Dean sealed less VT records than thought previously. Less than others.

http://www.projo.com/ap/ne/1084559028.htm

SNIP...""It's pretty simple," said Griffin. "They were transferring boxes from the fifth floor and they all got on the same truck and ended up at the same place."

The fifth floor of the Pavilion Office Building houses both the governor's office and the offices of the secretary of administration and commissioner of finance and management.

The revised count shows that Dean sealed 93 of the 283 boxes he gave the state when he left office, which means he sealed 32 percent of his papers, a figure that is significantly below the figures of his two predecessors. Madeleine Kunin sealed 46 percent of her papers for six years while 40 percent of Richard Snelling's papers were sealed for seven and a half years......" END SNIP

And that is only 2 and a half years less than Snelling sealed his for.

so he's slightly less opposed to open, transparent government than previously thought. That's good, I guess.

Just for curiosity. W brags his are open, but actually only at the discretion of the attorney general and Governor Goodhair.

I don't care really, but it was an interesting observation....fair is fair and all that.

that NO public official should be able to seal his records without very good reason.

I have been very consistent on that point - I apply it to Dean as well as every other elected official. He should not have sealed his records. Neither should Bush.

That would be the problem.

that privacy concerns are legitimate. Names and identifying information should be redacted.

Security issues are also valid.

I would hope a judicial panel would be able to make those decisions.

for access to all the letters people wrote to Kerry and Edwards not to mention all the memos they wrote to their staffs. Those are pretty much what Dean sealed (especially given the revised numbers).

then doesn't it follow that Dean should make his available, too?

Much of what was sealed was NOT constituent correspondance. Furthermore, it wouldn't be hard to redact identifying information on that correspondance.

As far as I know, neither Kerry nor Dean have taken any special steps to seal their records. Dean did.

the Constitution did it for them. Incidently, Dean didn't either, the Supreme Court did. But I will post this again. I want a stright answer to this.

In the following letter, please tell me what would and wouldn't be redacted?

Dear Gov. Dean,

Thank you for signing the civil unions bill. Ever since I realized I was gay while attending Knox College, I never thougt I could get married. My partner never thought he could either. Now, thanks to you, we can. I really want to move to Vermont with him and start a life together.

My partner and I both are teachers in Mississippi. He teaches English and I teach math. We are looking foward to moving to Vermont after our two years of teaching here are over. We want to be treated like the adults we are and sanctify our relationship. We figure we are a good fit for Vermont. Don likes to play hockey and I have always been an avid skier. Please enclose an application and the requiremnts for a teaching certificate in Vermont. We can't wait to start our new life together.

Sincerely,

John Doe
Main St.
Anytown MS xxxxx

Clearly the name would go, but pretty much nothing else. Yet anyone who was in a class with these people, or were related to them, might well know who wrote the letter even without the letter.

Dean's office?

what part of the constitution are you talking about? I'm unaware of any provisions that seal records for Senators.

Further, are you saying that Dean had no role in sealing his records? The State Supreme Court did it all, and Dean was powerless? That is false. Dean can still release all his records tomorrow.

Finally, and most important - why does it matter what others have done? Either you think it's right for politicians to have open records, or you do not. If it's right, then shouldn't we support it for ALL officials, not just those we dislike?

As to the letter you posted, it's a strawman. The issue is NOT constitutent correspondance - only people ardently defending Dean claim that it is. In the specific case you give, a lot of info would be redaced. Names, college attended, perhaps even their home state. But this is a distraction from the real issue - Should politicians be able to seal the records of their public service?

enforcement of provisions about Congressional records. FOIA doesn't apply to Congress due to the Seperation of Powers. And it is you, not I, who is being a hypocrite. You claim that Dean is wrong for sealing the records yet you accept that fact that your candidate didn't release his either. And Dean can't release the records as they are no longer his. They are Vermont's. Hence they are in the Vermont repository and not Dean's garage.

I have been consistent, for over 20 years, that public servants work for us, not the other way around. The records of their public activities should not be hidden.

That is true for George W. Bush, John Kerry AND Howard Dean.

I don't know what hypocrisy you see, but it's not from anything I wrote. Find me a post where I ever said it was OK for somebody to keep hidden records.

As you know, Dean's records are sealed under a Memorandum of Agreement between him and the state. He can ask for them to be released tomorrow.

And yet again, I repeat: Why does it matter what other people do or have done? It's either right or wrong, regardless of what anybody else does.

I sure haven't seen it. And Dean hasn't filed one motion, nor has he had a lawyer in this matter for several months (at least since Oct 2003). All of the motions filed have been by Vermont's AG who is defending not Dean's right but ALL VERMONT GOVERNORS' rights to have these records sealed.

which I understand provides some protection, AND he has not done a single thing to actively block the release of his records, as Dean has done.

But for the millionth time, it doesn't MATTER what other people do. Dean has sealed his records. He shouldn't have. That's all.

It is more important for ex politicians to release their records than for current ones. That is surely a novel theory.

I merely said that it was my understanding that active officeholders are given greater leeway than ex-officeholders. I could be wrong. That's my remembrance from previous discussions.

All that being said, if you want to start a thread saying Kerry or Edwards or Bush should release their records, I will be in there saying I agree.

But this thread is about Dean making an extraordinary effort to seal his records. If you know of any steps Kerry has taken to seal his own, I will condemn them, too.

bitter bitter bitter

About what?

You can check all my posts and you'll see that I, as an old Common Causer, believe in open, transparent government. That applies to all officials of all parties. It's a pretty simple position - in fact most Democrats subscribed to it. Now the Dean people believe their "straight-talker" should act like George W. Bush on this issue.

I fully, fully believe Dean had his "Reagan in 1976" moment during this campaign. A variety of things denied him the nomination, but four or eight years from now he's going to be hard to beat.

For the easily angered: I mean no disrespect by making a Dean-Reagan comparison. Reagan had his coming-out party in 1976 and wowed the pants off the party. By 1980...

I think that his "owning" of the scream, picking up the pieces, and continuing with his goal impressed people.

He never ran from it. It was a pure form of doublethink: The media said it was BAD (over and over and over and over) and he took posession of it, making it GOOD, but because the media said it was BAD, that meant he was BAD, and then it was goodbye charlie.

For future reference, though, I hope Dean took that whole event to heart. People criticize Kerry for being too cautious a politician, but I think Kerry knows something Dean learned the hard way: Cautious is the only way to proceed in this fucked up environment. Be bold after you win.

As for Howard...well...he has four years to get juggernaut. I see it coming a mile away.

You mean 8 years to hit the juggernaut status, right?

Because of course, Kerry will win this election, then get re-elected...

in matters such as this. :)

For '76 to be Dean's "Reagan in 1976" moment he would have had to have come a lot closer to getting the nomination.

or is it so different today that they guy who comes in second today isn't really all that popular, and you have look farther down for the popular candiates?

Reagan almost won the nomination in '76. He already had a national profile. He was from a huge state. He was on the way up.

Dean has grass roots support from a group of Democrats which I don't think will be able to lift him up on their shoulders and carry him to a nomination.

Just my opinion. Could be wrong. But Reagan was a slow train that was coming from '64 and rose on the shoulders of a demographic and political shift that was so clearly coming in a big way.

Maybe I'm the opposite of a visionary and I'm too stupid to see the wave Dean is riding.

IF Dean had held his lead in Iowa, the momentum would have swept the country. I have NO DOUBT about that. Dean had everything ready, and everything hinged on Iowa.

But people were looking for a winner. Dean was muscled down from 1st in Iowa to third, and it never opened back up from that point.

But it was "this close" :)

that he hated Bush when there were many Americans who really hated Bush.

I'm not sure you can found a political movement on that sort of thing.

Reagan's popularity came out of a shift in demographics and he had a message (essentially, that the New Deal was a kind of fascism) that RWers wanted and needed.

I don't see that Dean is tapping into any geopraphic and political shifts.

Maybe I'm wrong.

I also don't see that he came all that close. I think the media gave him a lot of non-critical attention all summer, to which many people responded. But when people started learning about all the candidates, and thinking hard about their messages, the trend lines all went in the expected directions.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html

But I see it, and so do many others.

Amongst those who supported Dean, we would probably say that you just don't "get it." Some people get it, some don't.

Nothing wrong with that, but try to understand that there may be a political reality outside of your perspective.

Apart from that, your idea that the trends "went as expected" doesn't really say anything. Things certainly didn't go as I expected.

Also, I reject the idea that the results were based on the research of well informed voters.

Once Dean lead, he stayed in front until his front runner aura was diminished after losing Iowa. His platform did not change. He didn't lose support because people finally figured out what Dean had been saying for months.

Kerry took the lead not because he had a better platform, but because he convinced people he was "electable." It had NOTHING to do with message, unless you call "I can win" a message. Exit polls showed that everywhere.

Voters liked Dean's platform the best, but voted for Kerry anyway. Go fig.

The exit polls from the primaries agreed - the only thing that matters this year is getting rid of Bush, so let's not pretend that Kerry spoke to the hearts and minds of the voters. He spoke to their fear of four more years of Bush, promissing us to get rid of the joke in the Oval office, and it worked.

Let's hope he can deliver on that promiss, and remember what people wanted from a candidate after he sent Bush packing.

a candidates appeal shouldn't be a mystery for a select few to understand.

I "got" Edwards from the beginning, and I'd rather be known as the person who bought low and sold high with Edwards, than the person who bought high and went bankrupt with Dean.

But what Pitt brought up in this thread here isn't so much what has happened in the last year or so, but what will happen in 2008 and 2012. Time will tell if Dean is the next Ron Reagan. I'm puttting my money on no. But I'm not going to put a lot of money down. I'll also say I haven't seen a good argument yet that he will. Pitt saying that the primaries were much different then doesn't convince me.

I also don't see things the way you see them.

I think people didn't understand Dean's platform other than he was willing to be really critical of Bush. I think Dean got a lot of publicity for being the Anti-Bush anti-war candidate, which wasn't even accurate (he was for all wars except in Iraq). I also think Dean had some problems resolving some things he said he was in the primaries with things he did as governor.

He said he was against corporate welfare, but when it was pointed out what he did for IBM in VT, he could only say he regreted it. He said he was against NAFTA, whe it was pointed out what he did as governor, he could only say it was right for VT. He said he was on the side of black U of M students, it was pointed out what he said about affirmative action as governor, and he really didn't have a defense for that.

So, I'm not sure about Dean's platform being so popular.

Also, I really really think that Stanford states the truth about the relative merits of the candidates.

"I think people didn't understand Dean's platform other than he was willing to be really critical of Bush. I think Dean got a lot of publicity for being the Anti-Bush anti-war candidate, which wasn't even accurate (he was for all wars except in Iraq). I also think Dean had some problems resolving some things he said he was in the primaries with things he did as governor."



He didn't have problems, he said many times that what you do as Governor is different from what you do as President. One is for the
state you govern and second involves all the states together.

I guess that's why you don't get Dean. Not because you don't get him, but because you don't want to get him. You'd rather just HATE him.

I get this same type of reaction whenever I talk to Bushies folks and I mention Kerry,

d

have policies and histories that directly violate their campaign positions?

So that means you can't condemn Kerry for anything he's done in the Senate, because he was just representing Massachussetts, NOT the country. Maybe the Iraq war was good for Massachussetts.

Affirmative Action is good for the country, but bad for Vermont?

Come on... this is as bad as any xtian apologetics I've seen.

just like it is for Kerry to be different now then when he was in the Senate. Each political position has different things to worry about. And just because YOU think it is drastically different and write it down in a forum don't mean what you think is a fact. No more than what I think proves you wrong.

What's the matter? Haven't you figured this out yet?

The difference between us is that you don't NEVER want to consider the possibility that you are wrong.

You don't care about right as much as you care about being right. That's why Kerry is pretty equal to Bush right now in most polls. I suspect kerry will do what he has done before and WOW the public just before the election and win. Atleast, I hope so anyway,


d

if Kerry ever said "The war was bad for America but right for Massachussetts, and that's why I voted for the resolution."

but it doesn't mean anything because no matter how you spin it he is a Senator from Massachussetts voting on legislation that affects all Americans. He represents the views of his constituency and not the views of all Americans. But the combination of all Senators represents all Americans or so you would hope by the outcome of all legislation that comes out of Washington.

I wish I could believe it did, but I don't.

To say that his vote as an individual senator from an individual state represents all Americans is just as bad as saying that the states that have the DP represent America and the anti-DP states don't represent Americans at all.

And here I thought you would have gotten that by now. Sigh...

d

what I don't get is the argument that fundamental policy issues would change from the state level to the federal level.

Why would Affirmative Action be bad for Vermont, but good for the US?

in the same ways.

It's good for corporate profits, no matter what state you live in, and it's bad for American jobs no matter what state you live in.

And I'm just trying to explain why.

You have any better explanations?

because he only had two issues. He hates Bush and he was "against" the war in Iraq. (And I use "against" loosely because he waffled on that).

His platform was a joke. He couldn't articulate his plans or his issues either in stump speeches or in the debates. He wasn't personable on camera. That weird smirk of his rivals chimpy's.

I "got" Dean right away and he rubbed me the wrong way. He was arrogant. His supporters were (and still are) arrogant. He walked around like he had the election all wrapped up in November of 2003!

And Dean never lost support- he just didn't have it to begin with. Polls are shit, we all know that. He blew his entire wad on two states that should have been a walk if he really had the support that the polls claimed. Kerry's campaign hasn't wavered- slow and steady wins the race. Kerry is the proverbial tortoise and Dean the hare.

And then people are all up in arms because Kerry isn't "left" enough for them. Fuck. Dean is more conservative than Kerry! The only person that Dean wasn't more conservative than was Joe Lieberman.

Why can't we let Dean and his stupid records die the political death they deserve. The man was a flash in the pan- thank fucking god.

Most of us don't do that to Kerry or any other candidate or ex-candidate. I would not say anything ugly about Kerry right now as there is just too doggone much at stake.

But I respect your right to come to my perfectly nice post about Dean, where I did not say anything bad.....and say things about Dean.

It is good to live in America.

Peace.

cause man, it failed.

When every single Kerry Support thread I posted in 2003 was filled with swill from Dean supporters, they now have NO fucking room to talk. When I was accosted on the street by a Dean supporter for wearing a Kerry button? No fucking room to talk. When I was pm'd by DUers calling me stupid for supporting Kerry? No fucking room to talk.

I have vitriolic dislike of Dean and many, many of his supporters. And I am not afraid to say that I did a happy dance when Dean got his ass handed to him in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Luckily, I can say what I want about Dean because we are riding on his weak platform to try to take back the white house. And last I checked, people are still doing the same thing to Kerry, regardless of the fact that we are riding on his platform to the white house.

Only a few do that. Most seem to question, but not criticize Kerry.

I missed this previously, but it is quite good and quite thorough. It goes into the efforts to make Bush's records hard to access still, and points out that this is more common than not.

http://www.mikehersh.com/Dean_s_Secret_Records.shtml