ENRON'S BIPARTISAN WAYS

New York Post ^ | 1/12/02

[kattracks]

January 12, 2002 -- Congressional Democrats are sharpening their political claws. The Washington press corps, as Newsweek's Howard Fineman admits, is acting "like a pack of bloodhounds on the first day of hunting season."

Why? The collapse of the energy giant Enron, the biggest corporate bankruptcy in U.S. history.

[newzjunkey]

Good find!

[xm177e2]

To pretend this burgeoning scandal will embarrass Bush alone is partisan nonsense.

Not really. You see, the media will only report that it's embarrassing Bush. It will go out of its way to only show the every sixth degree of separation to Republicans while willfully ignoring the Democrats' involvement.

[the_slayer]

I agree with the factual content of that article, if not the tone. Without begging to partisanship, let's examine that content: There is no question this Enron fiasco could not have happened without the implicit consent of both Reps and Dems. However, there is a huge differential in terms of partisan monetary outlay. I note that your article cites NY Senator Schumer as receiving the fourth-largest of Enron's "payoffs." The amount Senator Schumer received is approximately $22K. WRT the US Senate: the third-largest Enron beneficiary was approximately the same amount...maybe $23K. The two top recipients in this matter are both Texas Senators, to the tune of approximately $96K apiece. Er ahem, those top three figures are Republicans. The top two account for well over half of Enron's total Senate "contributions," and it is no coincidence that Enron's HQ is in Houston. I have no problem with your facts, and as I've previously stated, I believe both Dems and Reps should shoulder some measure of responsibility for the Enron fiasco. But I have a HUGE problem with the omission of salient data (as per your article). To call this a bipartisan issue, while technically correct, seems a weak defense. The current administration should simply own up to having made a poor decision, and if there are criminal elements at work, then those criminal elements should be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law. To engage in finger-pointing and granular blame seems (to me) to evoke everything of the Democratic Party.

[patj]

While it is true that both parties have benefited from the Enron largesse, there appears to be a quid pro quo for the Democrats that isn't there for the Republicans.

[jokemoke]

As time goes by this will be VERY embarrassing to the Dems. ....and I'm going to love every minute watching them all squirm again. Just wait until the Justice Department's investigation is complete and it all becomes public. You can bet the timing will be just perfect.

Dear Dems: You tried to drag President Bush into this Enron mess but it won't work because he is an honest man. One thing is for sure: Paybacks are he**! Waxman has bitten off more then he can chew! I'm smiling already.

[I still care]

I'm with you. I see the trend developing here, and I don't like it. The truth has nothing to do with what the press reports, and as we all know, innuendo and half facts can turn elections and influence people. I heard a freeper say the other day a commentator (Chris Matthews) went down a list of contributions from Enron, conveniently leaving out the Democrats. The Democrats can be very devious. They know one of Bush's weak points is the perception of some of the public he is in the pocket of the energy companies, and they are going to exploit it for all they can. The only fortuate thing is there is no sex tied up in this to keep the attention of the sheep. But the democrats are going to run with this for all it is worth, and they are going to do damage. People who think (conservatives) seem to me to continually underestimate the impact of a vicious liberal press on an uneducated populace.

For several months now I see signs the public has been waking up, (BIAS #1 on bestseller lists) but the media is going to "go to town" gleefully on this one. Besides, damaging Schumer is a good trade-off for damaging the president.

[The Raven]

Back in 1995, Clinton had his chief of staff, Mack McLarty, push Enron's bid to win a $3 billion power-plant project in India. Four days before it won final approval in 1996, Enron donated $100,000 to the Clinton-controlled Democratic National Committee. McLarty later became an Enron executive.

Wow! The libs really did dig up a scandal in Enron! OK...let's see if they follow through on this. Quid pro quo (how do you spell that?)

[£inuxgruven]

there appears to be a quid pro quo for the Democrats that isn't there for the Republicans

Explain, please.

[patj]

Trips with the Democratic Trade Missions followed by huge donations to the DNC (read Clinton) and then large contracts.

[Right_in_Virginia]

While it is true that both parties have benefited from the Enron largesse, there appears to be a quid pro quo for the Democrats that isn't there for the Republicans.

I agree. As I've posted before, the real political headline for this Enron mess is: "President Bush Restores Ethics to Government...Democrats Caught Unprepared."

[£inuxgruven]

I'm hearing that the (R)'s got 5 or 6 times the contributions than the (D)'s got. Have I heard wrong? (Don't have the time now to click for research...but I will)

[alley cat]

While it is true that both parties have benefited from the Enron largesse, there appears to be a quid pro quo for the Democrats that isn't there for the Republicans.

Yep! The Fox All-Stars said as much yesterday. Even Juan seemed bothered by it!

[patj]

I'm hearing that the (R)'s got 5 or 6 times the contributions than the (D)'s got.

That's because they compare Reps. and Senators and leave out what was given to the DNC.

[£inuxgruven]

hmmm...I'll double check that tomorrow--er, later today.

[ThinkingMan]

Quite simple- Clinton paved the way for an Enron plant in India that was controversial at the time, and received a payment (I mean "donation") from Enron 4 days before India gave final approval on the plant. Enron called the current administration looking for help when they were in trouble and were told no. They are now bankrupt. This whole debacle could easily be shown to highlight why government interference in a free market system only leads to trouble. (Bear with me on this one): 1996 Enron stock price: mid to high teens 1997: $20's 1998: $high 20's to 30s 1999: $30's to mid 40's 2000 Enron stock price: $50-90$ Today: .67 Notice the sharp increase after direct government intervention (paving way for the India plant) this increase in value encourages an increase in the volume as well. Because of government intervention, more people had more of their money in Enron than likely would have if the India plant had failed to be approved. While I understand that this overly simplifys the issue, ignoring a myriad of issues that account for the stock price and volume, the meat is simply this: Enron may not have been a viable and competitive company, they only looked that way because of inaccurate and untruthful financials. If Clinton had not intervened, there is a good chance that this would have been played out when Enron's market cap was much smaller, and the impact would have been smaller. (or Enron may have adjusted their operations and become hugely succesful on their own merits through sound business practices). The market has simply discovered that financially Enron was a sheep dressed as a wolf. Once the sheep was exposed it was devoured. (Gotta love capitalism!)

[Moonmad27]

In Texas, what happens with state legislators as well as Texas congress members and senators affected Enron most closely since it's headquartered there. So naturally the most money went to Texas legislators - dems and Republicans. I shudder to think of the influence Enron has (had?) in Houston, where the new baseball stadium that we didn't need was named for them (after major contributions, of course). The dems will do anything to bring down GWB since his poll numbers are so high. Enron calls the White House - and gets no help. Where's the scandal in that?

[moneyrunner]

"There is no question this Enron fiasco could not have happened without the implicit consent of both Reps and Dems."

What in the Hell are you talking about? Do you have the slightest clue as to why Enron went broke?

[moneyrunner]

"Notice the sharp increase after direct government intervention (paving way for the India plant) this increase in value encourages an increase in the volume as well. Because of government intervention, more people had more of their money in Enron than likely would have if the India plant had failed to be approved. While I understand that this overly simplifys the issue, ignoring a myriad of issues that account for the stock price and volume, the meat is simply this: Enron may not have been a viable and competitive company, they only looked that way because of inaccurate and untruthful financials."

Thank you. You are one of the very few who see Enron for what it is. I would argue with you that the staggering increase in the price of Enron stock was more due to the perceived electricity shortage and the technology bubble than to the plant in India.

The problem with the Enron collapse is that most people are financially clueless. So they assume that there must be political corruption at the base of this. There may be some associated with the $100,000 contribution to the DNC in return for help in India, but the reasons for Enron’s collapse are too much debt guaranteed by Enron stock. When the stock price tanked, the debt came due. And the Bush administration did not ride to the rescue. That’s the free market.