in my prior post, I nominate Kerry for the Dean files sneak-peek job. He's got local peeps and connections. These are files in Vermont we're talking about, not Fort Knox. I trust Kerry not to act like a fucking REPUBLICAN by tearing down the Dem front-runner without cause. (Yeah - he wants the front-runner spot himself - so what? I still don't think Kerry would fake up a corruption charge just to bash Dean - I suppose I could be wrong.)

So - my real question, Wildwolf, is what is YOUR point? Do you honestly believe that Howard Dean is a corrupt politician who's hiding evidence of graft-taking in these files? Is your aim to protect the Democratic Party from him as our nominee because of your belief in his corruption? I have a sneaking suspicion that's not it at all. I think you want whomever your guy is, to be the front-runner. I think you want to tear up Dean on flimsy charges, just to jack him up 'cause he's not your guy. And I think that *this* kind of behavior is why we've been losing and tying elections, instead of winning them by a decent margin.

Party Cannibalism is WRONG, kids! Let's stop eating Howard Dean as a snack, just because he's not our favorite candidate. He's not MY favorite candidate, but he's a damned sight better than Bush and I'm not going to kick the man off the Dem platform because of vague rumors that probably originated with Karl fucking Rove. If there is evidence that will prove fatal to Dean as our nominee, then let's find out for sure and deal with it quickly and quietly. If not, let's shut the fuck up about it.

Spin that.

Elizabeth

[wyldwolf]

211. Of course it is the point...

How did Dean benefit financially from it? Isn't that a required element of any graft accusation? cronyism is different, and imo a less serious charge.

Many use cronyism and graft interchangebly. Be that as it may, we don't know how how Dean benefited financially or if the accusations are true because the FILES ARE SEALED. But Dean isn't talking and has sealed the files for 10 years.

financial gains are reflected in tax records, unless he's also being accused of tax fraud this week? That would be *so* charming.

Dean is accused of giving breaks to favored corporations. His tax records aren't an issue.

The POINT is to BEAT BUSH*. That is the ONLY point. All other points need not apply.

Only in your dreams. One point is to pick the dem who can defeat Bush. Dean has not shown himself to be that candidate based on national polls of democrats and independent voters.

Yes, you've probably missed it, but post after post here on poll after poll shows Clark more attractive to swing voters and polling best against Bush among all the dems.

So, what is the best way to accomplish that? Is it to have one Dem candidate's supporters destructively hack away at another candidate without genuine cause?

Have you gone into all the Clark and Kerry bashing threads and preached this, too? Or do you become inspired when Dean is criticized?

Is it to take the feverish musings of Karl Rove and trumpet them to others, discrediting a fellow Democrat without genuine cause?

Sorry. This was from Newsweek, not Rove. Dean is not above criticism and I doubt you'll find anyone here who will ignore a newsworthy item.

If there was something going on, it's easy to investigate it QUIETLY. There is NO reason for Democrats to run around giving each other vicious public beatings.

Have you said as much in all the mile-long Clark/Kerry threads? Or does Dean touch a soft spot in you?

I trust Kerry not to act like a fucking REPUBLICAN by tearing down the Dem front-runner without cause. (Yeah - he wants the front-runner spot himself - so what? I still don't think Kerry would fake up a corruption charge just to bash Dean - I suppose I could be wrong.)

You assume Dean is the frontrunner. Is that why it is ok for you to bash Kerry like you just did but consider criticism of Dean a no-no?

So - my real question, Wildwolf, is what is YOUR point? Do you honestly believe that Howard Dean is a corrupt politician who's hiding evidence of graft-taking in these files?

My point is Howard Dean is a corrupt politician who is hiding something in these files - something that he has sealed up FOUR YEARS past the norm - totally 10 years. He has been accused of graft.

Is your aim to protect the Democratic Party from him as our nominee because of your belief in his corruption?

Hahahaha! My aim is to point out any and all newsworthy items on the candidates. This is a discussion forum.

No one is above criticism and as we all make our choices on who to support, many appreciate the information.

Now prove yourself and go to the Clark/Kerry/Lieberman/Gephardt bashing threads and preach your "togetherness" - unless it only applies to when Dean is in the hot seat.



Spin that.

[markus]

76. I especially like the picture

Did Isikoff pick it himself?

Or did Karl Rove?

[leesa]

85. If we don't care what's in Cheney's secret files, or Bush's secret files

Then why in the world do we care what's in Dean's??
Oh I forgot, Newsweek and MSRNC, whoring for the Corporate Bush Crime Family.

[FrenchieCat]

116. I didn't know

That 2 wrongs make a right. To say that it shouldn't matter that Dean has sealed is records because it didn't matter that Bush and Cheney did too. It made a difference to me that Bush and Cheney did what they did. And this should make a difference too. To say that Dean has nothing to hide, when we don't know what's in the documents, is slightly convenient. I guess when Cheney said there was nothing to his secret meetings so we don't need to know about them, we should say, See Cheney said there's nothing there, so that's that.

If find that convenience in not addressing an issue is a cop-out.

Bush was wrong. Cheney was wrong. Dean is wrong.

That's called being consistent.

Does that count anymore....or is there something I am missing?

[leftofthedial]

92. interesting that they have pretty much ignored Bush's secrecy

and hidden record

[KittyWampus]

100. Dean Lost An Arrow In His Quiver By Locking His Files

The other Democrats can confront Bush on HIS secrecy... Dean cannot.

Just a FACT.

[HuckleB]

135. None of our candidates are perfect.

We can bash 'em all with stuff like this, but unless someone has something that truly disqualifies a candidate, we may be doing nothing but falling into the hands of the Republicans. Dean is not perfect. I know it. You know it. Neither is Clark, or any of the others. I will back the party's candidate regardless, but I will also work to put that candidate, whoever it is, in the best position to win. To do that, I'm going to refrain from going nuts over every flaw I find in every candidate. Of course, as media law dictates, the flaws of the leading candidate will make up the majority of the flaws in question. So, OK. Sorry, if I don't want to follow the road of destroying whoever is leading over and over and over again, unless that person's name is Bush, of course. And, in that case, there is far too much good reason.

[qanda]

165. Sounds like a hypocrite to me.

You cannot bash Bush* for being secretive and underhanded and have a moral leg to stand on when you've done the exact same thing. I truly hope the Democratic Party finds a better candidate to run in the general election than Howard Dean.

[retyred]

169. dean is hiding nothing, so stop say that!

You can bet your ass there's things hidden that would damage dean's running, but he's our guy, and if he's as bad as bush we don't need to know.

As we've seen these past 3 years, honor, integrity, openess and honesty are over rated, so let's not dwell anymore on this matter.

Haven't you learned how unpatriatic it is to question the pResident? Well the same goes for the possible next pResident.

And dean or his supporters are not being hypocritical by questioning bush for doing the same thing their great white hope dean is doing just cuz bush did it first.

Vote dean and believe whatever he says now cuz he's running for pResident and no politician would ever lie when they say they wouldn't. /sarcasm


liberal fiscal conservative
Centrist...moderate.....
Vote dean….the candidate for whatever the moment dictates!

[Sean Reynolds]

171. Here is an idea, just my opinion though....

If you HATE Dean so much, don't vote for him! IF he loses the nomination, you can move on with your life. IF he does win the nomination, go vote for Bush; because these posts show your hatred for Dean is a lot larger than that of Bush.

You people need to grow up. It's really sad that you've all started attacking each candidate. If it isn't Dean, it's Clark. If it isn't Clark, it's Kerry. You're like a bunch of school aged children fighting over which damn Magic card is better. Face it, ALL are better to that of Bush - but from the looks of it, some don't agree.

I hope to god you're not all hypocrites and if _____ becomes the nomination you vote for Bush over them. GD has more Democratic bashing than it has Bush bashing and it's SAD.

You're all TRULY sad.

Grow up, support Democrats that are trying to make a difference. You don't like their policies, FINE - don't vote for them. But stop the fucking bashing.

[wyldwolf]

175. Here's a counter idea...

...if you don't like reading negative press on Dean, avoid the threads.

[Sean Reynolds]

181. It's not just Dean.....

Are you not getting my point? MOST threads today bash EVERY candidate. I've been here at DU since it opened and I've never been this disgusted. You people are like animals. Dean farts and you make a 30 post thread accusing him of releasing deadly toxins into the air. It's really sad that you all have turned around and made the enemy the other Democrats, NOT BUSH.

How the hell are we going to beat Bush come 2004 if we're all attacking the eventual nominee?

[poskonig]

190. Is this part of the conspiracy to destroy Kerry and Clark?

I also saw Fox News attacking Dean about this while flipping channels 30 minutes ago. Must be part of that super-secret master plan to promote Dean.

:silly:

[Zomby Woof]

215. *rubs hands and cackles*

This is going to get realllll interesting between now and the primaries. Politics is the best entertainemnt going... bwhahahahahaha....

[TLM]

217. So this Dean bashign thread is up to over 200 posts... wodner why?

Oh here's why...

_________________________________________
http://blog.forclark.com/story/2003/11/30/142815/81


Interesting threads going on at DU...
By wyldwolf
Posted to wyldwolf's weblog (Soapbox) on Sun Nov 30th, 2003 at 02:28:15 PM EST
New allegations of Howard Dean sealing his records because of a hint of graft?

Dean supporters in deep denial...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=797202&mesg_id=797202
__________________________________________________________



By the way... will CLark be making the records of his communications as a defense contractor lobbyist public for all to review?

[Zomby Woof]

220. don't forget

Some of us Dean-atheists don't like Clark either. Some of us just won't be assimilated into your little enclave. :-)

[wyldwolf]

228. Here is why your conspiracy theory fails...

... you are implying (and have implied) that most of the Clark defenders and poll participants here have been bussed in from the Clark blogs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=798828&mesg_id=798828

Yet, ALL the posters have more than 100 posts. Most have more than 500. Many have more than 1000+.

All of them with the exception of poster #183, who has 44 posts and is a Dean defender.

But noooooo, there is NO WAY they are all active participants in DU. They just ran those post counts up REAL FAST!

No way they came upon the thread themselves. They had to be bussed in. :eyes:

[unfrigginreal]

229. Where have I seen that name before?

Oh yeah, that's the guy that started this bash thread isn't it?

[wyldwolf]

232. correction... the guy that started a thread that reported a news event...

[quinnox]

222. Does this man look like is about to froth at the mouth in anger?

Ouch! And some Deaniacs wonder why he is considered the angry candidate.

I know Dean is lately trying to spin it as hope, not anger. But that won't fly.

[Zomby Woof]

225. I want to put clown make-up on him

And squirt the water gun into his mouth until the balloon pops! :D

[bicentennial_baby]

230. Jeebus!

Sorry folks, I don't think that's the look you want if you're gonna get the "security mom" vote...

[Tom Rinaldo]

236. This is just a photographic "gotcha" moment.

Personally, I don't like gotcha based political "scoring", no matter who is the target of it. Well, on second thought, it's OK if it's Bush lol.

[Hep]

247. Out of ones mind

Yep. Someone is.

This is one frame out of thousands. If I were to go to debate footage, I could get a screenshot of any candidate looking however I want them to look. We liberals have made a ton of hay off of doing it to Bush.

One shot? One frame? And you will characterize a man for it? Someone is out of their mind. Especially when one reads this person's singling out of dean supporters as vitriolic.

[Scott Lee]

248. Let's take a look at Gephardt at his best, shall we?...

[Zomby Woof]

242. his secret recipe for maple syrup?

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

243. Could be!

He certainly wouldn't want that embarassing tid bit making the news.

Of course, with the records sealed for an unusual amount of time, we won't know for a while.

[jpgray]

246. Stuff that he doesn't want to hurt him later

Duh. All politicians have some stuff they want covered up. Probably if we knew EVERYTHING about each candidate, we wouldn't have time to vote for all our outrage and horror.

:)

[WhosNext]

249. Dean is doing this to avoid another "Willie Horton".