Hi Nerd,

I guess I missed the word "major" in your post.   Sorry about that.

"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."

I've had a chance to think about that. There's something
strange about this story. I think that he had a hand in sealing
those records.   A judge didn't just step in and confiscate
them. The idea of compromising people seems like an excuse
to me. If I had some document that I thought would compromise
anyone, as an astute politician, I wouldn't let it hang around.

"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."

This statement is twisted in itself. I don't hate Republicans at
all but I realize that in an election year anything is fair game.
Look at Watergate. He decided to use a judge from a Republican
administration involving material that would compromise
gay people. Doesn't that strike you as being a little strange?

"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."

Well supposing he had ties to lobbying interests himself. Suppose he does have something to hide. We won't know about that because
those items are suppressed. Otherwise why bother to seal them
at all? The "compromise" story sounds fishy.

"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."

No one would know whether his private letters were illegal or
not. If they are not available to compromise anyone, they would
not be illegal. They would not be confiscated by the State of Vermont.

"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.:

This is a twisted statement and not at all what I have ever said or wrote. It's this kind of distortion of what people say that
will ensure Dean's defeat. This is a statement in "attack mode"
and I hope not reflective of the Dean campaign. It sounds like
something someone from outside the Dean campaign would say. It's doing a good job for George W. Bush.


"If you admit it shouldn't be that way, then where do you get the moral outrage from?"

I don't have "moral outrage". I believe in a logical, calm and thoughtful approach to a dialogue. I think that the Dean campaign might be fueled by a kind of "moral outrage" that clouds decisions.

" 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."

Is that what I'm saying? I think what I said was that if Dean has
nothing to hide, (aside from the issue of compromising certain people which can be handled easilly) that why should he seal his records?
Bush did the same thing as governor of Texas.

I'm not going to get into a petty argument about what words mean.
I think my definition is correct.


Frank