Dean sealed his records. What's in there?

Presidential candidate Howard Dean sealed many of his records on leaving office – “didn’t want anything embarrassing appearing” during run for presidency

(AP) – July 31, 2003 - The head of the Republican Party in Vermontcalled on Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean to open all his gubernatorial records, including those he had sealed for a decade.

A little more than half of the thousands of records Dean accumulated during his nearly 12 years as Vermont governor are available to the public; the rest are sealed and will not be opened until 2013, 10 years after Dean's tenure ended.

"If Howard Dean plans to run on his record in Vermont, he needs to share that record with the public," Vermont Republican Chairman Jim Barnett said. "The American people should not just have to take his word for it."

Dean spokeswoman Tricia Enright said Barnett's call was politically motivated and Dean had followed the practice of previous governors, including Republicans.

http://www.hispanicvista.com/html3/080403fp.htm


EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

Dean will open his papers when George opens his and those of his dad.

Sound fair?

He is the honest Dean from Vermont. What's in his records that would be embarrassing?

Before the Dean defense rules this out on that note.

that makes it seem as if what bush is doing is ok. bush and cheney have a lot to reveal and should do it because it concerns public policy.

They will tear Dean apart and they know about it that's why they want him to run.

When Bush & Cheney unseal all of THEIR records, then I'll be concerned about Dean unsealing his.

Dean left a verifiably positive legacy in his state, while Bush et al ran Texas and the whole country into the manure heap.

The hypocritical Rethuglicans need to put up or shut up!

:grr:

This isn't about Bush. Why should we have to worry about either of these guys and their sealed records?

If the law allows a former official to seal his records and he does so, he is within his rights to keep them sealed. If one candidate is required to unseal his records, then all should be required to unseal them.

This is about Bush and the GOP in that it's about calling the hypocrites on their double standard.

Just why should Dean submit to scrutiny that Bush won't submit to? I'm content to look at the results of their respective tenures, myself.

"By their fruits you shall know them." Sound familiar?

On edit: Correct quote.

edit: And 2004 is about getting a better person in office.

...that the party of Bush needs to be forced to play by the rules - which, you may have noticed, they have a distinct problem doing.

They have no right to make demands of another candidate that they are unwilling to meet themselves.

If Bush is unwilling to unseal his records, then he'll just have to run on the legacy he has left - and Dean can do the same.

Viewing that alone, I have no doubt who the better person is - do you?

"Just why should Dean submit to scrutiny that Bush won't submit to?"

Does that question really need answering. Are you a Green... I and my local Greens call for honesty in our government.

on edit: Which makes me suspicious of a great amount of "Greens for Dean". They usually rule him (edit: Kucinich) out on electability. But why don't they support him for the nomination, him falling closer in line with the Green platform, and vote for whoever wins the Dem. nomination. Greens for Dean are out with me, they can have fun with thier centrist politics.

I'll be re-registering as a Democrat in time to vote in the primary election.

Since when do the honest have to play by the rules of the dishonest to prove themselves?

Honesty and accountability are two sides of the same coin. Dean acted legally in sealing his records, just like every governor in the country can do. There are many reasons for doing so, hardly all of which related to dishonesty.

The GOP have already had operatives in Vermont for weeks, if not months, poring over everything they can dig up - just hoping and looking for dirt, or something that they can construe as dirt. So far, they've come up with nothing.

So now they're demanding that Dean unseal his records for them, so they can dig around in there for something to misrepresent - and you think it makes Dean dishonest to refuse to be bullied by them? I applaud him for standing up to them!

What's fair is fair: "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." That's all this is, is a power game. The Rethugs say "Jump!" and the Dems are supposed to say, "How high?"

But Dean won't play that game, my friend, and neither will I!

"Since when do the honest have to play by the rules of the dishonest to prove themselves?" You said Dean could seal his records, justifying it with Bush's actions. And it does have to do with honesty, unseal them, Mr. Dean.

Dean plays the control game, like both parties, cannot have too much progess, eh?

Register Democratic very soon, and feel at home. Because the Greens I know would have a field day with you.

"You said Dean could seal his records, justifying it with Bush's actions."

I never said that. Hey, if you're going to quote me, at least get it right and don't twist my words or meaning.

Dean sealed his records for his own reasons, in accord with the custom and law that allows every governor to seal his records. I never said he justified sealing them by Bush's actions.

Find me a governor who has not taken advantage of the law allowing him to seal his records for a time. Look up the state laws that allow for sealing of the governors' records and find out why the state legislatures decided this was a legal and wise law to enact.

Your argument has no merit.

You originally said to paraphrase "Bush doesn't unseal his records, so why should Dean keep up to those standards." edit: quote "Just why should Dean submit to scrutiny that Bush won't submit to" <--- put that in CONTEXT with the topic.

And the reason for the censorship is in the topic, political embarassment and his presidential run being the reasons for the records being sealed.

I have nothing to argue with you, although I've never met a green who doesnt care if the person he supports might be corrupt.

Find me a Governor who wasn't a Democrat or Republican.

Good day.

...who thinks that any politician (except a Green, of course) is corrupt - and there's no real difference between Republicans and Democrats. Am I right?

I hate to break it to you, but sometimes, in order to get anything positive at all accomplished, you have to stop slamming into the same ol' brick wall, turn around, and talk to your opposition... maybe even compromise a little to get something in return.

But that's the real world. Sorry to intrude on your fantasy.

LOVE YOU TOO!

And yes, I think its all in the name of Plutocracy. And you can call me whatever, I am a Green, like my fellows that I speak with.

You can take your centrists politics and boogie on it, just respectfully remove your "Greens for Dean" as to not smear our party.

And I happen to think electoral action causes nothing. History that I've read dictates that it takes struggle to produce change.

edit: Nice way to not address what I said in the post, btw.

Your attitude and manner are a major part of why the Greens, as a political party, are fated to remain in the minority in this country for a long time to come.

While I agree idealogically 100% with everything in the California Green Party platform, I find the pastime of slinging insults over tactical differences a real stumbling block - and a major bore.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to sleep.

for objecting to a Green supporting a Centrist and retaining his party ties... register Democratic and sleep well. And please remove the Greens for Dean tag.

And we'll see where the country and world are in 9 years.

And I think the Greens are a fringe party cause they are silent, and have members who will bend thier beliefs to the center to support a 'electable' mythos. *cough*

He'd better have a good counter to the question, other than the arguments here about Bush's locked up records -- there's little to stop the other candidates (except possibly Graham) from dogging him with it. That quote about potentially embarassing revelations would be too juicy for them to ignore.

That he said this: "Well, there are future political considerations," he said at a news conference. "We didn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor."


And that it is the logest seal in state history.

I don't care what the republicans want. This looks bad. This is just more thing to beat Dean over the head with. Not the seal, but the length of the seal and the quote associated to it.

The vast majority of Dean's records are already public, as the article states.

If there was anything really incriminating in those sealed records - which probably include scribbled memos, informal telephone conversations, closed strategy sessions, etc - some political enemy or opportunist would already be selling that information to his friendly neighborhood Rethuglican.

Like I said, look at the legacy. That's enough for me.

But not OK if Bush does it? I have suspected Dean was a phony. Honest Dean, yeah right.

If Bush sealed his records legally, that's fine. Same for Dean.

But if Bush (via his party, the GOP) is demanding that Dean open his records, while refusing to do the same himself, who then is the phoney?

This isn't about Bush. I can't wait until he's gone. This is about Dean. If he wants to hold Bush to that standard, shouldn't he start with himself? My problem is that HE said that he doesn't want anything coming up during a future endeavor.

BUSH's party is! It's not Dean who's "holding Bush to that standard" at all. It's the GOP who's trying to set a different standard for Dean.

Without anything dishonest having been said or done, I can see where negotiations that took place or discussions that were held might very well be used against a candidate. It doesn't take much to distort an isolated fact, or a comment made in the heat of the moment or taken out of context.

I can guarantee you, that is why the GOP want's Deans records opened, not because they think he actually did anything illegal or dishonest during his terms as governor. They're just looking for anything they can dig up to throw out as a distraction.

This isn't about Dean's integrity. If there was any question about it, do you really think it'd be all sealed up in those records with not a whisper of it leaking out from any other source or person? Come on, get real. This is a power play by the GOP, pure and simple - an attempt to change the rules in their own favor once again. It's just one more bullying tactic.

I'll stand up and make the demand as well, I am not from any right-wing party. Kucinich risked his political career to stop privatization in Cleveland, and was rewarded in retrospect... (If you want to talk legacy)

And if they want it opened, and there isnt anything to hide... then OPEN THE GODDAMNED THINGS.

Haha, yeah, honesty and integrity. Ok, whatever, dismissed...

attracts supporters like you. Your expectations and his actions are inline.

it means nothing.

Yet another new DU member/Clark supporter bashing Dean.:boring:

Ive been hearing keep in mind I havent seen this yet that Dean and Clark may team up. not for either of them you can tell by the avatar of me.

I am new here, but I ma not here to bash Dean. Does being new automatically disqualify one from participating? If this is out there, shouldn't we talk about it.

you can include that in your original post. i think there is an edit or something else you can click on and just add the link to the original post.

:thumbsup:

Leave yer ma out of it. Who's yer candidate, Blechers?
If you dont mind me askin.

:hi: Sorry if I sounded inhospitable.

I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be discussed. This issue HAS been discussed. And, Dean critisism has been offered ad nauseum by Clark supporters - most of them new members. Get's a little suspicious after weeks and weeks of it.

Do you have a candidate in mind that you support? I thought I saw in another thread that you support Clark. Why don't you spend some time positively - by supporting your candidate as opposed to going after another one? You are not going to change the minds of any of the Dean supporters.

Just my unsolicited and not so humble opinion.

their records.

I am *absolutely* positive that whatever is in Dean's records will be nothing compared to what is in Bush*'s records. But, I know how the Republican Party works and with a 200+ million dollar budget, Bush* will try to turn even the most innocent comments into a major scandal.

(Note, 45 million is the maximum limit for candidates who want federal matching funds which Dean is extremely qualified for.)

:hi:

I was starting to feel all alone here. :D

I am not sure I could be counted as a Dean supporter or not at this point. I will support the person who wins the Democratic nomination. My thoughts are this--We do not need to be bad mouthing any Democrat. We may like some better than others, but any are vastly superior to Bush. I do believe that Dean should not be badmouthed regarding his stand on opening his records. I think the Republicans have more gall than sense to even bring this up, considering their leaders stand on their own records. I say when they open theirs then they have a right to comment. I hope we'll all remember we're Dems and not shoot ourselves in the feet. Our country is being destroyed while we fight among ourselves. Peace

We're a hell of a lot more sceptical than the goosestepping GOP. Personally, I'll support Dean even if he doesn't open the records, but I can see where many in our party might be leery if they already have doubts about him.

If his campaign thinks that he can get the nomination without unsealing the records then I'd like to see him unseal them at the start of the general, then challenge Bush to do the same. I'm sure there's much more fodder in Bush's records than there is in Dean's.

unless he is absolutely forced to. He knows darn well that there is stuff in there that will hurt him badly in the perception of the public and maybe even get him thrown in prison.

Don't even think for a moment that Bush* will even entertain opening his records up just because Dean opens his up. By Dean's keeping his records closed he has a chance of making this an issue, but if he opens them up then the press will ignore Bush*'s records and go digging around through Dean's.

Nope. Unless Bush* is forced to open his records up by a Democratic president, it won't happen ever, IMHO.

And, btw, as far as I know, no other Democratic candidate is opening up their records, either.

But my point was, that if Dean made it through the primaries without opening his and then opened them during the general, he could create an issue that makes Bush look very suspect. Something along the lines of "I've been questioned about some sealed records for the period that I was Governor of Vermont. As a civil servant that is seeking the highest office in the land, I believe it is my duty to open those records to the public. I now issue a challenge to George W. Bush to do the same with the records that he has been hiding from the public for 4 years!"

On edit: It wouldn't necessarily be bad for Dean to unseal his and for Bush to refuse to unseal his. Bush is already starting to be perceived as a slimy bastard, this would just add fuel to the fire.

They will be open when the time is up. So Be it.....

Why don't you focus on the real crimes and secrets of this administration. Quit harrassing the team.

these sentiments. If a rightwinger makes that statement, everyone is all over it so fast it makes your head spin, as it should be. We all rail against the secrecy of the Bush admin and then support someone else doing the same thing? That is the true hypocrisy.

And silverweb's assertion that it's okay to keep secrets until the Bush admin reveals their's is a pretty petty argument. Sounds like the arguments you hear on a children's playground. Did not! Did, too! You go first! No you go first! I'm not doing it until you do it!

The real question should be: Why is it acceptable/legal for any public servant to seal their records when those records are technically the property of the public who elected/employed and paid his/her salary with their tax dollars?

We all want truth out of our elected officials. We should demand it of all of them, particularly the ones we support to represent us, not just the opposition. Before I back someone completely and cast my vote, I want all the facts. Otherwise, how do I know that I am making the right decision?

It seems rather childish to hold the opposition to a standard we are unwilling to practice ourselves. That's just common everyday sense. :eyes:

:hippie: I couldn't agree with you more hippywife.

Totally so, I dont understand this about Dean now keep in mind I dont hate the guy so dont raise hell on me but this is one of my qualms about Dean. I am not gonna talk about my candiate or whatever because its not relevant, I do have a problem with this.

that Karl Rove would LOVE to see and use against Dean should he be our nominee? It's not about hiding things from us Dems, it's keeping Rove from having more ammunition. Not that it will stop him from just making stuff up, but it might help a little.

And if Dennis or Bob Graham or any of the other Congressmen and Senators running had that option, I'm sure they'd take it. It's all about protecting ourselves from Bush's spin machines.

What makes you think Karl Rove doesn't already have copies of all that info from the corporations and the Repubs that Dean was playing ball with?

If we come off and behave like a Patron Saint...we get ate up. It is rdiculous to make oneself vulnerable. Repugs are ruthless. Dean is within the law......Get over it.....

Yea, we open up all our records and they have a hayday of manlipulation like they do every day of the year......This is a politcal war.....we need to use all strategies......Remember who the enemy is.....The game is ruthless and so is our enemy, *bush and Co.

are the problem. Everyone wants to claim the higher moral ground against their opponent but there aren't many who could stand the altitude. It may be legal but it reeks just the same.

Are you sure you're on the Dean team? That kind of smug remark has so far been the property of Kerry and Republicans.

Look, I believe we fight fire with fire too, but I do not believe that we as a party need to sell our souls to win the election. If you're comfortable with secretive records in the government than more power to you, but I don't think that that's a winning position with our base. We're better than that.

I for one have NO DOUBT that there is ANYTHING that would reflect negatively on Dean if he unsealed his records. I'm a little concerned that there are so many Dean fans here that think we actually have something to hide.

The problem is not as much what Dean did, but how he did it. The length of the seal, and the comment that came with it look bad.

sealed. The only difference in this case is that Dean asked for 10 years instead of the usual 6 because of his White House bid.

The comparisons to Bush are irrelevant.

I'd first like to know the reason for this long standing practice. I don't think it's a reason to single out any one official for criticism.

for criticism. And that is the point I was trying to make in my other post (#44). They all need to have open records. We employ them and pay their salaries. What should they be allowed to hide from us? How many of us would be terminated for hiding records from our employers?

The comparisons to Bush aren't irrelevant, they are hypocrisy. Did this not put anyone else's undies in a bunch or make them wonder what he was hiding?:

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/5480173.htm (Off the AP wire)

The same standards should be applied across the board, IMO.

presidential records and state official records. Although I DO believe this administration has abused the practice to cover their crooked butts.

Again, I would like to know the reason for the long standing practice of keeping some state records under seal for 6 years. There must be a reason for that. This doesn't strike me as anything to be concerned about, or is necessarily for nefarious reasons.

I don't think it is appropriate to compare presidential records and state official records. Although I DO believe this administration has abused the practice to cover their crooked butts.

on any grounds for the reasons I state earlier...taxpayers still paying their salaries..but especially when one is running for federal office and most especially for president.

Time For Howie To Fess Up – Is Dean An Abortionist?
By William A. Mayer
Aug 13, 2003, 00:09

Email this article
Printer friendly page



Howard Dean

Howard Dean is a Park Avenue, left-wing Democrat whose claim to fame is having been in the right place when the Republican Governor of Vermont died of a heart attack in 1991.

Dean was born, raised and educated in New York.

Vermont – the “Ben & Jerry” state - is a strange place; arguably the most liberal state in the union. Many of its half-million residents come from either New York or Massachusetts - ”flatlanders” – tugging it ever further left.

That’s correct, you read it right; a half-million residents - much smaller than innumerable moderate sized cities in America.

The reality is that it’s a tiny little enclave holding little sway in the national political scheme except for the fact that in this run-up to primary season - in the Democrat party - the farther left and more anti-Bush you are, the more you are taken to the party’s radical bosom.
(snip/...)

http://bigjweb.com/artman/publish/article_737.shtml

Good luck and best wishes to Gov. Dean. He can definitely forget about these jerk-o%%s. Everyone can see hatchet attack pieces a million miles away. They come from a peculiar world.

...to get us talking about 'anything but Bush'*.

- ALL OF Bush's* records have been sealed and he's the so-called president of the US.

- This thread represents an amazing double standard.

sift through and raise questions. Politics is not about doing everything everybody wants you to do in order to 'prove' to them any topic.

No political advisor would advise any candidate to provide anything that 'may' hurt them at all in any way. It's a battle with a specific time line and one plays to win.

Dean and Dean supporters have no time or inclination to 'explain' every sentence in Dean's history. Dean and supporters are planning to win and don't need every vote or every person's support. It about numbers. Politics is math.


Dean '04

When did we become a secret society? When did we authorize political advisors to determine what's best for society?

Based on the posts that I've seen from ardent Dean supporters, I'm going to assume that there is no way that he will open the records. He'll not lose me for that decision, but he'll sure as hell stifle his ability to draw from other candidates. They're not going to be as willing to buy the cow unseen.

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

I keep thinking that Kerry is the one that would win and all of his past has been exposed.
The right wing media doesn't want Kerry because we know everything about him.
If they get Dean they will be able to destroy Bush and give him 4 more years of destruction.

Kerry? You'd have better luck supporting a garden slug.

and requests for help, communications with people who aren't running for president and most likely don't want letters they wrote n confidence discussed on the evening news. Exactly what is wrong with protecting the privacy of Vermont's citizens? Each and every political process in Vermont is open to the public. Vermonters are also very informed about what their politicians are up to. It keeps them honest. There is nothing in those records that Dean has done that is not already available through public news sources in Vermont, other than those private communications that might have led Dean to do the things he did. As far as I'm concerned, I don't think the country needs to read a bunch of personal letters from private citizens about their concerns and struggles. But maybe that's just me.

This is from the article...

"We didn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor."

Dean said that. He isn't talking about protecting citizens. He is talking about protecting himself. From what?

Damn if it doesn't open the records, or damn him if he does, just as long as you damn him. Correct?

I have been hearing from Dean supporters about the righteous, honest Dean. Dean supporters don't seem to like to be questioned, but they scream up and down about everyone else.

I don't encourage them. I also don't encourage non-Dean supporters to use that bad behaviour as an excuse to irrationally, and closed-mindedly, smear Dean. Or any other candidate for that matter.

Honest questions are only valid if you are willing to concede the points made in honest answers.

And they have the same rights as human beings under the law. Except they never die or have to go to jail. Power companies, especially, have shown themselves to work for the public weal, until they were deregulated in the 90s, that is.

If business issues bother you so much, why do you support Kerry? I'd strongly suggest that you do some research on your own candidate's affiliations with business before casting any stones.

Like I said before...everything Dean has done, including any policies regarding business or power companies are a matter of public record that are readily available to anyone who chooses to look them up. All actions that man has taken is public knowledge and has been covered in the local press at great length. Conversations that may or may not have contributed to Dean's decision making process is irrelevant when the end result is already known. Dean's decisions has led to my state being in pretty good shape. I honestly don't care who he talked to or what was said. I just like that he did a damn good job and knows how to make the hard choices that made my state a great place to live. If he had done things badly we wouldn't have re-elected him 5 times.

he needs to share that record with the public," Rocknation says. "The American people should not just have to take his word for it."

Unless, of course, the papers are too "sensitve" and would violate "national security."


rocknation

But if it's bad you can be damn sure Bush & Pals will get it.

They may already and are just waiting for him to get the nomination to use it and get a Bush win.

Maybe that's why Rove campaigns for him.