Weinstein Archives nomination - more problems

Daniel writes "According to the Apr 16 NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE, aside from concerns about Mr. Weinstein's academic practices there are two sensistive groups of records that are supposed to come open early next year:1) "in January 2005, the first batch of records(the mandatory 12 years of closure having passed) relating to the president's father's administration will be subject to the PresidentialRecords Act (PRA) and could be opened. "2) "The 9-11 Commission records. Because there is no mandatory 30-year closure rule (except for highly classified White House and Executive Department records and documents), all materialsrelating to the commission are scheduled to be transferred to the National Archives upon termination of the Commission later this year. These records could be made available to researchers and journalists as soon as they areprocessed by NARA."I did not realize that the first President Bush's records were becoming available OR that there would be no seal on the 9/11 commission records.Given the current President's record on sealing records (moving gov records out of TX archives, issuing EO allowing relatives of dead presidents to w/hold papers) and his potential appointee's possible track record in withholding sources from other researches, it seems important for Congress to hold detailed confirmation hearings. It might also be prudent to simply reject this candidate and find a professional archivist."


Boy, "politics" is right. The current Archivist, John W. Carlin, has no archival or historical experience whatsoever, according to his official biography. Carlin is a four-term Democratic politician appointed by a Democratic president. Now with 9 years of service, he has served longer than any Archivist since 1979.

This is nothing more than a witch-hunt by liberal academics. If Democrats were sincerely concerned about qualifications, they wouldn't be obstructing President Bush's judicial appointments.

So, are you saying that it's ok for Pres. Bush to make an obviously political appointment because Clinton did so? Two wrongs make a right?Previous stories on this topice indicated that the archives community was just as opposed to Carlin's hiring -- I think one poster said "It sounds like they're dusting off the arguments against Carlin to oppose Weinstein. If that's the case, I don't see the witch hunt you are seeing.

Do we know that this is an obviously political appointment? American Libraries quotes some guilt-by-association from The Nation to the effect that a nonprofit he founded has a board that is is "studded with GOP heavyweights."

Haven't seen the previous stories on the topic that you mention. Were they noted in LISNews when I wasn't paying attention? Got links? Thanks

Bush is trying to protect his father.

I don't know about previous LISNews stories on this, but this is the statement that was put out last week by the Society for American Archivists on the nomination.

Thanks, Eli. My "witch hunt" broadside really was a bit over the top.

Seems to me the most important section of the statement is the claim that "This is the first time since the National Archives and Records Administration was established as an independent agency that the process of nominating an Archivist of the United States has not been open for public discussion and input."

The statement offers no proof, and doesn't even follow up on it. Strange.

The original story and it's comments can be found at http://www.lisnews.com/article.pl?sid=04/04/16/091 4252&mode=thread&tid=29.It was pchuck who dug up some of things said in 1995 like:"California's senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and The Times should join the members of the American Historical Assn., the Organization of American Historians, the American Library Assn. and the Society of American Archivists in opposing Carlin's appointment. There are many state archivists, government, college and public librarians who are more qualified and who would better satisfy the spirit and intention of the law regarding this distinguished office. In this instance the President's men have neither served him nor the public well."Box Cox put up two stories I didn't see:http://www.lisnews.com/article.pl?sid=04/04/17/124 9245&mode=thread&tid=28&tid=29&tid =30http://www.lisnews.com/article.pl?sid=04/04/17/125 7219&mode=thread&tid=28&tid=29.Given that many of the same groups who opposed Carlin then are opposing Weinstein now, you might consider the substance of their charges instead of their political affilations.I'm sure I told people much the same thing when I heard them heaping abuse on Paula Jones for daring to claim sexual harrasment from the President. Look at the charges, not the people.

Subscribe to Comments for "Weinstein Archives nomination - more problems"