Posted on 04/22/2006 10:30:06 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
After leaving the White House in 2001, former President Bill Clinton was inundated with business and job offers, from investment-bank partnerships to seats on corporate boards. He turned them all down, with one exception: He agreed to be an adviser to a family of funds run by the Yucaipa Companies, a California private equity firm controlled by one of his best friends, the billionaire Ronald W. Burkle.
Mr. Clinton's arrangement with Mr. Burkle is an unusual one for a former president, giving him the potential to make tens of millions of dollars without great effort and at virtually no risk, according to Mr. Burkle and advisers to Mr. Clinton.
Mr. Clinton's role is to help find investment opportunities for Yucaipa projects, give credibility to the funds and champion their mission of investing in poor areas to corporate executives, union leaders and others. But he has put up little of his own money and has no day-to-day responsibilities over how the more than $1 billion in the funds is invested.
--snip--
The relationship brings together two outsize personalities who rose from modest beginnings to inhabit the glamorous heights of the political and financial worlds. The chubby young boy from Hope, Ark., and the grocery bag boy from Yucaipa, Calif., are now joined in a partnership that commands audiences of heads of state, business potentates and movie stars wherever they go in Mr. Burkle's Boeing 757.
It is a bond that is drawing news media attention, too, because of Mr. Burkle's allegations that a contributor to The New York Post, Jared Paul Stern, tried to extort $220,000 from him in exchange for keeping false stories about him out of the Post's gossip column, called Page Six.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
didn't see this posted.
Go to Slate's Mickey Kaus to see what an utter crock this is.
FRom the New York Observer
The Complete Ron Burkle
http://thedailytransom.observer.com/2006/04/the-complete-ron-burkle.html
Go to Slate's Mickey Kaus to see what an utter crock this is.
Here?
http://www.slate.com/id/2139592/
Protection racket?
A meeting was quickly set up at the Burbank airport with Mr. Burkle, then a registered Republican, who ran an empire of California supermarkets. The two men drove to a political event, then kept talking in the car for 45 minutes. Mr. Burkle said he came away in awe; he cast his first vote for a Democrat, Mr. Clinton, that fall.
Where do they get this stuff? According to the FEC, that good "Republican" was giving to Feinstein, Gray Davis, Leo McCarthy and other dems before he started giving to Clinton.
In 1986, he co-founded The Yucaipa Companies, a private investment firm. Thanks in part to Michael Milken's junk bonds, he was able to start buying supermarket chains such as Food 4 Less, Fred Meyer and Ralph's. He converted Ralph's into one of the most popular grocery stores in Southern California. In 1998, he sold his holdings to the Kroger Company, making billions in the deal. In 2000, according to The New York Times, he attempted to repay Mr. Milken for his early help by lobbying President Clinton to grant Mr. Milken a pardon. His efforts were unsuccessful.
Has Clinton ever earned an honest dollar in his life?
I think they mean this one:
http://www.slate.com/id/2140131/
Burn, Burkle, Burn!
Did the NYT get scammed by a PR-worthy anecdote?
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Saturday, April 22, 2006, at 8:14 PM ET
Thanks!
"Where do they get this stuff? According to the FEC, that good "Republican" was giving to Feinstein, Gray Davis, Leo McCarthy and other dems before he started giving to Clinton."
Most big businesses, their owners and executives give to BOTH parties' candidates. That way regardless of who wins, they have paid the entry fee to get their voices heard.
If you didn't know this, you are politically naive. No offense intended.
The "business" is essentially non-partisan and non-idealogical. It is pragmatic, hoping to better their own/its own self-interest.
I guess you missed the Republicans caught up in lobbying scandal recently. And of course the democrats are just as bad, probably worse.
Food 4 Less had a loss of $33.8 million
Andre Mouchard: The Orange County Register.
Oct 22, 1992. pg. d.01
(Snip)
In its SEC filing, Food 4 Less didn't break out results for the fourth quarter, when 44 company-owned stores were damaged or destroyed by rioting in Los Angeles County.Food 4 Less lent a hand in riot recovery
Russ Stanton: The Orange County Register
Jun 14, 1992. pg. k.07Ronald Burkle was attending a business meeting April 29 at a Los Angeles hotel when word came that a Simi Valley jury had acquitted four Los Angeles police officers in the beating of Rodney King.
The meeting adjourned for a few moments so participants could check the television news. Burkle -- like the rest of the world _ found himself watching in disbelief as the resulting anger turned into mayhem, then to all-out rioting.
"It was very depressing to watch our stores being destroyed, and it was very easy to get upset," he recalled a few weeks after the riots.
Nothing is unusual or beneath the Human Stain.
Burkle wasn't giving to both parties at the time, except for a couple congressman (Jerry Lewis in 1984 and 1990, Bob Hammock in 1990 and 1992, and Charles Bader in 1992). He definitely was supporting the Democrats for California government. Through 1992, he gave a total of $11,000 to Republicans and $78,000 to Democrats. From there on out, it was strictly Democrat, except a token amount to Pete Wilson for President and David Dreier.
If you didn't know this, you are politically naive. No offense intended.
ROFL! Whatever! Check the dang filings yourself. They hardly represent balanced giving, especially for a so-called Republican.
The "business" is essentially non-partisan and non-idealogical. It is pragmatic, hoping to better their own/its own self-interest.
The "business" was not the one giving the donations; these were contributions from an individual, specifically one Ronald W. Burkle. His "business" was a public company and any donations would be reported separately. If you don't know this, you are sorely misinformed. No offense intended.
I guess you missed the Republicans caught up in lobbying scandal recently. And of course the democrats are just as bad, probably worse.
I oppose sleazy operators, no matter the party. And why are you here on a conservative forum defending one of the scummiest guys around?
"Mr. Burkle would be proud if that were the case," Michael Sitrick, the spokesman, wrote in an e-mail. "Mr. Jackson is a good friend and has a great track record. Mr. Jackson met Mr. Busch at Mr. Burkle's house. A year later, Mr. Jackson purchased a distributorship in Chicago. He bought one of the worst performing distributorships and turned it around. Mr. Burkle would be proud to invest with Mr. Jackson but has never had the opportunity to do so."
You'd have to work real hard to lose money selling Budweiser. These distributorships should be licensed by the Treasury Dept. because they make so much money. Another Jackson shakedown.
What time period was that and what is the source of the snip? In looking at some old articles on the L.A. Riots, it looks like Burkle hooked up with the LA's African Methodist Episcopal Church (May 1992). I'm wondering if that is also when he hooked up with Jesse.
This story was written by a NY Times reporter who obviously feels his true calling was writting scripts for hollywood.
Burkle ping
"And why are you here on a conservative forum defending one of the scummiest guys around?"
Not defending him. Merely pointing out what I pointed out.
Said nothing about "balanced" giving, either.
Like you, I oppose sleazy operators from any party. I have watched quite a few, from local on up.
Being corruptable is almost a pre-requisite for politics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.