BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 12:07 PM

Pardon, Sage, but Methinks you may be confused. The investigation showed that Bush won.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 12:10 PM

No, it didn't. It took into account the various messed up ballots, though, so I'm sure those who want to spin the story according to Bush's winning only have to drop those ballots. It's all a matter of interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 12:15 PM

There were numerous investigations into the vote count in Florida, some showed Bush won, some showed Gore won. But the fact is, the Florida vote was only ever about the Electoral College.

Gore won the nationwide popular vote--and the popular vote count has never been in question.

I don't know how many other presidents, if any, have ever won the Electoral College vote, and lost the national popular vote before. But I'm sure it would be easy enough to find out.

I'm fairly certain there have been other instances where the Supreme Court has been involved in the presidential vote, but offhand, I don't know what they are. Nonetheless, the *stopping* of the vote count by the Supreme Court is, if I recall correctly, unprecedented.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 12:18 PM

The New Yorker recently had an excellent discussion of this recount by the news agencies. I'll look for the citation and send it along when I get home.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 12:33 PM

Here is the answer to one of my own questions:

Three times in American history the Electoral College has elected a president who did not win the popular vote.

In 1824, John Quincy Adams, son of President John Adams, became president despite receiving fewer popular and electoral votes than Andrew Jackson, who finished first but failed to win a majority of either vote. Adams, after striking a deal with the third-place candidate, was elected president by Congress as required by the Constitution when no candidate wins an electoral vote majority. In 1828, Jackson defeated Adams handily.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote to Samuel Tilden by 247,000 votes, but won the Electoral College by one vote, 185 to 184. Hayes, who served one term, was derided by critics as "His Fraudulency" and "Rutherfraud."

In 1888, President Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by 90,000 votes but lost the Electoral College vote 233-168 to Benjamin Harrison. Four years later, Cleveland ousted Harrison from office, winning both the popular and electoral votes by a wide margin.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bennet Zurofsky
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 12:38 PM

It is true that there have not yet been any clear allegations of criminal wrongdoing by the President or any of his men in direct connection with Enron.

That is precisely the problem, because it is clear that Enron has been extremely influential in all matters of energy policy, including especially deregulation of trading of energy, and tax policy. Bush, Cheney, and many others, including most of the Democrats, are clearly prepared to do the bidding of the Enrons of the world, and they have received the massive political donations to prove that they were bought fair and square.

None of this is criminal, or even unethical in the Congressional sense of the term, because the laws have been written and interpreted by Congress and the Rehnquist Court to only outlaw money that flows as an express and provable quid pro quo for a specific action by a governmental official. Thus, Senator Torricelli (Dem., N.J.) was recently found to have broken no law by the U.S. Attorney, although he certainly put on a seamy display.

The system is rigged for corporate power. Mark Twain's book, The Gilded Age, describes it well. Only the industries have changed.

If there turns out to be any criminal conduct, I suggest following the money, especially stock trades made by those close to various politicians while Enron was on the way down. It is true that the Cabinet officials do not seem to have leapt to Enron's aid. It is also true that they kept quiet about what they heard. This may well violate the insider trading laws.

The folks who were called by Enron had information that was important to the investing public: 1) they knew that Enron's management was starting to get desperate and was seeking government assistance; 2) they knew the government had turned Enron down. Investors would have liked to have known both of these facts at the time. Although the stock's value was already depressed by bad news that had already come out, bankruptcy was still not widely predicted. Indeed, the stock was worth something like fifteen times as much then as it is worth today.

It will be interesting to learn if anyone with access to that information, or close to the Bush Administration, made any trades in Enron stock or derivatives following the phone calls to the Cabibnet officials who did nothing.

Enron is an important scandal because it reveals the true workings of our system and the power of corporations to control our so-called leaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 12:38 PM

And here is an interesting website on the court intervening in a presidential election:

http://www.humanevents.org/articles/12-22-00/jeffrey.html

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 12:43 PM

It is also true that Enron's board got *their* money out of the corp. when the downhill slide began, at the same time they lied to the employees and shareholders. Now, if any Cabinet members were aware that was going on and did nothing, I think there may well be some criminal wrongdoing involved. But i gotta get back to work.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 01:20 PM

Geez, these Bush's and money scandals....Daddy George had a similar fiasco with the S&L's some ten years ago. It must run in the family.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 01:33 PM

So, I assume it is the postion of the majority of posters that the Bush administration SHOULD have bailed out Enron. Is that what you think?

They are being damned because they did nothing, so I assume it is logical that you believe they should have done something.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bennet Zurofsky
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 02:17 PM

Perhaps they should have bailed out Enron, but only in exchange for re-regulation of the electric power industry, which should never have been de-regulated. That entire question, however, is basically irrelevant to my posting.

My point was not that Enron should have been bailed out. My point was that both the request of the bail out and the denial thereof constituted material information that should have been disclosed to the public, especially the stock-trading public. Once the information was in the possession of cabinet officials it could no longer properly be kept secret. About the only laws that are regularly enforced regarding the stock markets are the laws regarding proper disclosure of material information to the public and prohibiting insider trading.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bennet Zurofsky
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 02:30 PM

For those interested in the question of Bush dealings with Taliban before September 11 and the question of whether the administration was reigning in efforts to capture Bin Laden, the following is the most reputable news coverage I have come across. I understand this to be a transcript of a CNN Broadcast, although I am accepting that on faith from a representation made on another site:

An Interesting Interview on CNN

Aired January 8, 2002 - 07:34 ET

PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Time to check in with ambassador-in- residence, Richard Butler, this morning. An explosive new book published in France alleges that the United States was in negotiations to do a deal with the Taliban for an oil pipeline in Afghanistan. Joining us right now is Richard Butler to shed some light on this new book. He is the former chief U.N. weapons inspector. He is now on the Council on Foreign Relations and our own ambassador-in- residence -- good morning.

RICHARD BUTLER, FMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good morning, Paula.

ZAHN: Boy, if any of these charges are true...

BUTLER: If...

ZAHN: ... this...

BUTLER: Yes.

ZAHN: ... is really big news.

BUTLER: I agree.

ZAHN: Start off with what your understanding is of what is in this book -- the most explosive charge.

BUTLER: The most explosive charge, Paula, is that the Bush administration -- the present one, just shortly after assuming office slowed down FBI investigations of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan in order to do a deal with the Taliban on oil -- an oil pipeline across Afghanistan.

ZAHN: And this book points out that the FBI's deputy director, John O'Neill, actually resigned because he felt the U.S. administration was obstructing...

BUTLER: A proper...

ZAHN: ... the prosecution of terrorism.

BUTLER: Yes, yes, a proper intelligence investigation of terrorism. Now, you said if, and I affirmed that in responding to you. We have to be careful here. These are allegations. They're worth airing and talking about, because of their gravity. We don't know if they are correct. But I believe they should be investigated, because Central Asian oil, as we were discussing yesterday, is potentially so important. And all prior attempts to have a pipeline had to be done through Russia. It had to be negotiated with Russia. Now, if there is to be a pipeline through Afghanistan, obviating the need to deal with Russia, it would also cost less than half of what a pipeline through Russia would cost. So financially and politically, there's a big prize to be had. A pipeline through Afghanistan down to the Pakistan coast would bring out that Central Asian oil easier and more cheaply.

ZAHN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) as you spoke about this yesterday, we almost immediately got a call from "The New York Times."

BUTLER: Right.

ZAHN: They want you to write an op-ed piece on this over the weekend.

BUTLER: Right, and which I will do.

ZAHN: But let's come back to this whole issue of what John O'Neill, this FBI agent...

BUTLER: Right.

ZAHN: ... apparently told the authors of this book. He is alleging that -- what -- the U.S. government was trying to protect U.S. oil interests? And at the same time, shut off the investigation of terrorism to allow for that to happen?

BUTLER: That's the allegation that instead of prosecuting properly an investigation of terrorism, which has its home in Afghanistan as we now know, or one of its main homes, that was shut down or slowed down in order to pursue oil interests with the Taliban. The people who we have now bombed out of existence, and this not many months ago. The book says that the negotiators said to the Taliban, you have a choice. You have a carpet of gold, meaning an oil deal, or a carpet of bombs. That's what the book alleges.

ZAHN: Well, I know you're going to be doing your own independent homework on this...

BUTLER: Yes.

ZAHN: ... to see if you can confirm any of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bennet Zurofsky
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 02:37 PM

Here is the official CNN transcript, which is longer than what I have posted above:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 02:59 PM

This isn't about a bail out, DougR. It's about a government that has at least some responsibility of protecting its citizens from criminals and bad guys. The executives at Enron were in the midst of a heist and if the Bush Administration knew of it and did nothing, well then they should be held accountable, just a a bad cop who turns his back on criminal wrong doing. As others have pointed out, and I am in agreement with them, that if we find that the Bush Administration did in fact knowingly let the executives of Enron bail out with over a billion dollars at the expense of its employees, then this will be the demise of Bush's presidency. His ratings, once they start falling will sink quickly, especially as the American people grow bored or impatient with the war, which will happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 03:19 PM

There is no evidence to date that the Bush administration had anymore information about Enron's downward spiral than anyone else did, including the stock-holders! Anyone who can read the financial pages could see that the spiral began months ago. It is the responsibility of investors to police their own investments, not the federal government. If, Bennett, you had stock in Enron and didn't dump it in time to at least recover your investment, that is your fault not the feds!

On the Butler interview: IF Butler's charges are true, Daschle and crew would be on the Bush administration like flies on "you-know-what." Why haven't they been? Dont' you find that interesting, Bennett? If they could hang something like this on Bush, don't you think they would? You don't suppose Butler was trying to sell a book, do you?

Butler admits, himself, they are only allegations and not proven facts. Yet you post this message expecting that everybody is going to go ape over some alleged action of the Bush administration. Big deal. No one needs to manufacture or emphasize allegations about the Bush administration in order to garner criticism on the Mudcat. Just the fact that the Bush administration is running the country is enough for the majority.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bennet Zurofsky
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 04:14 PM

DougR-

I believe that you were the one that criticized my earlier posting on Bush and the Taliban, perhaps properly so, for coming from a source that was unknown to me. I therefore posted the account from the more "reputable" CNN. This is obviously a developing story and the principal source of information, John P. O'Neill, the former assistant director of the FBI who the book author claims to have interviewed, was unfortunately among those killed at the World Trade Center on September 11.

Nevertheless, whatever contacts took place between the Bush Administration and the Taliban before September 11 were undoubtedly documented by the State Department and/or the White House. Similarly, the FBI certainly documented its efforts and Mr. O'Neill may have documented his resignation. All of this should be available to appropriate Congressional Committees.

You ask why Daschle and the rest of the Democratic establishment have not seized upon this. I propose the answer is that they too do the bidding of the large corporations and are not especially inclined to focus on the injury the corporate to public policy causes to the rest of us. Senator Daschle, for example, has a terrible record of protecting Western Mining Interests (First Cousins of Big Oil) from such matters as environmental protection regulations and paying appropriate royalties for mineral rights below public lands. Moreover, it is difficult to attack the President's policy towards the Taliban before September 11 and to simultaneously back him 100% in his role as Commander-In-Chief against the Taliban after September 11. Daschle and the rest of the Democrats have consciously worked to avoid all foreign policy criticism and have, since September 11, limited their critiques of Bush to domestic issues.

I do not know the truth of the matter, but I certainly think it is a question worth pursuing. Its common thread with Enron is the elevation of corporate interests, particularly oil interests, above all else.

The deal described in the posting most likely seemed sensible from a business point of view. Why not build a shorter pipeline to bring Caspian Sea oil to market? The problem is that the politicians place these business interests above all else.

It is no coincidence that most of our worst enemies turn out to be people that we used to back. If we focused more on human rights and feeding the hungry in our foreign policy, rather than upon promoting the interests of business, we would not be having most of these problems. This is not a question of Democrat or Republican, its a question of establishment politics against the true interests of ordinary citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 07:23 PM

I find little to disagree with in your 4/14" post, Bennett. No question but that anything alleged of this sort should be completely investigated, and let the chips fall where they may.

My point regarding Sen. Daschle, was that the Democrats are valiantly seeking something negative to pin on Bush and his administration hoping to gain house seats in the next election. If there is substance to Butler (O'Neil's) charges, I can't imagine the Democrats holding back on that one. Perhaps the charges are too new to have attracted attention form the majority of the press though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: kendall
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 08:39 PM

All in due time my pretty.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jan 02 - 08:55 PM

Kendall! Are you flirting with me??????? I'm shocked! First, the Llamas, mutter, mutter, ...:>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: toadfrog
Date: 15 Jan 02 - 01:42 AM

Doug: With all respect to your position generally, it is just plain wrong to say " It is the responsibility of investors to police their own investments, not the federal government." Everybody knew that was wrong by 1929, at the very latest. Investors can't fend for themselves without reliable information. They did not have reliable information about Enron. They did not know about Andy Fastow and his partnerships. They couldn't know, because it was Arthur Andersen's job to blow the whistle, and it didn't do its job. Investors can't have reliable information without government help. The SEC and the auditors are supposed to see that they get reliable information. And it is getting clearer every day that somebody is going to have to police the auditors. That means, police the Auditing Standards Board, and prohibit auditing firms from doing "consulting" work for their audit clients, as Arthur Andersen did. The 1994 Congress cut way back on funds for the SEC, and this Administration is not going to permit anybody to police large campaign contributors.

So, although I have no particular reason to believe W did anything to violate Title 18, he is still responsible, and I think a lot of people may come to feel that as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jan 02 - 08:53 AM

If Cabinet level members of the Bush administration knew of the deceptions used to rob the Enron shareholders and employees of their money, and did nothing, at the very least they are criminally liable for obstruction of justice. It is too early to see what will play out with all this.

Democrats are just as culpable as Republicans when it comes to government corruption, and our system of federal government is extremely corrupt. Nobody cares about investigating sex scandals with little girl interns. But start following the money trails, and everybody inside the beltway becomes VERY quiet.

And as many people are already saying, it won't matter what the Democrats will or won't investigate or try and use to their own petty advantage in the upcoming election. People may just be furious enough to throw out members of Congress they perceive as being too cozy with the Bush/Cheney family of crooks. The perception of crookedness and greed is what will hurt the Republicans more than anything the Democrats do.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Jan 02 - 10:09 AM

Bennet, Toadfrog:

Good posts. The Democrats and Rupublicans have become no more that two social groups, much like rival fraternities on a college campus. No matter what one does the other will try to find fault. They both bunk with corporations because they need the money for re-election. I would like to see real campaine finace reform and since the corporations have established themselves as major players in financing campaines that what ever level of financing they provided prioe to the reform would be expected and go into a pool to be divided up equally among candidates of the three largest parties.

When we have real reform in the area of financing then the government will work more the way the founding fathers intended it to work.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jan 02 - 12:47 PM

I respectfully disagree, Toad. I don't believe it is the government's responsibility to police the investments of private citizens. I agree that it appears that Arthur Anderson failed to do it's job but as to the SEC, I assume they saw the same figures, the same reports that the investors saw.

If the Bush administration HAD have done something to help Enron, you folks would be screaming to high heaven because Bush helped his friend, Ken Lay, out.

Bush can't win with you folks anyway, so what's the point?

I suppose it provides some therapy, though, to be able to kick him around even though their appears to be no wrong-doing.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jan 02 - 08:02 PM

The point DougR, isn't that we thought the board of directors of Enron needed help from the White House. We think Enron's shareholders and employees needed to be legally protected from the fraud and deception alleged to have been committed by both the Enron BoD & Arthur Anderson.

As I said earlier, if even one Cabinet level member of the Bush White House--or higher, for that matter, had any knowledge of the wrongdoing, they may be criminally negligent, or guilty of obstruction of justice for not requesting the Dept of Justice intervene. I don't expect public servants to work for corporados and their legal bullies, I expect them to work for the common good, which in this case was clearly NOT the Enron BoD or Arthur Anderson.

I also can't believe you'd even make a statement claiming "there appears to be no wrong-doing"!

WHHHHAAAAA????

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jan 02 - 11:02 PM

Well then, Guest, what did they do wrong?

Point your finger at Enron and Arthur Anderson. They are the wrong-doers.

There is no evidence (as yet) that points to a Cabinet member having any inside information that Enron had printed false information in quarterly or annual reports! If you have information that refutes that statement, share it with us (and the press because they haven't indicated anyone did either). I think you are operating on hope.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jan 02 - 08:31 AM

Here's one for you DougR:

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:50 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 - 10:55 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 - 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 - 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 - 11:20 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: 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 - 11:24 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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...