While the mainstream media is now finally addresssing the issue of Howard Dean’s sealed gubernatorial records, I was on the issue two months ago.
From today’s WaPo:
Howard Dean, facing criticism for going to unusual lengths to seal records of his governorship of Vermont, said Tuesday that he is unlikely to make a quick decision about whether to seek to open them before next year’s election.
“We’re talking about trying to be accommodating,” the Democratic presidential candidate told reporters. “We have no commitment to do anything other than what we’ve done right now.”
Dean negotiated a 10-year seal on many of the official papers from his 12-year governorship when he left office in January 2002. The seal lasts four years longer than that imposed by previous governors…
After Newsweek reported the seal this week, Dean said Monday on ABC’s “Good Morning America” that President Bush had done much the same thing by depositing the records of his Texas governorship in his father’s presidential library.
“I’ll unseal mine if he’ll unseal all of his,” Dean said.
All 2,100 boxes of Bush’s statehouse records were moved from the presidential library to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission in July 2002, according to a state archivist. Two months earlier, a Texas attorney general’s opinion had established that they were subject to the state’s open-records law.
Gillespie said records of Bush’s governorship “are available to the public . . . with limited exceptions.”
“I’m sure that when Dr. Dean learns that President Bush’s public papers as governor are now unsealed, he will be good to his word and unseal the papers of his governorship as well,” Gillespie said.
My comment back then is just as legitimate today:
I am not sure how to judge a candidate who wants to run on his record but is afraid to show it to the public. For the record, Bush did the same thing when he left office to run for 2000, was sued, and the records were released.
Why should Dean get a pass for things when George Bush would get hammered for it? Also, while Dean is currently surging- this is the Democratic primary season, a time when reality is suspended along with critical thinking skills, the historical record, and the laws of gravity- but will he one day be forced to respond to his more reckless statements? Statements such as this:
“The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far – which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved – is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis,” Dean told a caller to Washington, D.C’s Diane Rehm Show, according to a transcript obtained by Opinion Journal.com.
“Now, who knows what the real situation is?” the presidential conspiracy theorist cautioned. He then added, “But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not.”
Dean warned that the more theories like his “get repeated,” the more people tend to believe them. “So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the key information that should go to the Kean commission” investigating the 9/11 attacks.
He may have couched his rhetoric in such a way so as to seem to not advocate this position, but merely by repeating it he is giving the theory credence. He knows what he is doing- throw something at the wall and see what sticks. I guess it is rather telling, though, that this is the sort of pandering Democrats have to do to get their party’s nomination. Kinda makes Republican ties to big business look downright admirable by comparison.
When Dean is straightforward and does not lapse inton full-on arrogant prick mode, he is pretty likeable. I have stated before that I think his draft issue is a non-issue, and I think the NY Times piece about it was a simple hit piece. I thought that this exchange on Hardball was downright refreshing:
MATTHEWS: Do you think, if you hadn
mark
Let us not forget Dean’s comments on how the Soviet Union is still helping Iran.
Didn’t Reagan take care of them years ago?
James W
From the WaPo article:
“All 2,100 boxes of Bush’s statehouse records were moved from the presidential library to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission in July 2002, according to a state archivist. Two months earlier, a Texas attorney general’s opinion had established that they were subject to the state’s open-records law.”
Per the quote above, recall that Bush’s records remained in his father’s library until *well after* he was elected President. If the argument is that the public requires open disclosure to make an informed decision about a given candidate’s gubernatorial record in order to determine fitness for Office of the President, one cannot claim that Bush met that standard.
(And clearly, that is your argument, John: “My comment back then is just as legitimate today:
I am not sure how to judge a candidate who wants to run on his record but is afraid to show it to the public. For the record, Bush did the same thing when he left office to run for 2000, was sued, and the records were released.”
One of us has the timing wrong here…)
Furthermore, Bush did not release the records out of a sense of civic duty, but rather because the Texas Attorney General’s office compelled him to do so.
Applying Bush’s standard, one can only claim that Dean should release his VT records in 2006, (provided he actually wins the election, but a moot point either way) and even then only if compelled by the Attorney General, no?
HH
Dean’s comments aren’t too far away from McKinney’s…
John Cole
James W.- I would have no problem with Dean having his files locked until then. I think your point is undermined by the fact that the left was demanding the files be unsealed DURING Bush’s campaign.
I understand why they were sealed in the first place- but then again- I understand legitimate claims for executive privilege, whether they are made by Clinton or Bush.
In this case, the Dean campaign is trying to provide Dean with benefits they most assuredly would not afford (and tried not to stop) Bush from having in 2000.
James W
Further:
“Dean warned that the more theories like his “get repeated,” the more people tend to believe them. “So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the key information that should go to the Kean commission” investigating the 9/11 attacks.”
To which you responded:
“…He knows what he is doing- throw something at the wall and see what sticks. I guess it is rather telling, though, that this is the sort of pandering Democrats have to do to get their party’s nomination. Kinda makes Republican ties to big business look downright admirable by comparison.”
Surely you’re kidding!
A self-proclaimed fiscal conservative finds something “admirable” in (R) ties to big business that lead to unprecedented pork-barrel spending? You find the Farm Bill admirable? Energy Bill? Medicare? (Rhetorical questions, I know you do not…)
All Dean was saying is that the President’s well-documented lack of cooperation with the 9-11 Commission has provided fodder to the conspiracy theorists, and he’s absolutely right. Is he playing it a bit? Sure.
But somehow you find that worse than grevious fiscal policy.
Huh…
James W
Correct spelling is “grievous”.
John Cole
The ‘well-documented’ lack of cooperation involved a limited number of documents that the President did not want disclosed. IN fact, they were merely the CIA’s daily briefings to the president, which are none of the committee’sbusiness, and certainly did not contain any evidence that ‘Bush’s Saudi pals warned him ahead of time about 9/11.’
The President has agreed to let members of the commission read the briefings, but not to turn the documents over. There is your well-documented lack of cooperation.
Dean was just thrwoing red meat to the loons in his left, and he knew it. You know it as well. Dean should be asked- ‘DO You think the President had any knowledge of the 9/11 attacks prior to them occurring?” If his answer is anything but “NO,” he should be laughed (booed) off stage.
There is no acceptable answer other than “No,” and that includes “No, but I can understand why some may.” That is just bullshit politics, and you know it.
James W
(Yes, I know it. Not wishing to nitpick and micro-debate…)
All points above granted.
Fueling unfounded speculation is still worse than passing very bad legislation?
Whither conservative principles?
(Let’s talk about pandering, while we’re on the topic. Tariffs? The above mentioned crap legislation? And what’s on the front pages today but *another* effort by Bush to “streamline” environmental rules re: mercury, an awful pollutant. Pick a constituency, and Bush has pandered. But I digress…)
I’m just trying to get a sense of how far Bush would have to go before apparently sane conservatives would disown him.
From the looks of things, he’s nowhere near that point, and that’s truly puzzling.
Andrew Lazarus
Talking about the “Soviet Union” helping Iran’s nuclear program is a silly thing to complain about, when its largest successor state IS helping Iran.
I don’t think Bush supporters are in a good position to play verbal gotcha.
Kimmitt
Yeah, that was pretty obviously a speaking error; his meaning was clear.
That said, let’s keep in mind what this brouhaha is about — normally, a portion of the Vermont governor’s records are sealed for six years after the end of his term in office. Gov. Dean ordered that the records in question be sealed for ten, instead. Since the dual purposes of the seals is to protect the privacy of some people who wrote letters to the governor (by making them essentially moot through the passage of time) and to allow the governor to continue his political career without baggage pulled out of context from private correspondence and advice offered in confidence, Dean’s decision is well within the spirit of the law.
Again, no records which are not normally sealed were sealed. The records which are sealed as standard practice were sealed for ten years instead of six. This is because the Governor is something of an optimist regarding his political career, nothing more.
This has very little to do with declining to provide information to a bipartisan commission seeking to understand intelligence successes and failures leading up to 9/11.
Andrew Lazarus
It turns out that Bush’s records aren’t so open:
HH
Dean wanted the records sealed for a quarter century…
Andrew Lazarus
What was the proportion sealed by Dean? For “W” it looks like 100%.
Gabriel Gonzalez
From: anybodybutbush.info/
Dean: Bush May Have Been Tipped to 9/11 Attacks
Dean on The Dana Rehm Show
Tuesday Dec. 2, 2003
Dean said on Monday that President Bush is withholding documents related to 9/11 because they may show he knew what was coming.
“The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far – which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved – is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis,” Dean told a caller to Washington, D.C’s Diane Rehm Show, according to a transcript obtained by Opinion Journal.com.
“Now, who knows what the real situation is?” the presidential conspiracy theorist cautioned. He then added, “But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not.”