Archives for 2003

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

Why You Should Read Balloon JuicePost + Comments (15)

I’m with the Calpundit. This maneuver by the Dean campaign is clever, and I do wonder if this is the first time it has been done (at least this openly).

For those of you who can not reach the website, I will post Dave Cullen’s remarks below.

show full post on front page

I AgreePost + Comments (5)

If the Democrats in your life seem exceptionally surly this morning, cut them some slack. Life hasn’t been too easy for them. First, there is this news:

President Bush’s standing with the public has improved since his surprise Thanksgiving trip to Iraq amid signs of a stronger economy and following congressional passage of a prescription drug benefit under Medicare.

Bush’s job approval was at 61 percent in the National Annenberg Election Survey conducted the four days after the holiday, up from 56 percent during the four days before Thanksgiving. Disapproval of the president dropped from 41 percent to 36 percent, according to the poll released Tuesday.

If that were not bad enough, then they get hit with this nugget:

Ralph Nader has not yet decided whether to make another run for the White House, but he’s authorized a new exploratory committee to raise money for a potential bid.

The Nader 2004 Presidential Exploratory Committee was formed in late October as part of the consumer activist’s effort to gauge support for a run, said Theresa Amato, a committee director.

“He is using it to test the waters,” said Amato, who served as Nader’s national campaign manager when he ran for president on the Green Party ticket in 2000. She said the organization is part of Nader’s overall strategy of “talking to people, calling people, seeing what level of support there is.”

Cut ’em some slack, ok?

Good News for BushPost + Comments (6)