Based on what we've learned about the Enron scandal so far, the mainstream media and Democrats, both salivating over the possibility of another Republican Watergate, ought to quietly tuck their tails between their legs and forget about it.
Sadly, it doesn't appear that this is going to happen – at least not if Democrats follow the advice of commentator and columnist Chris Matthews.
I grew to respect Matthews during the Clinton investigations as a man of intellectual integrity. His affinity for liberalism and the Democratic Party did not keep him from speaking out about Clinton corruption. And, as a columnist, he has every right to tell the Democratic Party what it ought to do to win the next round of elections. But his advice in this case, in my opinion, is destructive.
Matthews implicitly concedes that there's no direct Republican scandal concerning Enron. The Bush administration down the line refused the pleas for help from Enron's executives. Besides, Democrats were probably equal beneficiaries of Enron's political largesse. But Matthews has another angle in mind.
Says Matthews, "Here's how the Democrats should play this Enron thing: (1) Shoot to kill! Remember Mayor Richard Daley's orders to the Chicago police back in 1968? ... 'Shoot to kill.' Democrats should take Boss Daley's words to heart when they talk about the men who looted Enron. What inner-city rioters did to retail stores in the late 1960s, the big shots did to Enron. They looted the place. This is the story Democrats need to repeat until November. (2) Place the blame humbly and smartly on the Republicans ... the Republicans have a special weakness: a too-easy coziness with boardroom types, especially oil guys ... President Bush calls the Enron chief executive officer 'Kenny Boy.'"
Matthews suggests that Republicans can be tarred with Enron simply because of their image of being friendly to "big" corporations and Bush and Cheney's ties to the oil industry, in general, and Enron, in particular. "Enron's downfall," writes Matthews, "tells you something about the people in charge."
Oh? And what might that be, Chris? That despite his personal relationship with Enron's principals, President Bush possesses the character not to have used his political influence to rescue the corrupt company?
Not according to Matthews. He doesn't seem willing to exonerate the Bush administration on the basis of its actual behavior in this matter. Instead, he urges, Democrats should seek to taint the GOP by its mere association with Enron-type companies. "Instead of attacking the Republicans for Enron, the Democrats should attack the problem of Enron. They should continue to voice their empathy for the working families who got hurt and anger at those who did the looting. The voters will get the message ... A deep and abiding connection exists between a party's constituents and its positions. Bush and Cheney are oil and gas guys who feel at ease among oil and gas guys."
There you have it: liberal logic fast at work. You see, it doesn't matter that Republicans while in power refused to help their friends. What matters is that they are their friends. Since Matthews is advocating judgment by reputation rather than actual behavior, does this mean that the Clinton administration, because of its reputed unfriendliness to business, would have been free to have come to the aid of an Enron-type company?
I find this line of thinking not only illogical, but potentially harmful. What Mathews is saying, essentially, is that Democrats should not let this Enron "opportunity" pass because Bush's and Cheney's ties to big oil are just too delicious not to exploit.
Despite Matthews' obvious fascination with political gamesmanship, American politics is not just a contest between the two major political parties to see who can win at any cost. Ideas – including his prescription for the Democratic Party – have consequences. Pitting people against each other on the basis of their relative degrees of wealth – or their race, gender or religion, to name a few of the Democrats' other platforms for divisiveness – foments envy, greed and resentment. That's manifestly bad for society, regardless of who wins elections.
The lesson from Enron is not that big business (and therefore Republicans who are cozy with big business) is corrupt, but that specific companies are sometimes corrupt. The remedy is not to demonize the oil and gas industry or to punish the party of the two that promotes capitalism, but to make the individuals responsible for the misconduct (and the company in their charge) accountable. That's the American way.
But focusing on individual behavior (or encouraging individualism) is not the Democrats' strong suit. They get much more mileage out of alienating various groups. Hopefully, if they employ Matthews' strategy, this time they'll alienate voters as a group.
|
Enron and the Vengeful Democrats
by JohnHuang2
January 11, 2002 |
Democrats, who still bear the scars from the Clinton scandal machine, believe they've (finally) hit pay-dirt with the Enron debacle.
And so does the media.
The 'Grey Lady' of yellow journalism, predictably, was on the warpath yesterday. In a piece ominously titled, "White House Moves to Contain Political Damage From Enron Turmoil", "reporter" Jack Lynch wrote in his opening paragraph that Enron chief Kenneth Lay "had contacted two Cabinet members a few weeks before the giant energy company's collapse to warn of it's growing difficulties".
Clearly, the writer's implicit aim was not to inform so much as to cast aspersions on the Bush administration with derogatory innuendo and smear. The reader is beckoned to assume the worst -- ergo, some malfeasance had taken place -- sans a smidgen of evidence. By artfully lifting these calls wholly out of context, Mr. Lynch ipso facto maliciously insinuates guilt -- guilt on Bush's part, as much as the two Cabinet officers Mr. Lay contacted.
Indeed, only well into his article (paragraph 7) does Mr. Lynch, after weaving his mudslinging web of innuendo, finally divulge the actual mission behind these calls, one to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the other to Commerce Secretary Don Evans. Both calls were reportedly made last October, prior to Enron's spectacular collapse in early December.
The reason for Lynch's beguiling foot-dragging? Simply this: Far from snarling Bush administration officials in wrongdoing, the calls were inherently exculpatory. Yes, you heard right -- exculpatory. After warning Secretaries O'Neill and Evans of Enron's precarious financial position, Mr. Lay beseeched them for a bailout. Absent massive government assistance, the troubled company would slide into bankruptcy, the officials were told. Their answer, according to White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, was flat-out no. No bailout.
Agree or disagree with the decision, the refusal is inconsistent with the notion of Mr. Lay having undue influence over this administration. In fact, the bailout denial is the opposite of what one would expect if campaign money and friendship were what they are cracked up to be.
Imagine the outcry had the bailout request been granted. The raging firestorm among frothing Bush critics would rival Nixon's Watergate.
"Quid-Pro-Quo! Quid-Pro-Quo!", they would shriek. As far as punishment, the haters would be divided, however: Some would demand impeachment, others a public hanging.
Instead, the erstwhile oil trading colossus, with 20,000 employees, and marketing business in everything from pulp to bandwidth, was allowed to go belly-up. It's high-flying stock tumbled from $90 per share to under a dollar today.
So much for the 'Ken Lay-controls-George W. Bush' urban legend.
Moreover, the Justice department's decision to convene a national task force to probe Enron's demise -- an unprecedented maneuver -- only further debunks the nitpickers' swill. But the department went even further yesterday. To avoid even the appearance of 'conflict-of-interests', Attorney General John Ashcroft (who had received Enron contributions during his Senate campaign) announced his recusal from all matters pertaining to the Enron investigation. The recusal includes his chief-of-staff, David Ayers.
To get even further ahead of the curve, President Bush yesterday directed the Treasury, Labor and Commerce departments to comb the plethora of rules governing 401 (k) and other pension plans with a fine tooth comb. His goal is to ferret out the flaws in a system which allowed Enron employees to lose their life's saving when the company went under.
The President wants reform in corporate disclosure rules, as well. To this end, he's ordered the formation of a 'working group', consisting of Sec. O'Neill, the Federal Reserve, the S.E.C. among other agencies.
Bottom line? The President has grabbed this bull by the horns and, for all the prattle about political "damage", he's handled this teapot-sized tempest with aplomb, to the chagrin of all of the Bush-haters and bashers.
Another thing: If the vengeful Democrats, gung-ho on exacting revenge over Clinton's impeachment, see Enron as Bush's Waterloo, they're in for a crushing disappointment.
Their Enron obsession is understandable, of course: Bush's rock-solid popularity is holding steady, even as their party wallows in disarray and dysfunction. On the other hand, one thing does unite the beltway Democrats like nothing eles: Hate. Their shared hatred of Bush. It's ugly, it's spiteful, it's vile. And it's unseemly. For Bush-haters, it's not enough to disagree with the President: Policy differences must be criminalized.
This is the root of their Enron fixation. But unfortunately for them, Enron won't save them either. Their fanatical putsch will not only fail, it will backfire. The reason is simple: This President has forged a powerful bond with the people, especially in the wake of September 11. There's a chemistry there, one which Democrats, blinded in their hatred, have yet to fathom. This rapport, this wonderful chemistry, this mighty solidarity transcends race, ethnicity, party, religion, gender; Americans of all walks of life see in this humble man, this down-to-earth, straight-talker from Midland someone whom they can trust, someone they can believe in again. His persona embodies the optimism, the idealism, the cheerful self-assurance and confidence which makes us Americans.
America can not -- and will not ever -- say die.
So let the Democrats flail away in their smoldering anger; let them scour, let them probe, let them hound, let them stalk, let them rummage, let them shake their fists at this President: They will only hoist themselves on their own petard.
For America loves George W. Bush -- and nothing's going to change that.
God bless our President, God bless our troops and God bless the United States of America!
My two cents..
"JohnHuang2"
Copyright Enrique N. ©2001
|
|
Mr. President, How Dare You Be So Ethical!
by JohnHuang2
January 12, 2002 |
In case anybody missed it, there's a full-scale, no-holds-barred air war going on right now. A massive one. Daisy-cutters, 2,000-pound bunker-busters -- you name it. Bombs are dropping faster than you can blink. Squadrons of B-52s -- AKA 'big ugly fat fellows' -- are prowling the heavens, pounding enemy positions, unleashing their fiery wrath, carpet bombing around-the-clock... the works.
What's that you say? Haven't heard of this? Thought the war was over, eh? Well Fuggedaboudit! Flick on the idiot box, kick up your feet, sit back and enjoy (Drum roll, please?) -- OPERATION ENRON!!! Yep, folks, it's Enron at dawn, Enron at noon, Enron at dusk. Enron 24/7. The media high command has declared an air war against the Bush administration; The White House, like the mountains of Tora Bora, has become ground zero for media strike bombardiers.
Kidding aside, never -- ever -- in my life have I seen anything quite like what we're witnessing right now.
Media bias is one thing. We've all seen it. We've all tasted it. Heaven knows we've all groused about it, perennially. Bernard Goldberg's bombshell has soared to near the top of the New York Times best-seller list, and for good reason.
But, Ladies and Gentlemen, what we're witnessing goes beyond simple 'bias' -- well beyond. This isn't bias, this is fraud. Wholesale fraud.
The media is perpetrating one of the greatest frauds ever: To wit, the fabrication of a pseudo-political "scandal" -- out of whole cloth.
This isn't "news" "reporting", this is orgy-making -- a veritable orgy of innuendo. It would take years to tally all the libel and slander, all the malicious rumor-mongering, all the baseless smears -- the torrent of lies, insults and calumnies spewed straight from the bowels of our "major media" these past two days -- alone.
Question: Why is the media doing this? That's simple: Because they can.
Any proof of administration wrongdoing? No, not the vaguest hint, not the slightest intimation of official wrongdoing nor impropriety -- and even the media jackals know it.
Any proof of malfeasance or criminal activity by anyone in the Bush White House? Nope. None has been shown, none has been presented. Nothing even remotely resembling an allegation, even. But heck, who needs proof, anyway? Washington craves a 'scandal', and Enron fills the bill nicely, thank you very much.
No proof of a 'cover-up'? Then fabricate some! Of course, we all know Bush had nothing to do with the shredding* of documents, the massive cover-up by Enron's auditor. But oh, yummy, yummy -- how exquisitely delicious to find ominous buzz phrases like 'document-shredding', 'cover-up' and the name George W. Bush jammed together in the same sentence, eh? Who cares if they don't belong together? Who cares if Bush did absolutely nothing wrong? This is not about truth or fairness or facts or evidence: This is purely -- first and foremost -- about vengeance. Avenging whom or what, you ask? Why, the media's darling golden-boy, William Jefferson Clinton, who else?
But the haters have a major problem on their hands, and it's this: Signs are this phony "scandal" is headed in the opposite direction -- away from implicating current administration officials.
Indeed, think of how ludicrous this sounds: Democrats want to know -- not why there were -- but why there weren't any quid-pro-quo shenanigans. Why didn't you do any special favors on behalf of your big campaign contributor, Mr. President? Why didn't you bail out your rich oil buddy when he came beckoning and calling?
In other words, what the heck is the matter with you, Mr. President? Why, O why, didn't you do something wrong? Looting the treasury to bailout fat-cats; seedy backroom deals, bribery, extortion -- that's what we do here in Washington! How dare you be so ethical, so squeaky clean, Mr. President?!?!
Bottom line: Democrats want to know why Enron's generous contributions didn't buy any favors from this administration. How utterly UN-Clinton-esque can this President get, eh?
This is the first "scandal" in history in which no wrongdoing IS the scandal du jour. No special favors, no shenanigans, no quid-pro-quo -- now that's an outrage!
The Attorney General recusing himself? What?! This is earthshaking! Explosive! How scandalous!
Why the AG recusing himself to avoid tainting the probe should be seen as "scandalous?" You go figure.
But that's the nub of the problem with Enron as political "news": Its string of farcical flaws and fallacies.
It's why "Enron" will soon be running on fumes -- politically worthless, just like the company's stock. Absent some 'hook' -- proof of government cover-up, official malfeasance, etc. -- "Enron" inexorably reverts to its rightful place in the business page of the newspaper.
Already people are asking: Where's the beef?
*Ironies of ironies: The wholesale document destruction by Enron's auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, raises an interesting dilemma, particularly in light of the close ties between Ken Lay and the previous administration. Clinton was known to personally intervene on Enron's behalf on a number of occasions. Generous campaign donations would follow. The documents destroyed may have revealed a nexus.
My intrepid prediction: Enron will backfire on Democrats. Americans will see them as grossly over-reaching -- the "hearings" as sheer vindictiveness, an unwelcomed extension of Campaign 2000. Their vicious and spiteful crusade will be seen as blood sport -- a thinly veiled, all-out effort to cripple this President; the Democrats' ultimate goal is to assassinate him, politically, with constant, deadly attacks and smears.
But it won't work, because it can't work. The public will not look too fondly at their "Wanted: Dead or Alive" modus operandi at politics (again, figuratively speaking).
A political party whose sole obsession, whose only mission is to bring down the President -- come hell or high water -- is a party destined, rightfully, for the ash heap.
Fate will deal the Democrats, tone deaf and blinded by hate, a cruel blow, indeed. So let them nurse their hatred -- let them beat the dead horse of Enron: They will only bring down the wrath of a people, of a nation, still smoldering over September 11.
My two cents..
"JohnHuang2"
Copyright Enrique N. ©2001
|
|
|
|
That's the Moral of the Story, Folks
by JohnHuang2
January 15, 2002 |
Suddenly, literally overnight, the 'Enron affair' has transmogrified from 'White House scandal' to Democrat pickle -- major-league pickle, actually. The breakneck turn of the tables, politically, has been nothing short of stunning -- even by Washington standards.
The Democrats, who only days ago could barely contain their glee -- champing at the bit to tar and feather Bush with the ghastly Enron debacle -- are abruptly succumbing to a surprising case of cold feet. The haters are discovering, much to their chagrin, that the Enron affair -- should they pursue it -- could boomerang right back on them, and in more ways than they might imagine -- or want to bargain for.
A Sunday Washington Post piece, "Enron Also Courted Democrats", by senior writer Dan Morgan, told the story. The cryptic message between-the-lines: Dems, be careful what you wish for....
Washington's flagship liberal newspaper was worried, alright -- and for good reason.
From company documents and former employees, the tapestry of influence-peddling and money-for-favors the Post had unearthed, ironically enough, could prove hugely embarrassing to Democrats, including the party's most prominent members.
Indeed, in the last campaign cycle alone, Enron Corp. poured more than a half of million greenbacks into Democrat coffers -- $532,000 to be exact. That's a scant less than the figure the company reportedly gave Republicans: $623,000. One out of 2 members of the House and nearly 3 out of 4 members of the Senate have, at one time or another, received campaign contributions from Enron.
Clearly, this undercuts the basic tenet of the Democrats' "case", namely that Enron and Republicans are merely two heads of the same evil monster. By lavishing both parties with company largess, Enron was wisely hedging its bets. Politically, the bipartisan nature of its "beneficence" means Democrats have no moral leg to stand on: If accepting a donation from Enron 'taints' the recipient somehow, then Senator Joseph Lieberman, who has pocketed Enron* gratuity himself, should immediately recuse his position as chair of one of several committees probing the affair.
It does not suffice when Sen. Lieberman asserts, as he did last Sunday on CBS' Face the Nation, that since the donation in question dates several years back, he sees no conflict-of-interests. Not only is this self-serving excuse wholly inconsistent, it is morally bankrupt.
Sen. Lieberman should not exempt himself from the very standards he sets for others, for what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. By refusing to recuse himself, he undercuts his already frail credibility -- and that of the committee he chairs. By practicing such double standards, Democrats expose themselves for the partisan hypocrites they are. Their primary intention, obviously enough, isn't to probe Enron, per se, as much as to score cheap political points and, ultimately, bring down the President.
Yet, for reasons aforementioned, they will fulfill neither intent. If anything, their rabid campaign of smear and innuendo contains the seeds of a mighty public backlash.
Thus, neither side on Capitol Hill stands to gain politically from the Enron debacle.
Complicating things further for Democrats, it's been widely reported that former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin last November lobbied a senior ranking Treasury official on behalf of Citigroup, whose executive committee he chairs. Enron's debt ratings were about to be slashed, and Mr. Rubin improperly urged Undersecretary Peter Fisher to intercede with credit agencies on Enron's behalf. Citigroup holds approximately $3 billion of Enron's debt.
But beyond opening Democrats up to charges of rancid hypocrisy, some of the shenanigans reported by the Post appear to cross the rubicon of criminality. The Clinton administration had provided Enron with massive public funding for many of its overseas projects, but one in particular stands out as a clear case of 'quid-pro-quo'. In June of '96, Clinton golfing buddy and Enron chief Kenneth Lay cut a check totaling $100,000 to the DNC just four days prior to winning final approval from India of a major Enron development there -- one which Clinton had moved heaven and earth to secure. In fact, as the Post points out, Clinton took such a keen interest in this one undertaking, he even "deputized" as project overseer his own chief-of-staff, Thomas 'Mack' McLarty III. But the sleaziness didn't end there: Enron later hired McLarty as a full time advisor.
Oh, and did I mention what Jack Quinn, Elizabeth Moler and Linda Robertson all share in common? This: All three were Clinton administration big-wigs, and all three went to work for Enron.
Interesting, eh?
Bottom line: Mr. Lay's ties with the Clinton administration, and with Clinton personally, were exceedingly close, and mutually profitable.
Yet, despite generous campaign contributions, Mr. Lay has received zip-zero-nada from the Bush administration. In fact, Bush officials wisely rebuffed pressure from Enron -- and Enron's main creditor -- to intercede on the troubled company's behalf.
Ironically enough, it is the nexus between the Clinton administration, Enron and campaign contributions which cries out for a thorough investigation. Accordingly, watch the media frenzy over this 'story' disappear after some initial fireworks from Capitol Hill later this month as hearings gear up. The 'hearings' will go no where, it's easy to predict.
The underlying moral of this story is especially interesting, one which, unsurprisingly, totally escapes the attention of a cynical press. From it we learn how, even in politics, good character will trump money -- every time. Ken Lay was able to buy off the Clinton administration lock, stock and barrel (garnering endless favors-for-cash, at taxpayers' expense)-- but Mr. Lay got nothing -- absolutely nothing -- from President George W. Bush, notwithstanding his lavish campaign donations. The reason? It's as simple and clear as it gets: This President is not for sale. Not now, not ever -- not at any price. His administration is a textbook example of good government. All the campaign finance laws in the world will never substitute for exemplary character and moral integrity -- the qualities this President exudes.
Honor, probity, personal rectitude -- these are Bush's defining traits, and give this President his special appeal.
President George W. Bush is living testimony to why we don't need McCain-Feingold to have honest government -- the kind of government Americans can trust.
And that, my friends, is the real moral of the story.
*Raising more thorny 'conflict-of-interests' questions, Sen. Lieberman reportedly accepted lavish campaign contributions from Citigroup, to the tune of $112,546. According to Enron court filings, Citigroup happens to be the company's largest creditor, with outstanding loans totaling $3 billion. In other words, insofar as appearances go, Mr. Rubin may as well chair Lieberman's committee. The notion that Lieberman can lead an "impartial" investigation of a company which burned his top campaign contributor is laughable on its face. I rest my case.
My two cents..
"JohnHuang2"
Copyright Enrique N. ©2001
|
Chris Matthews exemplifies the basic problem the DNC and the media have trying to tie this rock around GW's neck. I call it the " H & R Block" factor. During April, many rush to their accountant, either because they are intimidated by the tax jargon or don't want to be bothered with the number crunching. You need to be a CPA, to understand all the emerging details of Enron. But -Bush's role is easily understood-like a 1040 form-calls were made, nothing happened. The Democrats have become mad accountants,trying to give the Enron monster life. But the villagers don't care- they like and understand the 1040 form.
Many thanks, as usual, for your " 2 cents", which are worth far more. BRAVO; well done !
Now, if only the supposed " conservatives " , on FR, who keep bashing President Bush, and see major corruption, where there is NONE, will wake up to the fact, that they are not only sounding EXACTLY like LIBERALS , they are giving aid and comfort to the damned Dems. The lates ETHERZONE spew, which was posted on FR , is a case in point. Isolationists, and those who are part of the anti-war,com crowd , need to look in the nearest mirror, when they decide to call FREEPERS Nazis !
Thanks, dear friend ; but John deserves about 98.9 % of your praise. : - )
The guy who wrote this piece of Patriotic Music wouldn't think it was so hot. Could have knocked me clean over when it showed up in my mailbox. With an avatar, yet. LOL!
Now why would someone deliberately bring this to my attention? I SOOO dislike being used.
You see, I'm one of those broken glass Republicans who happens to believe in our President. I don't find him nearly as reprehensible or senseless as Harry Browne or as pathetically self-destructive as Patrick J., and he sure is the man we need for this age. Can you imagine what we'd be doing if anyone who was running against him would have won?
#######################################################
Well, I am not much on Haiku, but this is my fave anti-bush poem:
The Kennebunkport Hillbillies
(Sung to the tune of The Beverly Hillbillies Theme Song)
Come and listen to my story 'bout a boy named Bush. His IQ was zero and his head was up his tush. He drank like a fish while he drove round all about. But that didn't matter 'cuz his daddy bailed him out. DUI, that is. Criminal record. Cover-up.
Well, the first thing you know little Georgie goes to Yale. He can't spell his name but they never let him fail. He spends all his time hangin' out with student folk. And that's when he learns how to snort a line of coke. Blow, that is. White gold. Nose candy.
The next thing you know there's a war in Vietnam. Kin folks say, "George, stay at home with Mom." Let the common people get all maimed up and scarred. We'll buy you a spot in the Texas Air Guard. Cushy, that is. Country clubs. Nose candy.
Twenty years later little Georgie gets a bored. He trades in the booze, says that Jesus is his Lord. He said, "Now the White House is the place I wanna be." So he called his daddy's friends and they called the GOP. Gun owners, that is. Fallwell. Jesse Helms.
Come November 7, the election ran late. The kin folks said, "Jeb, give the boy your state!" "Don't let those colored folks get into any polls." So they put up the barricades so they couldn't punch their holes. Chads, that is.. Duval County. Miami-Dade.
Before the votes were counted, the five Supremes stepped in. Told all the voters, "Hey, we want George to win." "Stop counting votes!" was their solemn invocation. And that's how George finally got his coronation. Rigged, that is. Illegitimate. No moral authority.
Y'all come vote now. Ya hear?
Chris's network need to come clean and acknowledge his real title - "DNC Media Shill."
Thanks for your 2 cents, John. Matthews embodies the arrogance of the left and their near monopoly of the mass media. But their control of the news is showing cracks. And the liberals attempt to push this story may well come back to bite them.