The current situation with the taped conversations of George W. Bush while Governor of Texas is a rather mundane story. What he said then is nothing incredibly important, in fact it's more important people worry about what he's saying on his trip to Europe (his bad joke about kings and monarchy didn't translate well into Russian). But I got into an interesting arguement about whether or not he should have been taped at all. It's an interesting debate I believe. Should someone in public office be taped when using a phone in his office?
Of course not everything should be relayed to the public, but the question remains. When Watergate broke, it was the taped conversations of President Nixon that helped close the case. Albeit the tapings were illegal, they were increibly useful. I personally believe that someone who has been elected to public office should be taped as a precautionary measure. If the person wants to still create a scandal go ahead, but now he will be swayed from doing it on the taxpayers telephone. Not to make this a purging of Republican presidents, but imagine how much the Republicans would have loved when Clinton was in office if there were tapes of him in conversation with someone about Whitewater or Monica Lewinsky. It can sway both ways. Think of it as another checks and balance for the president. Just like at work how you can't make personal calls on the company's dime. Well now the president shouldn't be wasting his boss's money on the phone since we can check up on him. The boss of the president of course being the people.