SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: greenspirit who wrote (18444)12/3/2003 1:05:48 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793927
 
Good Point



To: greenspirit who wrote (18444)12/3/2003 1:07:23 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793927
 
Dean had better do this fast and completely, holding nothing back. Then take his lumps. The media loves a "Watergate."

December 3, 2003
Dean Says He's Now Considering Unsealing Vermont Files
By JODI WILGOREN

NEWTON, Iowa, Dec. 2 — Facing criticism for another day over his decision on leaving office as governor of Vermont to keep many of his official papers secret for a decade, Howard Dean said on Tuesday that he was now considering unsealing some of the records.

"We're talking about trying to be accommodating," Dr. Dean told reporters here before a town hall meeting. "We think that transparency is important. But executive privilege is a serious issue, and there are private things in there that can't be let out. We are kind of having that internal discussion."

Mr. Dean, one of nine Democratic presidential contenders, made his comments shortly before Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee, planned to go after him at a fund-raiser in Vermont, for refusing to open the records.

Dr. Dean had said earlier in the day that his campaign would have a statement and backtracked.

Of Mr. Gillespie, Dr. Dean said at one point: "We thought we were going to take a whack at him. But we're not going to take a whack at him. So we don't have anything."

Questions over Dr. Dean's keeping nearly half his gubernatorial papers sealed for 10 years, longer than his two immediate predecessors' six years, have dogged him since the summer. On Monday, the issue heated up as two rivals for the nomination said he should release the papers.

His promise to follow President Bush's lead — "I'll unseal mine if he will unseal all of his," Dr. Dean said in a television interview — only intensified the criticism, because Mr. Bush's records as governor are, in fact, publicly available.

Mr. Bush had sought to store his papers in his father's presidential library, where they would have stayed secret for a half-century. But an outcry prompted a ruling from the Texas attorney general to move the papers. Now, they can be viewed at the state archive, though the current governor and the attorney general may exempt some memorandums and legal correspondence.

"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," Mr. Gillespie, the Republican chairman, said in the prepared text of remarks that he was delivering in Essex Junction, Vt. "As everyone in this room surely knows," the text continued, "your former governor would never say one thing and do another."

Vermont law allows some records to be kept confidential based on executive privilege, but there is no clear prescription for what happens when a governor leaves office. In talks with the state archivist, Dr. Dean's lawyer, David Rocchio, had sought a 24-year seal and eventually settled on 10, arguing, according to records, that a period longer than his predecessors' was necessary because of the pending national campaign.

Dr. Dean explained the 10-year seal on Vermont Public Radio shortly before leaving office in January, saying: "Well, there are future political considerations. We didn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor."

But on Tuesday, he said: "That was sort of a smarty remark. I mean I wasn't really being very serious about that."

Of his promise to follow Mr. Bush's lead, Dr. Dean said his staff was researching what records were available in Texas. Regarding his own archive, which includes correspondence among the governor's staff and cabinet, he said, "Honest to God truth is I don't know what's in there."

Dr. Dean said he might be legally constrained from unsealing the records because he is no longer in office, and the decision might be up to the current governor.

While citing transparency and accommodation to public inquiries as his goals, Dr. Dean said on Tuesday that he had told Mr. Rocchio "to get as long as possible" in negotiating the seal with the archivist. "Every governor that I know," he said, "tries to get their records put aside as long as reasonably possible."

A survey by Charles Schultz, a professor at Texas A&M, showed that 29 of 42 responding states require departing governors to place their records into archives and that many must make them publicly available immediately. Others keep records sealed for as little as five years or as much as 30.

On Tuesday, Dr. Dean said the 10-year seal was Mr. Rocchio's doing. "I didn't have anything to do with those negotiations other than him coming back and reporting to me," he said. "David's a very aggressive attorney. Let me suggest that you talk to David. All I'm going to do is say things that I'm going to be sorry I said later because I wasn't involved in the negotiations. David was."
nytimes.com



To: greenspirit who wrote (18444)12/3/2003 10:09:09 AM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793927
 
Couric and Lauer are two of the most insubstantial media figures in decades. It is difficult to take them seriously. I ignore both of them.

I have a friend who knew Couric at UVA. She was not considered very bright then. Lauer seems more interested in covering up his lack of hair in the most fashionable manner than in developing any semblance of substance.

Bimbos, both of them.



To: greenspirit who wrote (18444)12/4/2003 10:26:09 PM
From: Dayuhan  Respond to of 793927
 

Here is a typical NBC interview.

Where? There is no interview here.

Please show me *one* interview from a FOX show which demonstrats this same kind of bias.

I don’t know if this is “typical” or not, since I’ve never, to the best of my knowledge, watched NBC news. (I’ve seen CNBC Asia now and then, but that is almost exclusively Asia-focused economic news.) At a quick reading, though, I’d say that this selection is an example of bias in its own right. The headline, for example, starts by telling readers what they are supposed to think and how they are supposed to react, always a bad sign:

Couric Cues Up Clinton’s Talking Points,
Assumes Worst in Iraq

The first two paragraphs are entirely editorial, devoted to telling the reader what to think of what follows.

It looks to me that this piece was carefully selected, and edited, to make a point. I wonder if the authors would have had the same objection to “assuming the worst” when some of the wilder allegations regarding the Clintons were involved?

Without a transcript of the entire interview, it’s impossible to judge it. Since it’s Hillary, I assume it’s bland, lame, and concocted to appeal to the Hillary audience. Since the person being interviewed is to some degree prominent, I assume that the interviewer does a certain amount of pandering, and serves up opportunities for the interviewee to make the desired points. This is pretty typical of the arranged political interview, and you see it all over the place, from all points on the spectrum. That’s largely assumption – again, without an unedited transcript it’s impossible to say – but I expect it’s probably an accurate assumption.

To make any relevant comparison, you'd have to compare an unedited transcript of this interview with transcripts of other interviews with politicians with different views. Maybe they pander to everybody they talk to.

I’ve seen some fairly ridiculous stuff on Fox – equivalent to the sort of thing you might read on, say, NewsMax - but the idea of mucking about in the sewer trying to produce empirical evidence that right wing poop smells as bad as left-wing poop is not one that appeals to me.