Dean Slams The Door On His Records

(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.

"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."

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

But I'm sure no Dean supporters were hypocritical enough to criticize Bush when Bush did exactly the same thing as Dean.

I suppose that's one way of looking at this...

But you should also ask if hispanicvista (or any of the others following uncle Karl's lead) were silent during the 2000 campaign about Bush sealing his gubernatorial records.

Either way is hypocritical... just as only looking at it from one side is.

sort of --
bush is a lieing, mass murdering freak
and howard dean? a liberal from vermont -- with nary a pope in sight asking him to spare the life of one female inmate.
hmmm -- funny i just don't feel hypocritical.

QUOTE:....."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.

"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......."

I am sorry, but this is getting ridiculous.

This is so obviously Republican motivated. Hey, let's take a book from their page and get really secretive. Hey Jeb! Hey W!

Most people wouldn't notice (except for the gender change) that there are three paragraphs between the second to last and last paragraph you quote, including:

""The vast majority of his records have been made public, including all official correspondence, proclamations, declarations, pardons, extraditions and appointments," Enright said.

Vermont governors typically ask that a portion of their records remain private for several years after they leave office. In Dean's case, the time — a decade — is longer than other former governors. Former Govs. Richard Snelling, a Republican, and Madeleine Kunin, a Democrat, set six years before all their papers were opened to public scrutiny."

Not quite the same as moving all of your papers to your dad's Presidential Library.

Given how bluntspoken Dean can be, I'm not too surprised at this -- even if you're right, you don't necessarily want Fox News making a collection of all the times you scrawled "This lobbyist is an idiot" in the margin of some document...

"Bluntspoken" just won't cover every instance of boneheadedness. Certainly not this one. And be honest, if any other candidate had done something similar Dean supporters would be all over him.

I don't know that the records themselves are much of an issue, but hyper-Deanies, attempting to turn every obvious miscue into another example of your guy's higher nobility makes you look silly, and doesn't do your candidate good.

This is so insulting. I am now on my way to donate to Dean. He must be doing something very very right!

Deanyboppers and hyperDeanies? Is one less offensive than the other?

I am a retired teacher, well-educated, well-read. I resent either title. The first implies a teen-type dummy sort, the second implies irrationality.

Please clarify.

I'm sure DrFunkenstein was just as critical when the lying little deserter squatting in our White House did even worse by hiding all of his gubernatorial papers in daddies library.

Weren't you DrF?

Secrecy should be one of the prime targets against the Bush administration. Never has an American government demanded so much scrutiny of its citizens, and so little for itself.

I'm not saying Dean is "as bad" as Bush, but he has compromised himself on a principle front.

Public accountability is one of the true hallmarks of the progressive movement. On this count, I am truly a progressive.

or present - anyone know? How about Bill Clinton? He certainly had a very "vibrant" life.

to the repubs and other detractors.

Dean '04...

Nixon did a lot of political posturing before he came in and then let his gullible followers down. Unfortunately Nixon replaced an excellent civil rights President. Nixon was an anti-war candidate like Dean - though Nixon was a lot more liberal and more consistent than Dean.

that doesn't exploit the military for political gain.

earlier this year?

Please. They all want to look like they have an affinity with the military.

i remember this, and it was not a very good appearance.

right?

I am certain that others did as well. I think it was in February, definitely before the war started.

Have you ever read even one on the 1970"s? Nixon was not an anti war candidate and to say he was is so beyond absurd as to be just bizarre. He claimed to have a secret plan to end the war but he was clear that it would be "Peace with Honor". You never cease to amaze with your utter lack of facts.

Dick Cheney refused to open his books and we gave him a rough time and now Dean is pulling a Dick Cheney. The only good thing about having a creep like Bush in office is that we watch out for things like this. But its just as bad when a Democrat does it. So far, Dean seems to be the only really dishonest candidate among the pack - so hopefully we'll all be safe come next election. But I don't want some untrustworthy right-winger in office that some of the Democrats are willing to believe. Dean supporters sound just like Daschle when he wanted to believe Bush and mistakenly supported some of Bush's more extreme policies.

in regard to Nixon having been a peace candidate.

I believe Madeline Kunin had hers sealed for 6 after she left. The only thing that raised eyebrows was that Dean wanted to seal his longer than previous governors. But that is to be expected...most outgoing governors of Vermont have not gone on to seek higher office. Dean is not hiding anything that other candidates are disclosing. None of the senators is being asked to make all of their records and correspondences from their years in Congress public.

Why won't he be honest with us?

And I felt the same way when Bush did it.

ANY public servant, hired (elected) and paid by the people should have open records of their PUBLIC SERVICE unless it contains highly sensitive information regarding state/national security. Period.

It's total bullshit, and I don't know how anyone can defend this action with a straight face. I really don't.

I am just asking, since it is so unacceptable not to open them at once. Are there some who did it right away?

From MY prospective, it is unacceptable for governors to do this. Whether some do or not, whether they all do or not, to me it is unacceptable and inappropriate.

I'm not implying that Dean in particular is a despicable so and so...though, the fact that he wanted to seal them for longer than "what's normal" doesn't particularly endear him to me either. If I were voting for him, this wouldn't stop me, and I don't know how big of a deal it is in itself.

I'm just saying--

THEY work for US. And it bothers me when they get coy and ridiculous. That's all.

I was hoping someone could tell me, as this keeps popping up here periodically.

Would be nice if someone could research this, someone with a proper database.

I tried on google and couple of others I have, and I can't get the terms right to find anything.

Found that in this article about Bush trying to stop release of Reagan's records:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A20731-2001Oct31¬Found=true

And the two governors before him (Snelling and the one named in the article) sealed records for 6.

Or was that the GOP that forced his records open?

"Sealing records is not new for former Governor's running for President. Former President Bill Clinton and current President George Bush also kept their records as governor out of the public eye."

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=1386060&nav=4QcSHFRw

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

"The vast majority of his records have been made public, including all official correspondence, proclamations, declarations, pardons, extraditions and appointments," Enright said."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94621,00.html

IMO Dean's records probably do not hide any nefarious deeds, but he has taken advantage of a privilage that most outgoing executives utillize. Let the GOP lead this witchunt - not us. What it will boil down to is embarrasment for Bush when Howie says, "OK George, I'll show you mine if you show me yours." GOP tapdancing will ensue.

Shouldn't they then have to disclose all Congressional correspondence and stuff the way governors do? Why should they be held to a different standard?

I've never heard of a congressman or senator having their records sealed. Have you?

Hell, MEETINGS should be open. The whole damn process of governance should go on under public spotlights.

why is it being trooted out and rehashed....again?

I'm more upset about the response from the Dean campaign...it should simply have said..."we'll show ours when Bush shows his...."

otherwise...go shoot your own candidates campaign in the foot thank you....

from Kerry's tap dancing on the Iraq War vote.

I think we ought to discuss John Kerry's first marriage...

But no Dean supporters were willing to go there. Safer to lean on the IWR crutch than admit a lightweight policy.

Morgan Fairchild made a nice couple.

Are his divorce records sealed?

Publicly, Kerry was firing on all cylinders during the campaign, but it masked the turmoil of his private life. His marriage, troubled for some time, was in shambles. He and Julia had quietly separated in the summer of 1982. Julia maintained appearances, though, posing for photographs with Michael and Kitty Dukakis after John won the primary. She also attended the inauguration the following January.

But the marriage was beyond repair. "Politics became my husband's life," Julia wrote in "A Change of Heart," her 1996 book about divorce. "I tried to be happy for him, but after 14 years as a political wife I associated politics with anger, fear, and loneliness."

In an interview, she declined to elaborate on this period, except to say: "The dissolution of the marriage was my doing, not John's. I wanted something else."

As he tried to make a mark, Kerry maintained a breakneck pace, squeezing in fatherly time with his two daughters, Alexandra and Vanessa, who were living with Julia.

Kerry says his own experience, with long absences from his family while at boarding schools, helped him become "a better father . . . and make sure I was there" for his daughters. But he acknowledges the "juggling act" of public life took its toll.

Family time had to be shoehorned into his hectic schedule. For some events, Kerry's staff attended to details, including instructions in his daily schedule, such as this entry for Dec. 11, 1983, a Sunday.

"!!!HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!" (Kerry turned 40 that day.)

"2:30 p.m. Arrive Cabot Theater (in Beverly). Go to the box office and pick up the tickets (6). Note: There are no reserved seats. It's first come first serve -- This show is sold out.

"3 p.m. The Magic Show begins. After the show, you and the kids are to meet your mother at Friendly's Restaurant for a snack."

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061903.shtml

Interesting. Same theory that the GOP had when it attacked Clinton. The personal IS the people's business.

Your guy ain't gonna make it.

He's a loser who voted with the rethugs. Twice.

Too bad.

But I do like how he dances!

And then you'll have to get yourself a new masturbation ritual.

It's very sad to see a post at this level

But, nice to see you think it is appropriate that Kerry be called a loser and a Bushlite and Bush suckup and many other "appropriate" barbs.

Board nannies are needed for real harm to the Democratic party. Please help.

Look at the original post. Imo, if this FB wasn't started in the first place, you wouldn't get the equally unfair accusations tossed at your guy. Fair enough?

Both of which would have allowed Bush his war because Bush doesn't GIVE A SHIT what resolutions say.

We'll never know the effects of Biden-Lugar since it's a fantasy document for all intents and purposes. It was never voted on, so it doesn't exist (Much in the same way that bills like "January 7th Shall Henceforth Be Known As 'Bob Dornan: Great American Day'" never get passed.)

Biden-Lugar is a strawman. Kerry supported it, was undercut by Geppy. Dean supported it in principle. The bill only existed as an idea...it never came to a vote. It's foolish to wonder what the world would be like if Biden-Lugar were in effect instead of the IWR.

Keep your eye on the facts. The IWR, unfortunately, is real. Biden-Lugar, unfortunately, is a document that, for all intents and purposes, never existed. Stop throwing phantoms into the debate.

We're dealing with the negative effects of the IWR, not B-L. Comprende?

Trying to establish his "centrist" credentials.

B-L been initiated. It's rhetorical whimsy to do so. Because Dean supported B-L in principal, as did Kerry, has nothing to do with the IWR that was passed instead. I'm sure there were other bills out there that were much stricter than B-L being floated, as well. Should we discuss them, too? I repeat: There was no vote on B-L. B-L was never implemented. The IWR had a vote and was implemented. Let's deal with that reality instead of throwing unvoted upon phantoms into the debate.

No fantasy there. And it does show that Dean was FOR a different version of the resolution, and NOT antiwar.

BTW...I never saw you correcting those who would post here that Dean was staunchly antiwar, when you and others knew that he wasn't. Why?
$$$$$$$$$$

B-L passed instead of the IWR. It's all baseless speculation. Maybe Chimp would have still gone to war, maybe the stronger language would have more effectively tied his hands. Either way, we'll never know. So when someone brings up the IWR and you bring up B-L(which you invariably do) we're talking apples and oranges. Can you not understand this? One is real legislation and the other is on the scrapheap. Two different things.



--------------------
Any scratching below the surface, or reading the thousands of linked articles here at DU, would inform one that Dean is not staunchly anti-war. I take it as a given. With regards to Iraq, Dean has been very outspoken against it. When the war was initiated whose voices did we hear questioning its veracity? Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun and the milllions in the streets. Whose voices didn't we hear? Kerry, Geppy, Joey Liebs and Edwards. Those voices were only heards weeks and months later when the political reality hit home. I thought this was all pretty obvious so I didn't post.

Dean was "passing" as an anti-war candidate, because he failed to mention his true position. Either that or he completely waffled from containment to disarmament. Which scenario do you prefer?

Containment and war are, however.





on edit: fuller explanation here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=24842&mesg_id=25329&page=

Oh wait, he raised over a quarter of a million today.

Let's make it $300,000 by midnight

Dean supporters are more mercenary than I thought.

On March 17, 1969, Kerry's superior officer passed along a request from Kerry to be reassigned "as a personal aide in Boston, New York, or Wash., D.C. area." The basis for this request was a rule that allowed any Navy officer with three wounds to seek reassignment "regardless of the nature of the wounds." Kerry had indeed received three wounds, but all were minor (they had caused him to miss only two days of service), and the third was on March 13, 1969, just four days before his transfer request was forwarded. In sum, he got out as soon as he could. The Boston Globe noted that "none of wounds was disabling" and that he got his transfer "six months before his combat tour was slated to end." According to the Globe, "Kerry declined … to sign a waiver authorizing the release of military documents that are covered under the Privacy Act and that might shed more light on the extent of the treatment Kerry needed as a result of the wounds."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2087214/

will immediately call him to task for this. Sure they will.

"Over the course of several weeks in 2002, this candidate repeatedly refused requests by citizens in the candidate's own state, leaders of both major political parties, major news organizations and Project Vote Smart staff to provide voters with essential issue information in the 2002 National Political Awareness Test.

This candidate would not provide this information to citizens in the candidate's own state - no matter who asked them, when they were asked or how they were asked.


The 2004 Presidential NPAT will be sent in 2003 to all candidates who have declared their intentions to run.


Urge Senator John Forbes Kerry to fill out the NPAT"

http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=S0421103

What's up with that? :shrug:

What's your point. Kerry's voting record is there to see. Dean's records are sealed away.

Deans record of signed and unsigned bills are as out there as kerrys voting record.

your are one twisted pup my friend.

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

Kerry got wounded 3 times during his SECOND TOUR. How much enemy fire did Dean take in Aspen?

How many lives did Dean save while practicing medicine?

Is taking enemy fire the standard now? Sheeesh. You may want to take a step back, DF.

Duder was suggesting that Kerry wimped out of finishing his duty because his three wounds weren't debilitating. I was just providing perspective. I apologize to everybody else in the world for my over-the-top bashing.

...that Kerry slammed the door on his records. Which is a topic that you've regurgitated regarding Dean.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=2014

I've heard people mention the Dean records in passing, but this was my first contact with an actual story, let alone a DU thread.

PS - Does it count as "regurgitating" if I have a thread about Kerry's IWR vote? Because I know more than a few culprits on that one. One man's beef is another's dead cow.

I said that you had regurgitated the topic and were avoiding that Kerry slammed the door on his records. While 'sacred cows do make the tastiest hamburger' and people do question Kerry going along with Bush on anything that sounds something like "ack", such as Fast Track, the Patriot Act and Iraq, I was under the impression that your purpose for this thread was candidates records being public domain. While I can understand the not uncommon practice of governors sealing their records, for those that believe in full public disclosure, then Mr. Kerry's records should face the same scrutiny as well.

So Sweetness, should all of Kerry's records be available to the media and general public or not?

What's the point of closing records from public viewing if the candidate has nothing to hide? I mean, I can honestly see why Bush's people sealed records and blacked out key items on his military records to keep us from eye-balling certain truths that come back to haunt him.

Isn't it fair if we challenge all the candidates to come clean with political, business, investment and other records that will help us to determine if they're for the People, or someone else? I believe that it is fair to make this demand. I also believe that it's our patriotic duty to take these matters seriously and under consideration before we vote for a candidate, whether that candidate claims to be progressive, or not.

of your political records help you win?' The answer is and has ALWAYS been No!!!... One controls the info until 24 hours after the polls close. It's called politics.

Dean '04

Another member of the the Montpelier Machiavellians.

Dean '04

And it's about time more Americans got over that "politics is about winning" hangup that had me voting for Ralph Nader last election. I figure, sooner or later people will catch on that not all of us think that way and that we do vote our conscience... As in, we don't sabbotage our own needs just to get a winner from a certain party in office. Then again, we that vote our conscience aren't hung up on partisan loyalty, we're more loyal to our country and the needs of all.

to close the types of records Dean has closed. Path to War provides a perfect example. If the movie is accurate Clark Clifford opposed the VietNam war and argued against it in the early years of the Johnson presidency. When Johnson ignored his council and escalated VietNam things went to pot. Johnson fired McMamara and appointed Clifford to try to negotiate out of the mess. Clifford never could have been appointed had his initial opposition been a matter of public record. Simiarly Powell may not have been able to give Bush candid advice on Iraq (assuming he really was against the invasion). Those are compelling reasons to me.

Part of what's causing so much conflict in our own country is the fact that a lot of us are sick of all that and we're tired of people jumping on a political pro-war bandwagon without questioning and refusing to budge before we get answers. The war in Iraq is a perfect example. A whole bunch of us were making the connection to oil while we had people hiding behind the flag, falsely accusing us of being traitors and Saddam lovers. The thing is, a lot in our circles backed down, scared and feeling heartsick that they were surrounded by a bunch of nationalistic, reactionary and Bushwacked radicals. Many of us have seriously thought about leaving the country for places that aren't so in love with war.

And our country does glorify it. The media glorifies it. Republicans glorify it. Some vets (especially those that haven't endured the really heart-breaking and nightmarish battles) glorify it. For some reason, the mentality of this country is that war is the answer to conflict. Have somebody come along and offer ideas to resolve problems that lead to violence, and people are accusing this person of being an unrealistic, mystic-loving freak. They don't even bother to mull over the fresh ideas. They immediately rush to conclusions.

I know one thing that will change a lot of people's minds on war. First, the truth, added to the death toll of American soldiers and the campaign to publicly display images of what war is really like to the wounded and the dead. It's happening. If you haven't seen it, you will. Count on it.

We're sick of war. And until people start looking for alternatives, we'll have more opportunities to welcome our sons and daughters home in boxes or body bags. Hey, maybe some former ally or long standing enemy will give us a taste of what it's like to really be trapped in a war zone. I hope not, but realistically speaking, what happened to us in Sept. 11th was nothing compared to what happens in a country that's invaded with shock and awe campaigns and soldiers proving that they've got us under control and at their mercy. When is the last time America ever experienced something like that? The Civil War?

Ive seen what you do with quotes of his. I would hate to see what Rove would do with them if he could get his hands on em.

And just WTF are you talking about?

Nothing as usual it seems

We've had Dean supporters - following Dean's lead - claiming Kerry was "misled" on Iraq. That's some pretty interesting cut-and-paste job. If Dean (or his supporters) bothered to read past the first paragraph, they would know that's bull ca-ca. And hypocritical as it turns out.

I provide a lengthy exchange between Dean and Tim Russert, and I'm accused of doctoring (no pun intended) quotes?

All politics in Vermont is open and public. Reporters in Vermont have already said that there's nothing in the sealed records that Vermonters don't already know about. It's just private communications between Dean and other people. The records are sealed to protect the privacy of people who aren't running and who probably wouldn't want their private lives all over the news. Dean's not perfect, but he's not hiding anything he did in those papers. There might be some clues to WHY he has done certain things, but nothing more. I'd honestly be more concerned about what's going to come out about Kerry from Veterans against Vietnam than what's in Dean's sealed records. He turned his back on POWS, helped his cousin make millions, maybe billions at the expense of MIAs. It's going to be a very, very ugly scandal that I don't think he can survive politically.

It was put up here at DU many times by his detractors. The story has no big GOTCHAS. Some people were making alot of money off of excursions to Vietnam to find MIAs. Even the newsmags, like 20/20 exposed those groups for being bogus. Kerry and McCain's investigations in Vietnam came to the same conclusion. There were naturally those who resented that conclusion and accused Kerry of profiting from the normalization of relations with Vietnam. What did they want - for Vietnam to still be treated like an enemy country?

And Nixon put operatives into the VVAW way back when they were trying to bring down Kerry. They tried to incite the group to violence. That's when Kerry left.

He is related to someone still listed as MIA and he loathes Kerry. It's an emotionally charged issue for a lot of people.

Likewise, plenty of people on here have debunked the foolishness about Dean's sealed records. There's nothing there that would hurt Dean, but there is that would violate the privacy of normal citizens who wrote to him to tell their stories. Now that it's been debunked I trust you won't ever mention it again, correct?

Oh, and it was Kerry's cousin who made the most money. And before that, Kerry supported leaving POWs behind in Vietnam instead of bringing them home with the rest of the troops. That was a very bad call and he's going to take some heat for it at some point. It is a firm belief in some anti-war circles that Kerry turned his back on them and is a sell out. As a supporter of his, you're going to have to face up to that and take it seriously rather than acting like it's not going to matter to people. It is. It just seems to me that his positions change with the political wind of the moment. He would do better if he were more stable and solid on things instead of being a slave to polls and popular opinion. Just my humble opinion.

And Kerry has bucked the polls on MANY issues. To say he is a slave to polls is a lie and incredibly obtuse based on his lengthy record of bringing forth UNPOPULAR positions and investigations.

Yes there are those who remain bitter about the MIAs and they blame Kerry because he was asked to be the lawmaker to deal with the issue. He could have said no, like Gore chose to do, but, he didn't. He worked with the Vietnamese government to settle the issue and normalize relations.

The networks already examined the groups that made money off the families of the MIAs. There is plenty of evidence that exists that these groups were merely in it for the money. Soldiers of Fortune, indeed.

Kerry has some prominent family members in his background. Some of them will profit from ANY deal. He didn't make the deals. He didn't make the profit.

kerry and other vietnam vets who want things to improve in vietnam and to improve our relations with vietnam rather than making an enemy out of a nation for right wingers own pleasure backed clinton in improving ties. when right wingers tried to attack clinton on his not serving (he did protest the war which was also honorable) people like john kerry defended clinton's work to improve relations.

and with the Iraq situation. Kerry was one who wanted sanctions lifted on Iraq, so he wanted the US and UN to enforce the disarmament treaty.

Clinton will be down for one of his main "go to" guys when he was president. He'll be tapped to do some legwork for Kerry, too.

i use to think the sanctions was a "humane" way of dealing with nations but when you really look into it, it's not so simple. a lot of people suffered because of it. i 'm glad kerry was onto this earlier. as i say, the war with iraq had been going on for years when you look at the sanctions and the almost daily bombings over the "no fly zone".

They solidified his power by starving the middle classes that would overthrow him. They were too busy thinking about their next meal to plan a coup. Saddam was unaffected because he ciphoned off the oil money anyway. The sanctions helped maintain conditions perfect for autocracy.

A fully disarmed and accountable Iraq could have ended the sanctions even for the most skeptical. Kerry was way ahead of the curve in American poltics on this issue.

But you have to admit that many people haven't and it could hurt him. This is why I think it's a really, really bad idea to try to play up his military experience going on the assumption it makes him more "electable". There are people out there who are dedicated to preventing him from getting the nomination and from getting elected. These people WILL use this against Kerry. It would be very unwise for him to rely heavily on the military issue. It could prove to be political suicide. I don't dislike the guy, but do feel he's made some poor choices that make him look indecisive about where he stands. A good guy, but I don't think he's going to make it.

why do you care if he is using a strategy you think will only fail ? it should make you happy. i support kerry, and i like it and want him to use his military record in campaigning, and compare it to the chimp who has none. that's why people like joe scarborough and tom delay can't stand kerry. they know the truth about the chimp. just like other right wingers. he is really an embarrasment and kerry exposes him for his borrowed uniform and being a passenger on the jet. hahahhahah.

of veterans standing with him and campaigning nonstop around the country to make sure that the truth is heard.

Kerry is no fool. No doubt he has complete access to all the footage from the networks that show those preying on the MIA families as the charlatans they are.

We're glad that you're excited for your candidates announcement. I'm not happy that he has decided to singlehandedly torpedo the party's ability to attack Bush for his carrier stunt, but it's not really surprising coming from Kerry. Smugness seems to come naturally to him.

I'm looking forward to the inspiration that I'm sure he'll offer, I'd bet that he has folks numbering in the 10's that show up at all of his events. Best of luck.

kerry's been doing it in almost every speech. you equate kerry who did serve with bush who went awol from a gaurd unit not even in vietnam or would never even have gone into vietnam ? kerry goes up and says how he doesn't need to borrow a uniform as he is already one of them and not a fraud like the fucking chimp.

The problem arises once Kerry shows up in front of a carrier. Yeah, Kerry may(or more likely may not) get some traction from that ONE appearance, but at the same time he destroys the ability to use Bush's stunt for the rest of the field for the rest of the campaign. Very self-serving, and more than likely he will get crucified by the mainstream press for a Political ploy. The end result will be that GWB's landing will be heroic and Kerry's will be politics.

To great effect. Just show it with no sound, and put up statistics about the economy, healthcare, you name it.

<>

the carrier stunt bush did CAN and IS being used against him by kerry. you seem unable to acknowledge that kerry is a military man which makes his use of military nothing like bush who went awol. which is why kerry almost always mentions this and how bush is a fraud and the whole thing was a fraud. kerry is a military guy who served and was wounded in war, the military is part of him. max cleland will be with kerry during his announcement.

Reason: The press will bash him relentlessly for his political stunt in front of an air-craft carrier. You Kerry folks need to get a clue, Christ it seems like the Al Gore campaign all over again!

he will come off as the military guy he is unlike the chimp. and if he went by what the media wanted then he would not be running at all. howard dean isn't releasing his records, but it's not stopping me from going after bush administration for not releasing theirs.

I think that you are wrong. If he neutralizes Bush's stunt so that it can't be used by the general election candidate, then it's on you folks.

why should kerry hide his service in the military ? why can't kerry expose bush for the fraud he is ? is it dean's fault that bush wont release his records since dean is not releasing his either ? at least on the issue with kerry, he is doing something he is a part of and not comparable to the chimp. kerry was wounded in war. bush went awol from a ng unit that wasn't even going into vietnam. kerry exposes bush for the fraud he is. but i guess you will blame kerry for the media's refusal to report on bush going awol.

he didn't get on a conference call with 5,000 people and tell them to get in everyone's face.

That would be surprising!

Smugness all comes from those who were forced to be abrasive and disingenuous so they can get press for their bashes against other Democrats, because they had no liberal record to run on. Opportunism only takes you so far.

n/t

"He turned his back on POWS, helped his cousin make millions, maybe billions at the expense of MIAs. It's going to be a very, very ugly scandal that I don't think he can survive politically." -- KaraokeKarlton

Who is his cousin? What happened there? Anything that I can access to get a better idea of what you're talking about there?

DK's brother served in Vietnam. So did a lot of people he knew when he was younger, not all of them returned home alive. That's what got him interested in politics. He had questions and one thing led to another.

I'll still support him if he doesn't, but keeping them sealed seems so Nixonian and Bushlike.