Frank, I fear you have gone a bit loopy on us. Your posts are sounding more bizarre and addled as you try to make Dean sound worse and worse.

For example, you are now making the hysterical claim that Dean's records were "confiscated by the state of Vermont."

Dean was the Governor of the State of Vermont. His gubernatorial records are, and always have been, the property of the state of Vermont. The state cannot "confiscate" them.

What happened was that Dean agreed to a variance from the Vermont law requiring these records to be sealed, provided the release of the records did not violate someone's privacy. In order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, he is not involving himself at all in he process of selecting a judge to make that determination. He trusts the State of Vermont to do this fairly, despite the fact that the new governor is a Republican.

As for my statement that you seem to be saying that "all republicans are evil malicious people who would misuse records of Gay people to harm them,"

I'm basing this on your statement that

"Regarding
the records for the gay people, if they are being controlled by a Republican
wouldn't it make sense that they have access to these records anyway and
would use them maliciously if they needed to"

That sounds pretty clearly like you are saying that just because Republicans control the records they will be used maliciously. In other words, the simple fact that they are Republican means that they are malicious. If this was not your intent, I apologize. But logically, that is what your statement implied. I think you were the one to enter "attack mode" with that statement.

Your claim that

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?

is in the same mode, sugesting that just because the people are Republicans, it's suspicious that Dean should trust them to do the right thing. Besides the obvious logical fallacy (if he expected these people to do their worst, it is even LESS likely that there is anything incriminating involved, not more likely as you seem to suggest), it reveals a suspicion that all Republicans are malicious.

The fact that it's a Republican administration doesn't matter much. The person in office is his successor as Governor of Vermont, and the state laws and State officials are ones that he knows and trusts.

Perhaps you're so used to Washington politics that you can't imagine Democrats and Republicans trusting each other enough for Dean to do this. But believe me, in Vermont, politics are far more civil--which is one of the things that hurt Dean in Iowa, by the way. Jeffords (Ind) and Leahy (Dem) and Dean (Dem) and Sanders (ind--socialist!), for example, are all great friends, and Jeffords (a former Republican, now an independent) has endorsed Dean. They simply don't play for big money stakes in Vermont, so no-one has much to gain by being corrupt, and no-one is out to screw people in the opposing party.

In fact, Vermonters don't mix money and politics much at all.

I'll tell you a true Vermont story to back this up. As you know, "Carpet-Baggers" sometimes hastily set up residence in a state and then run for the Senate a few months later (this is what Hillary Clinton did in my native NY--not that I'm complaining). In 1998, a carpet-Bagging Republican millionaire from Massachusetts, Jack McMullen, tried to do this in Vermont. He wanted to replace Democratic Senator Pat Leahy.

In response, an eighty-year-old retired Dairy Farmer and registered Republican named Fred Tuttle, already famous in-state from his role in a Vermont "mockumentary," ran against McMullen in the Republican primary, with a campaign warchest of $201.00

Yes, that's Two Hundred and one dollars.

"Fred," as he is simply known in Vermont, defeated McMullen in the Republican primary, with 55 percent of the vote. Then he did what everyone expected him to do: he endorsed Leahy and went home.

The moral of this story is that Vermonters respect one another, despite differences of belief and of party. They believe that other Vermonters have Vermont's best interests at heart. This allowed Tuttle to garner support regardless of money. Vermonters simply realized it was better for their state to have a Vermonter in office, regardless of party, than to have a carpet-bagger. And that was that.

Dean HAS had his share of controversy in Vermont, but it was almost all due to the civil unions legislation, which offended many Christian conservatives. None of the people currently in office are aligned with these extremists, so Dean simply trusts the current administration to use decency and discretion.

It's sad that this seems so suspicious to you. I think we need MORE Vermont-style politics in America, not less.

Now,as to your bizarre and fanciful claim-cum-attack that

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.

you make several errors before you begin foaming at the mouth with your claims about confiscation. First, I never said that his letters were illegal, only that burning them would be illegal. Second, you have confused correspondence with Dean the private citizen and correspondence with Dean the Governor. If mail is addressed to the Governor of Vermont, at his office in Montpelier, it becomes part of Dean's gubernatorial record. He cannot burn or shred such documents. Not only is it illegal, as I said, but you would now be screaming about the fact that he "burned his records." If the mail comes to his house in South Burlington, then it is private and he can do what he wants. The documents I was talking about came to his office, so they were not private letters to be burned as Dean pleased.

Perhaps you don't have an office job, Frank. If someone comes to my office and gives me his card for my rolodex, that becomes the property of the office I work for. If someone sends mail to me as director of a folklife center, that becomes property of the folklife center. I can't burn such letters, or take my records and my rolodex with me if I leave my job. They are not my property. Many offices have a liberal policy here (mine would allow me to copy my rolodex and files, for example), but the files are property of the office.

So once again, nothing has been confiscated by the state of Vermont. All the materials we're talking about have always been Vermont property. Your statement is pure unadulterated lunacy, and you're spreading a vicious and hateful lie if you keep repeating it.

And as to your ridiculous persistence in repeating that Dean has "sealed his records," you are repeating and repeating and repeating this misleading allegation. Dean's records were sealed by the normal processes of Vermont law. UNSEALING them required Dean's direct action, which he has taken. It is now in the hands of the State of Vermont to release what it wishes to release. Dean can do no more. He has done what you ask.

I have explained this over and over, but you refuse to understand it. Please let this drop. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point!

As to your statement

I don't have "moral outrage". I believe in a logical, calm and thoughtful approach to a dialogue.

you certainly sound above like you have "moral outrage." Your persistence in repeating the mantra that "Dean sealed his records," without even once acknowledging my statement that he did NOT seal his records belies your claim that you believe in a logical, calm and thoughtful approach to a dialogue. In a dialogue you would have said at least "I do not believe that you are telling the truth about this." Then you would perhaps have provided some evidence.

Instead, you say "then why did he seal his records" as though I had never mentioned this. That is not dialogue, it's downright rude.

Finally, your statement that

I think that the Dean campaign might be fueled by a kind of "moral outrage" that clouds decisions.

Sounds suspiciously like "I know you are, but what am I?"