BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 02 - 07:16 PM

For Waterloo, the sequel, click here.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 26 Jan 02 - 07:01 PM

Toad: Thank you for the lecture. I'll bet you really are a nice person when you are not seated at your computer.

IF there had been intervention on behalf of Enron, one would not have to SEARCH for stories in any newspaper. It would be in all of them. It would be broadcast on every TV and radio station in the land.

And I would bet, were I betting man, that I am every bit as well read as you are.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Hrothgar
Date: 26 Jan 02 - 05:42 AM

Doug

My point is that George was perfectly happy to start a war without producing any hard evidence (the reason being, as I recall, that the nature of the evidence might compromise those who provided it). He had only a lot of circumstantial evidence.

George does not come up very well in the face of the circunstantial evidence against him, does he? He's up to his neck in protecting and assisting people who, at best, used inside knowledge to trade on that much vaunted free market, the Stock Exchange.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: toadfrog
Date: 25 Jan 02 - 07:30 PM

O.k. Doug, as to who intervened, if you really want to know, I'll quote my source directly:

"Consider Richard Baker, the Louisiana Republican who chairs a House subcommittee on capital markets, securities and government-sponsored enterprises. [Who has recently bemoaned the scandal.] ...

"Yet Mr. Baker was a strong opponent of a standards board proposal, that recently was approved, that requires companies to better disclose their use of derivatives . . . .

"When the standards board pressed ahead, Mr. Baker introduced a bill to allow public companies to object to proposed accounting principles in federal court. He described his proposal 'as a legislative remedy to a flaw in the private sector process for developing financial accounting standards.'. . .

"The SEC, which oversees the standards board, also has frequently been caught in a cross-fire from Congress, which it has complained makes it harder to impose needed regulations. . . .

"Senator Joseph Lieberman . . . opens a hearing today into Enron's collapse. Among the questions he says he is probing: 'Why did Enron's auditors allow the compahy to overstate its profits for four years by over a half a billion dollars, using what now appear to be very questionable accounting practices>'

But Mr. Lieberman . . . is a longtime critic of the accounting board, and he has rallied opposition to its proposed rules more than once. Recently, he challenged one to overhaul the accounting for corporate mergers and acquisitions, an issue of importance to the high-tech industry. In the fall of 2000, amid the tight presidential race, Mr. Lieberman joined with a bipartisan group of 13 senators in a letter urging the standards board to postpone consideration of the changes until Congress reconvened in 2001.

The letter, among other things, claimed the accounting changes 'will make mergers and acquisitions very difficult for high-technology companies.' In the House, California Reps. Christopher Cox, a Republican, and Calvin Dooley, a Democrat, introduced a bill for a one-year moratorium on the standards-board proposal.

The proposal called for new disclosures on mergers and acquisitions. Companies cried foul, complaining the change would reduce their earnings. Under pressure from Congress, the standards board backed off, but still required new accounting that gives investors more information about the true initial costs of acquisitions and how to track the investment over time." [Emphasis added.]

Wall Street Journal (1/24/02) at page A20. If you want to know more, read the article. Or read the 20 or so articles that have appeared in the WSJ and the New York Times (and I assume the L.A. Times as well) over the past two weeks

Doug, you really, really should read a grown-up newspaper from time to time. One pays for the privilege of having an opinion by making the necessary effort to keep informed. Watching television may be useful in knowing what impression a politician makes in a speech, which seems to be the basis of many people's voting decisions. It won't tell you much about what is happening in the real world. Nor will the Drudge Report.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 25 Jan 02 - 12:42 PM

Hrothger: I'm still trying to grasp the point of your post. To you, GW looks guilty so we should hang him, I suppose.

I didn't see the NBC show you refer to Guest. I note, however, there has been considerable criticism from the mainstream liberal press that Brockow didn't ask "the hard questions" when he had the opportunity.

Bobert: It puzzels me why liberals point the finger at conservatives accusing them of "only wanting to keep things the way they are," and how the liberals pride themselves upon being "progressive" thinkers ...yet THEY are the ones that want to keep the SS program plodding along the way it always has. I know of no credible source that predicts anything other than disaster for the program if it continues along the same path that it always has. Too many retirees in future years drawing on the fund, and too little money to cover the cost. 'Tis a mind boggler to me.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jan 02 - 09:57 AM

Yo, Doug, et al, I don't want folks taking money out of the social security sytem irregarless of their rationale. And especially by those those who are so well off that they don't have to worry about living in poverty in their old age. These folks represent management and owners and not the poor shelph who works on their assembly lines making the widgits that keep the managers and owners living high on the hog. No, I don't want to see a social security system that has been raided by rich folks leaving it too crippled to help the working class when their assembly line days are over. Call it a redistribution of wealth if you wish but keep in mind also the fact that if all of a sudden labor just up and quit, the ruling class would be up the creek with no paddle... or canoe for that matter. And don't play that old ruling class fight song about them needing this big tax cut so they can invest in more widget factories to provide more jobs. They have been closing factories and cutting jobs, so that dog won't hunt and it is one big lie that the big boys tell. Some have told it so long, they actually belive it... Go figure.

Well, bobert. That polishes off your rany quota for January and February. What are you going to do now. Ahhh, just take a page out of the Rupublican Economics hand book, get out your rant credit card and just say "Charge It". Heck, you can always pay later...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jan 02 - 08:18 AM

The problems with Wall Street investment bankers and stock analysts who floated the Internet boom to make billions for their best clients is just as much of the problem as the accounting firms being in bed with the corporations.

NBC did a piece on the Bush administration the other night called "The Real West Wing" which showed White House Press Secretary Ari Fleishcher (sp) saying they had again won the spin war by keeping the media focusing the Enron story on business issues, and not on the political issues tying the Bush administration to the company.

Also on that program, Cheney said that it was imperative to have secrecy in the "advisory" conversations he held with Enron. Oddly, the day after that story aired (the White House's overnight polling data perhaps?) White House leaks began suggesting that the White House may turn over the records to the "energy policy" meetings held with Enron by Cheney, which the GAO is set to bring a lawsuit against Bush/Cheney to get released.

Seems that the political side hasn't even begun to play out. Wonder what all those shredded Enron and Anderson documents had to say about the Bush cabinet, hmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Hrothgar
Date: 25 Jan 02 - 03:38 AM

I am a little bit curious about the demand for evidence against the Bush administration.

Didn't the Taliban (effectively the government of a sovereign nation, and let's skip the bit about the Northern Alliance people holding the seat in the UN) ask for evidence against Osama bin Laden before handing him over?

They had the living daylights bombed out of them for their temerity.

On the face of it, George W looks to be about as guilty as Osama - but rememer that neither has had a trial yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 25 Jan 02 - 12:51 AM

Hi Toad! You won't find me defending Enron or Arthur Anderson, Toad. They are the ones the attackers should be attacking, not either of the political parties.

I'm about puzzeled by the first sentence in your sixth paragraph. Who intervened? What did "they" do to help Enron?

As to social security and the stock market, anyone with any bright at all who knows the history of the stock market knows that it has its ups and its downs. Any young person today who has the opportunity to invest some of his/her funds in the stock market, that would normally go into SS and doesn't, needs to have his/her head examined in my opinion. Take any ten year period and invest $100 per month in a good mutual fund. Take the same amount and give it to Uncle Sam in SS taxes or even in a savings account. I think you would find the person that invested in the market would come out well ahead. You folks rant and rave about the failures of the stock market when it is down. Funny, but we never hear from you when the market is at it's peak, as it was last year.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jan 02 - 10:26 PM

Yo, Toad,

Great post. You've got poor ol' Dougie and the 9 RNC employees who man this thread 24/7 scrambling. They're going, "Hmmmmm? What's the Toadster up to now? Here I was just getting ready to blast one of his own and he goes an' blasts him? Hmmmmmm?"

Psssttttt... Yo Doug. BIG HINT HERE: It ain't all about Democrats and Republicans. I know that's real tough to take because of a life time of hating the other fraternity on campus but to a lot of folks your guys ain't that much worse than the other guys. It's time to go beyond the the sibling rivalry of your party and current Democratic Party. Time to step out of the box. To think solutions. To move the only way that mankind has historically moved... forward. Defending crooks will make you old long before your time...

(Danged, ol' hillbilly got him in a late January rant... Sorry. I'll go play music fir a while...)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: toadfrog
Date: 24 Jan 02 - 09:46 PM

My! It looked like this was going to be a discussion of Enron, It seems to have degenerated into the usual debate about whether Liberals or Conservatives are Better.

Doug, the SEC has a statutory mandate to regulate audiging firms like Arthur Andersen. So failures by auditing firms occur because of inadequate regulation by the SEC. And the President's recent appointee, Mr. Pitt, is grimly determined that inadequate regulation is here to stay.

Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page agrees with me on that one. And it is a British understatement to say the WSJ is "conservative" - it is so ultra-right wing that on the few times in the past it seemed to agree with me, I was impelled seriously to reconsider my ideas.

It appears that Enron and Arthur Andersen were like joined at the hip. Arthur Andersen provided not only auditing, but also tax-accounting and "consultant" services to Enron, so that it was Enron's largest supplier. Auditors occupied offices at Enron, dressed like Enron employees and were believed to be Enron employees. Enron hired officers from among the Arthur Andersen auditors, and Arthur Anderson, in turn, recruited senior people from Enron.

Any fool can plainly see that that kind of wet-dog situation inevitably creates fraud. And the former head of the SEC tried to prohibit conflicts of interest, and senior congresspeople overwhelmed him with threats of legislation to clip the SEC's wings. Thirty Sentators forcefully objected to any attempt to clean up the auditing profession, which is not two surprising, because at least three of the Big Five accounting firms regularly outdid Enron in their campaign contributions.

Most of the money goes to Republicans, and it appears that they did most of the intervening. Nonetheless, it was truly a "bipartisan" effort. Aside from Phil Gramm of Texas, whose wife at Enron is now up to her ears in the scandal, the biggest miscreant seems to have been Senator Joe Lieberman of Conntecticut. I was never sure about Lieberman, who seemed a bit sanctimonious. Now I'm sure. He is the sanctimonious sleaze-bag of the year.

Finally, the next time I hear about privatizing Social Security, so everyone has to go on the stock market and be victimized by those crooks . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 24 Jan 02 - 06:54 PM

Yep, Loopy, you're right about Dashle, and it appears McCain and Feingold are going to get their Campaign Finance Law too, as a result of the Enron mess.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: LoopySanchez
Date: 24 Jan 02 - 02:56 PM

Liberal definition of a 'bipartisan discussion'--98 Democrats attacking a Republican administration, then accusing the two conservatives in the room of "guarding the henhouse" when they dare point out the facts, or the folly of the media's relentless attacks despite the lack of them.

On a tangential topic, you know That Daschle can't wait to turn the Enron debacle into the final nail in the coffin of Social Security Privatization, don't you, DougR? Anytime the news media are portraying 401k-investing yuppies as "Victims", there has to be an ulterior motive...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 22 Jan 02 - 12:38 PM

Look up a three or four posts, Guest. I admit I have a "special" source. But seriously, just read your daily newspaper. The facts are there. The facts are: the Bush administration has not been linked with any wrong-doing in relation to Enron. Them's the facts, Guest. Sorry you can't see them.

If investigations prove that the Republican Party, GWB, or anyone else in the administration did something wrong, they should be punished. No one contributing to this thread has suggested otherwise.

If you're going to hang someone for stealing sheep, just make sure they stole them first.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 02 - 12:31 PM

And where did you say your facts were DougR?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 22 Jan 02 - 12:23 PM

Loopy: will you never learn? You insist on continuing to confuse these folks with facts! It's much more creative to make up your own facts don't you think? It's kind of like songwriting, I suppose. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 02 - 12:19 PM

Hey Loopy--

To attempt to argue that Bush was legitimately selected to serve as president because he got a larger percentage of the vote than Clinton or any other president is wholly irrational.

His legitmacy as president will always be a large grey area because of the circumstances of this specific election in particular.

As has been noted, this is not the only time a president was installed in office even when he lost the popular vote. Which, as has also been mentioned, lends a lot of credence to arguments to end the electoral college system.

You are also missing totally the fact that none of us are defending Democrats by discussing the Enron scandal. In fact, we have gone to great lengths to show it is both parties. Its just your fox guarding the hen house for now.

There seems to be one consensus only in this thread, and that is both parties are to blame for the current sad state of governance in this country. Only you and DougR are defending a single party--yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: LoopySanchez
Date: 22 Jan 02 - 12:04 PM

I've dropped out of this discussion to focus on the music for a few days, but here's a few observations:

1. Though it's not on subject, I must take issue with those who use the "Bush didn't win the popular vote" line as some mandate as though half a percentage point means that he's some sort of pretender-in-chief. Guess what? He got a higher percentage than Clinton did in either of his elections! Clinton was elected with 43% and 47%, and when you consider who the conservative nature of the third party candidate was in those elections, it's obvious that a majority of American voters were against Clinton in both elections. But that's all beside the point. The popular vote is meaningless. I've explained why a thousand times before in here, but I'll gladly do it again if someone needs it repeated yet again.

2. Liberals are very quick to use the "Clinton's scandals were about sex, which didn't effect me, so I didn't care about them" argument to justify their collective hissy-fit over the Enron collapse, but they aren't as quick to mention the 900 Republicans' FBI files that somehow ended up in the Clintons' hands, or the fact that Monicagate was more about quid pro quo sexual harassment than anything else (The other interns not providing hummers weren't given $80K/year jobs at Revlon). (I suppose that didn't effect them either, since they aren't Republicans or interns...) Liberals also aren't too quick to mention any facts about how Bush did anything to help out Enron. That doesn't stop them from trying, though--Take for example this observation from Neal Boortz's site, www.boortz.com:
THE LEFT-WING RAG "THE NATION" ACCIDENTLY SHOWS ITS TRUE COLORS

A bedwetter named Matt Bivens wrote a story last Friday for The Nation's website. He was desperate to achieve the leftist dream of directly tying George W. Bush to the Enron scandal (oh how the Dems keep trying). Initially, he wrote the following:
"When George W. Bush co-owned the Houston Astros and construction began on a new stadium, Kenneth Lay agreed to spend $100 million over thirty years for rights to name the park after Enron."
Houston, we have a problem. Bush was co-owner of the Texas Rangers, not the Astros. Oops. When the Wall Street Journal pointed that fact out on their Opinion Journal site, The Nation changed their story. This was the revision.
"When George W. Bush co-owned the Texas Rangers and construction began on a new stadium, Kenneth Lay agreed to spend $100 million over thirty years for rights to name the park after Enron."
Houston, we still have a problem. The Texas Rangers have nothing to do with Houston or with Enron Field. That's where the Houston Astros play, not the Rangers. The Texas Rangers' stadium has no corporate sponsor. It's just called "The Ballpark at Arlington." Oh, and another thing...Bush sold his share of the team a year before Enron made the deal with the Astros. The Bivens unsuccessful hack-job is now nowhere to be found on the site. As John Adams said, facts are stubborn things.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jan 02 - 12:30 PM

Nope, Guest. No secret data. I just listen to the Fox News Network and attend seances where I receive ghostly messages and advice from Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Robert Taft. I gain a lot of insight that way.

If there's anything in particular you wish me to ask about at the next session, I'd be pleased to pose your question!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jan 02 - 10:02 AM

DougR,

Have you got access to secret polling data on American attitudes towards the Enron debacle? Please, share your data. Otherwise, your continued posting just proves how full of the brown sticky substance you truly are when making wholly unsubstantiated claims like the above.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 09:45 PM

Well, Bopert, my friend, if you grow tired of reading posts that disagree with your own point of view, I can understand that you become frustrated. Would't it be a bit boring if the only thing you read were posts that agree with you? Maybe not though, I guess.

Guest: I'm sure there are those who believe that the government should have done whatever it could to save Enron. T'would be an impossibility to find 100% agreement on anything, I suppose. I do think the majority of the American voters believe (based on what we know now) that the Bush administration did the right thing by doing nothing. If pointing this out to you upsets you ...well learn to live with it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 07:24 PM

Danged, DougR, you're looking a tad worn out. How long you been keeping vigil for Junior here in Catsburg? Have you even slept? Man, I've heard of "true Believers" but I think you deserve a cabinet post, or something fitting one who is so loyal to Mr. Bush. Old Slick Willie could have used a few loyal pit bulls in his corner and he really didn't do anything other than fool around with a chubby intern. You are probably correct that nothing is going to be pinned on Junior but this entire greed thing by his buddies is eventually going to piss off the working class southern voters who have been very important in all national GOP victories. This does not bode well for Junior, especially since he was not elected, but selected by folks his daddy put in the Supreme Court. But you just keep firing, DougR, because I just have this feeling that you were one of those frothing at the mouth Clinton haters so I understand that you have the staying power. Yep, you'll sit at your computer day and night like a dilegent foot soldier just waiting for someone to say anything mean about Junior. Man, take a powder...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 07:03 PM

the TRUTH

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 07:00 PM

NEWS FLASH Less than 24 hours after Secret Service agents wrestled a deranged pretzel to the ground, friends of the accused snack expressed shock at its alleged role in Sunday's attack on the President. Ann Wilkes of the Virginia based Snack Food Association told reporters: "Nobody detected any hints of violence from the 1400 year old snack. Its just a mixture of wheat four, yeast and salt, bathed in sodium hydroxide. I can't believe it would go postal. Sure, it was a bit of a loner, but never this twisted.
BR>

Home Security Chief, Tom Ridge will be issuing an all-points bulletin for Mr. Salty and called for a heightened state of alert. The nation is now 220% alert and has informed on all suspicious snacks and in-laws.

Evidence is mounting that Sunday's incident isn't the first time a pretzel has stalked the president. On May 22, a fifth grader who was touring the White House found a pretzel inside the residence and pocketed it. Colin Hansen still has the snack in a plastic bag in his refrigerator but so far the FBI hasn't sought his pretzel for questioning. Democrats are lamenting the fact that Dick Cheney is now just a pretzel away from the presidency.

But seriously...
, a href="http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/enron.html">the TRUTH,

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 05:53 PM

But apparently everyone doesn't agree that doing nothing was the right thing to do, especially when you have a look-see over here, DougR:

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/EnronExtravaganza/1.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 02:15 PM

Gee Guest, you don't read the things you post yourself! Where I get my news is contained in the message you posted, I believe, in this thread. I don't believe I stated all my news comes from Fox News Network, did I?

For all your ranting and raving, you still haven't pointed out anything the Bush administration did wrong relative to Enron. There should be, and I've no doubt there will be, a complete investigation. If the results show they did something wrong, I will be the first to condem them for it. And I will need no prompting from guests.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 11:38 AM

DougR, Ebbie and I don't seem to be in disagreement. It just seems to be you and the rest of the diehard conservative GOP types who disagree with the general consensus shown in the latest polling data cited above.

And all the major political cartoonists have been having an absolute field day with the Enron debacle. Oh--that's right, you don't get your news from newspapers, do you?

Judging by the Fox News standards, everything is JUST FINE! No problemo with that Enron thing for the Dubya king! Now, lets let DougR get back to talking about that Monica Lewinsky scandal...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 11:22 AM

My guest, we do get testy when someone disagrees with us, don't we?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 02 - 10:20 AM

Conveniently Ebbie, conflict of interest laws required many Bush administration officials to divest before or shortly after taking office. So no, none of them were hurt as shareholders by this debacle.

The idea they want us to believe is that doing nothing, rather than intervening to stop the illegal activities of Enron's Board of Directors (ie preventing shareholders and employees from selling stock, until they were able to sell their own before the big crash) was the right thing to do.

It certainly appears that Bush administration officials at the highest levels now knew full well the extent of the wrongdoing in the weeks before the company collapsed, and did nothing. And so will likely stick to that story, and argue that they weren't required by law to do anything. Therefore, doing nothing was the morally right thing to do.

Pretzel logic, but it likely will continue to be their defense throughout the hearings process.

If they can find anyone without ties to Enron to investigate them, that is.

Imagine if the public decided that whomever did the investigating couldn't have any ties to the energy industries at all? Hmmmmm....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 09:35 PM

Something I have not heard posited is the money trail. Presumably most people who knew of Enron's imminent demise sold a great deal of their stock.

So:

It is logical to think that Bush, et al, in appreciation of financial campaign support over the years, bought stock in Enron. (Isn't that what we would do?) OK- does Bush still hold Enron stock? Or did he sell his stock during this last year? Even if his assets have been put in a trust for the duration of his presidential years, it should be possible to ascertain the dealings.

The same thing holds true for other officials. People who sold off a lot of Enron stock last year could have some questions to answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 06:02 PM

Ah, sure--we know yerself heard it all on Fox News first.

But that's because small people like yerself live in small worlds, with news brought to them by Fox News. We at Mudcat know that complex news for simple minds is easier for you to digest, DougR. We know that well.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 02:10 PM

Yep, Guest, I certianly agree with your last sentence!

The rest of all that stuff I had already heard on the Fox News Network.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 11:24 AM

Yessirrreee DougR, these stories of political graft, bribery, and corruption is what makes this country great, and is the way Washington SHOULD run!

I know you believe that bimbo intern blowjobs and two bit land deals are the real threat to democracy as we know it, DougR. And based upon the "legal" actions of those in power and bed with another in Washington today, I just know that the Bush administration is going to succeed mightily with restoring integrity to the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 11:22 AM

As for crooked presidents: Nixon had all the finness of a loan shark's enforcer. GWB isn't smarter but his support network is. From the "stolen election" to the Enron rip-off we are being screwed yet again.

Brother Bill's activities didn't steal money from the working man's pockets, now did they? During the height of the "Lets Get Clinton" fiasco a middle aged woman I know had this to say:

"Clinton dropped unemployment, dropped the welfare rolls and dropped the debt, I don't give a damn if he did the same with his pants!"

(the last I heard Enron employees lost over a billion dollars from their 401Ks! I know what I would do in that case and it ain't for publication in a public forum)

It seems that it is a case of: "Them that has don't like the idea of anyone else having too".

CB

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 11:20 AM

And then, DougR, there is this Bush fox, left guarding the hen house when the family left the Texas governor's mansion for the White House, also from this morning's Washington Post:

Associated Press Saturday, January 19, 2002; Page A04

The legal and political fallout from the biggest corporate collapse in U.S. history continued yesterday as a former executive of bankrupt Enron Corp. resigned as Texas's top public utility regulator and officials in several other states pursued lawsuits and investigations of the once mighty energy trading company.

In Austin, Max Yzaguirre, former president of Enron de Mexico, quit as head of Texas's Public Utility Commission, seven months after being appointed by Gov. Rick Perry (R). Democrats and public interest groups recently raised questions about the appointment, which came a day before Enron's chairman, Kenneth L. Lay, made a $25,000 contribution to Perry's political campaign.

Perry, a former lieutenant governor, is running for a full term as the state's top executive after inheriting the governorship when George W. Bush resigned to become president. Perry called the timing of Lay's donation "totally coincidental" and said Yzaguirre is "a qualified individual . . . to serve in the PUC."

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 11:17 AM

And DougR, why do you think yer man keeps lying and manipulating the truth about his ties to Enron, hmmmmm?

This also from this morning's Washington Post:

Bush last week played down his ties to Lay. He said he "first got to know Ken" in 1994, when "he was a supporter of Ann Richards," the Democratic Texas governor whom Bush ousted. In fact, Bush knew Lay from their work on the 1992 Republican National Convention and the Bush presidential library. The current president received $47,500 from Lay and his wife in 1994 -- many times what Richards received. Lay has said he supported Bush, not Richards, in 1994.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 11:08 AM

Not that any of this suggests impropriety either (from this morning's Washington Post):

By Paul Duggan Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, January 19, 2002; Page A06

AUSTIN -- After he was sworn in Dec. 13 as U.S. attorney for southern Texas, Michael T. Shelby, a career prosecutor who has specialized in white-collar corruption cases, wasted no time diving into what he thought would be the most intriguing criminal investigation of his life.

Eleven days earlier, in the largest corporate collapse in the nation's history, Houston-based Enron Corp. had filed for bankruptcy protection, raising numerous questions about the company's practices and top executives.

On the day he took office in Houston, Shelby said in an interview this week, he ordered the chief of his fraud division to issue subpoenas for Enron records and told prosecutors to arrange a meeting with Securities and Exchange Commission officials in Washington. "We wanted to peruse the SEC's files and basically get our investigation moving forward as quickly as possible," Shelby recalled.

But today, a month after gearing up to spearhead the Justice Department's criminal probe of the Enron debacle, Shelby, 43, and his 89-lawyer staff are out of the loop. In a move that legal experts called highly unusual, the entire U.S. Attorney's Office in Houston has been recused from the case because too many of its lawyers, including Shelby, have personal ties to current or former employees of the once-giant energy trading company.

The Justice Department's decision to assign the investigation to a task force of prosecutors from other jurisdictions illustrates the difficulties that law enforcement officials, members of Congress and others face in conducting clearly impartial inquiries into Enron. Before the company's demise, which wiped out many of its employees' retirement funds, Enron had long been a big financial contributor to politicians of both major parties, notably President Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 10:55 AM

It is highly unlikely that any of the above would be illegal, but it certainly makes clear in whose interest the Bush administration is working--and it ain't the public interest.

As to the appearance of impropriety DougR, why do you think this story is all over the news?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 10:50 AM

More models for how DougR thinks things should work in Washington, this time regarding the Bush/Enron energy legacy (also from The Nation website) This also speaks volumes regarding GWB's refusal to intervene in the West Coast energy crisis of 2001:

Bush had considerable contact with Lay two years earlier (GUEST's note: two years before GWB ran for governor of Texas) when the Enron leader served as the chair of the host committee for the 1992 Republican convention in Houston, where Bush the senior was nominated for his second term as president.

At that time, Investor's Daily reported that "recently, Lay has turned Enron into a corporate bastion for the GOP." After the elder Bush's defeat, the Bush family switched its political ambitions to George W.'s prospects for governor, and Lay came up with the first of many contributions to that effort.

Lay's loyal support of the Bushes may have been gratitude for the decisive role that the first Bush Administration played in Enron's meteoric rise. Building on the Republican-engineered deregulation of the electricity industry that began in the 1980s, Enron got a huge boost during the first Bush Administration with passage of the 1992 Energy Act, which forced utility companies to carry Enron's electricity on their wires.

In fact, Lay publicly thanked Bush with a column in the Dallas Morning News a week before the 1992 election. Calling Bush "the energy president," Lay wrote that "just six months after George Bush became president, he directed Energy Secretary James Watkins to lead the development of a new energy strategy." That resulted in the legislation making Enron's exponential growth possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 10:42 AM

Source of this information is The Nation website:

White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey and fast-track trade proselytizer Robert Zoellick each earned $50,000 a year as Enron advisers. Secretary of the Army Thomas White Jr., a former Enron executive, had to sell $25 million of Enron stock upon assuming his post. Enron's Lay--as candidate George Bush's most-deep-pocketed patron--has a good relationship with Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, whose previous job was as the Bush/Cheney campaign tapper of deep pockets. Attorney General John Ashcroft is another who has received Enron cash for past political campaigns, $57,499 to be exact, which is why he has recused himself from investigating.

Two reports just released by the Center for Public Integrity--both based on the nonprofit, nonpartisan center's studies of the finances and affiliations of the top 100 officials in the Bush Administration--offer added context. Looking just at Enron, the center's study turned up fourteen executive-branch officials who owned stock in Enron, collectively valued when disclosed at from $284,000 to $886,000 (the spread is so broad because officials report income in approximate ranges). One of the largest Enron stock holdings--ranging from $100,001 to $250,000 in value at the time of filing--was in the hands of Karl Rove, a prominent adviser who has been close to Bush since his Texas days. More broadly, the center's study found this to be one of the richest and most corporate presidential administrations in history. The average net worth of the President, Vice President and the Cabinet falls between $9.9 million and $28.9 million--more than ten times the average net worth of the Clinton Administration lineup. And not for nothing do they call it Grand Ole Petroleum: The top 100 Administration officials have the vast majority of their financial holdings invested in the energy sector, some 221 separate investments worth up to $144.6 million. Meanwhile, corporate energy gave 75 percent of its $48.3 million in 1999-2000 campaign contributions to Republicans. Oil and gas gave $13 to candidate Bush for every $1 it gave to candidate Gore.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 02 - 10:16 AM

The most recent issue of The Nation is about "Big Media" control of your news, DougR. Or is reading information and analysis by "liberals" more than your wee mind can comprehend?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 18 Jan 02 - 01:42 PM

Guest: you still haven't pointed out anything that the Bush cabinet did wrong. As a good liberal, I'm confident you would never advocate guilt by association, would you?

If you adhere to that premise, there is enough guilt to go around including both Republicans and Democrats.

The Bush Cabinet is guilty of "the appearance of impropriety?" I wasn't aware that that was a crime. Awfully close to guilt by association, methinks.

So far, it seems to me that the Bush administration is a model of how things SHOULD work in Washington. Despite huge political contributions to Republicans and Democrats, the administration did exactly what it should have done under the circumstances: nothing!

As to your statement regarding Fox News Network, I would welcome your proof that it is not a news source "known for it's journalistic integrity."

Known by whom? You? I don't think that is a very compelling argument.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jan 02 - 08:31 AM

Your hearing isn't impaired DougR, the problem is your so-called "news" sources. Fox News isn't exactly known for journalistic integrity when it comes to the facts of the matter, much less attempts to get at the truth of a matter.

And I can tell you one thing the Bush cabinet is guilty of, and the is the appearance of impropriety, if not worse. And in politics DougR, that can be just as bad, or worse, than actually having done the deed.

Just ask Gary Condit.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Troll
Date: 18 Jan 02 - 02:37 AM

Those of us who voted the present administration into office should be leading the pack in demanding full accountability. We all need to know who knew what and when. If any of the the Bush cabinet members withheld information about Enrons financial troubles prior to its public disclosure, they should be prosecuted to the fullest possible extent.
Again, the Bush supporters should be leading the charge for it will have been OURtrust that has been betrayed.
Until such time as proofs are presented, all any of us have are wishes and speculations.
On a different subject, I keep reading about the USsanctions on Iraq. Surely that should be the UN sanctions As I recall, the sanctions were imposed by the UN as punishment if Sadam refused to comply with the agreement he signed to allow UN inspectors to verify the destruction of his weapons facilities.
A minor point but troubling.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 18 Jan 02 - 12:06 AM

Hmmm. Harpgirl, I heard it on TV. Maybe my hearing is impaired though. Where did you find the $2,000 figure?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: harpgirl
Date: 17 Jan 02 - 02:53 PM

Doug, you need your prescription on your glasses checked! Lieberman got $2,000!!!! Contributions to Republicans topped those to Democrats, three to one!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: kendall
Date: 17 Jan 02 - 08:51 AM

Can you tell us the source of your info? Another source said dubbya got 250 thousand bucks just for his campaign. They are ALL dirty!! TERM LIMITS!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 16 Jan 02 - 02:29 PM

The original post asked the question: "I wonder who got the most from Enron?" It may have been posed because the poster was really curious. On the other hand, perhaps the question was a loaded one.

Latest news reports I have heard, however, indicate that Enron, Citicorp and Arthur Anderson may have provided funds to the Democrats than they did Republicans. The next few weeks should be interesting, I think.

I think it's already intresting that the Attorney General recused himself from the investigation because he received something like $50,000 from Enron for his senate campaigns. Senator Lieberman, on the other hand received something like $250,000 from Enron but has not recused himself from the investigation his Congressional committee is conducting. Does that seem reasonable?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 16 Jan 02 - 01:07 PM

Whoa, Kendall. That sounds very much like a conservative's statement. You don't want to be identified as one of them now, do you? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: kendall
Date: 16 Jan 02 - 08:45 AM

The federal government has only one duty. To do what must be done that we can not do for ourselves. I say again TERM LIMITS.