Frank, you obviously either didn't read my last post or don't care about a rational argument. For example:

Then it is true that Kucinich did take issue with Dean. Nothing scurrilous
about this observation. Dean said at one point that he was the only candidate that opposed the war.

Here you just completely ignored my previous statement when it disagreed with your position, but accepted it when it agreed. So once again, Dean said he was the only "major" candidate who opposed the war. If you don't see the difference between that and "the only candidate that opposed the war" then you should check your eyes.

Why would he need to hide anything?

He is not hiding anything, as I said. He has turned the records over to the state of Vermont. AND, I explained exactly why records were sealed. As I also explained above, he couldn't himself have picked out only those things that he knows for a fact would compromise people, as you suggest, because people like you wouldn't trust his judgment anyway. You would still be saying "his records are sealed!" This is grossly misleading because the majority of his records are already NOT sealed. This fact doesn't make you reluctant to cry "his records are sealed" now, when about 40% of them are sealed, why should it make you reluctant if only about 30% were sealed?

There HAS to be an impartial judge, and he decided to use...an actual judge! For you to say that a Republican administration assigning a judge to the matter is automatically evil just means you have a twisted hatred of all Republicans. My mother and my mother-in-law and many of my friends are Republicans, and I would have no hesitation in revealing sensitive secrets to them if I had to because I trust them to do the right thing.

In fact, for you to claim that giving them to a Republican already compromises the gay letter-writers is absurd. The Republican is the governor of Vermont. Vermont has laws to protect people, which is exactly why the records are sealed. The current governor has no interest in running roughshod over the laws of Vermont to make a Governor's job harder.

So, once again, Dean did not "seal his records." The State of Vermont does that as a matter of course. Dean extended the seal to protect people who wrote letters to him.

If he had a DUI record it would not be in his gubernatorial papers, but in police records; this is another half baked and ridiculous statement.

The records are now the property of the State of Vermont. Dean does not even have a lawyer disputing the case, he is merely allowing the State to handle it.

And, by the way, he could not simply burn letters. Not only would that be illegal, if he did it, you would be screaming that Dean "burned his records." That's another ridiculous suggestion.

As to the idea that all republicans are evil malicious people who would misuse records of Gay people to harm them: once again, you're only showing your own hatred and prejudice.

You also make a singularly irrational statement when you say

Everything is fair game. It shouldn't be that way but it is.

If you admit it shouldn't be that way, then where do you get the moral outrage from? You're saying you agree it's wrong that Dean should have to show these records, but since some vague unwritten law makes it "that way" you will fight tooth and nail to characterize him as immoral unless he DOES show them.


And the word Scurrilous means, according to the OED:

Characterized by coarseness or indecency of language, esp. in jesting and invective.

Webster's gives it as:

1. Using, or given to using, the language of low buffoonery
2. Containing low indecency or abuse; coarsely opprobious; obscenely jocular


So you are wrong about that, too. It means just what I said it did.