Hitler moustache Broom moustache
Got it?
Posted on 11/18/2003 3:51:36 PM PST by aculeus
Strange.
Got it?
Got what?
The cover's intention is clear: Bush is a Frankenstein monster. Cheney is Hitler.
This is pretty amazing, if true. It's the somewhat unrestrained anti-Bush cover on an overseas edition of Paul Krugman's latest book. ... As Stephen Kirchner points out, one implication is that American politics are actually less polarized, in Bush/anti-Bush terms, than politics elsewhere. ("I doubt they would get away with a cover like the Commonwealth version in the US.") But Donald Luskin's question--did Krugman approve?--is still a good one. ... P.S.: The cover's still noxious even if the images--e.g.Cheney with an oily Hitlerish mustache--are photos of placards carried at demonstrations. 7:23 P.M.
Anti-American Marketing
A few months ago Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman published a collection of his screeds from the New York Times op-ed page, titled "The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century." The cover is a rather dull affair: The author's name and subtitle appear in black letters against a white background, while the title is in white on an orange background. One corner of the orange rectangle appears to be dogeared, which we guess is supposed to be symbolic of the book's title, though it doesn't look like much of an "unraveling." The British edition of Krugman's book, however, has a lurid cover, one that appears designed to appeal to a virulently anti-American readership. (Click on the nearby thumbnail to see a bigger copy.) It shows a picture of the president of the United States holding a wad of money. His mouth is stitched shut, and the word ENRON is written on his forehead. Over to the right is the vice president, with a somewhat Hitlerian mustache drawn on his upper lip and the words GOT OIL? scrawled on his forehead. In the middle is a picture with a caption referring to Krugman's former boss: KENNETH LAY WEF ALUMNUS THEY ARE ALL LOOTING THE WORLD.
The British edition also has a far more confrontational subtitle: "From Boom to Bust in Three Scandalous Years." The funniest thing about it, though, is the blurb that appears under the author's name: " 'Everything Krugman has to say is smart, important and fun to read.'--The New York Times Book Review." We guess the Times has more credibility over there, where people are less familiar with it and don't know that it routinely publishes wacko screeds by former Enron advisers.
And you have brightened my life.
"Enron Kid" Krugman, smiling about his $50,000 check.
Must mean 1998, 99, and 2000. Especially the last two years when, according to Bob Novak, the Xlinton Commerce Dept. routinely overstated (lied about) the GDP figures by 10 to 30%.
A Sunday Washington Post piece, "Enron Also Courted Democrats", by senior writer Dan Morgan, told part of the story. The cryptic message between-the-lines: Democrats, be careful what you wish for... Washington's flagship liberal newspaper was worried 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 only slightly less than the figure the company reportedly gave Republicans: $623,000. One out of every 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. Moreover, Enron's largest unsecured creditor, CitiGroup, is a prominent contributor and lobbyist of Democratic Party office-holders and coffers.
Clearly, this undercuts the original tenet of the scandal-mongers '"case", namely that Enron and Republicans are merely two heads of the same evil monster. By lavishing both parties with company largess and attention, Enron was wisely hedging its bets. Politically, the bipartisan nature of its contributions and lobbying cuts both ways.
Complicating things further for any muck-rakers, it's been widely reported that former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin lobbied a senior ranking U.S. Treasury official on behalf of CitiGroup as early as last November. Apparently there was no longer any prohibition of such lobbying activities, and Enron's debt ratings were about to be slashed. Mr. Rubin quietly urged Undersecretary Peter Fisher to intercede with credit agencies on Enron's behalf. While he refused, the fallout from the repeal of President Clinton's Executive Order against lobbying had begun. Citigroup holds approximately $3 billion of Enron's debt, and the major players were engaging lobbyists with clout to keep that debt from going bad.
But beyond mere lobbying by former Clinton officials, some of the shenanigans appear to cross the rubicon into actual efforts by active (at the time) Clinton officials.
These include, but certainly aren't limited to, numerous trade delegation trips with Enron employees and Ron Brown (Clinton's Commerce Secretary), multi-million Dollar power contracts in Nigeria, as well as $3 Billion worth of power plants and contracts with the Clinton-lobbied Indian government. The Clinton administration even provided Enron with public funding for some of its overseas projects, but one in particular stands out as a suspicious 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 for which Clinton officials had moved heaven and earth to secure). In fact, as the Post points out, Clinton took such a keen interest in this one undertaking that he "deputized" as project overseer his own chief-of-staff, Thomas 'Mack' McLarty III. Once out of office, Enron later hired McLarty as a full time advisor and/or lobbyist.
Enron then proceeded to hire Jack Quinn, Elizabeth Moler, and Linda Robertson directly from the Clinton administration.
Mr. Lay's ties with the Clinton administration, and with Bill Clinton personally, therefor appear to be exceedingly close. No doubt that the repeal of Clinton's own Executive Order facilitated a large part of that appearance.
Yet despite generous campaign contributions and active lobbying from major Washington insiders, Mr. Lay has received nothing from the Bush administration. In fact, Bush officials wisely rebuffed pressure from Enron (as well as from Enron's main unsecured creditor) to intercede on the troubled company's behalf.
Ironically enough, this brings the focus back to the nexus between the Clinton administration, Enron, Ken Lay, lobbyists, and campaign contributions (which cry out for a thorough investigation). Why was the Executive Order against former administration officials from lobbying repealed, and were Enron's contributions to the DNC qui pro quo payments for the lobbying efforts in India and Nigeria by active Clinton administration officials?
Moo Juice Metaphor?
Yesterday's lead item prompted several readers to write us saying they think the mustache on Dick Cheney's visage on former Enron adviser Paul Krugman's British book cover isn't designed to make Cheney look like Hitler but rather is meant as a parody of those "got milk?" ads. Mickey Kaus has heard the same thing from his readers. Well, it's true that the Cheney 'stache is a bit wider than the Fuehrer's was, and the slogan on Cheney's head, GOT OIL?, does seem an obvious takeoff on the milk ads. On the other hand, you don't drink oil, and pseudonymous blogger Robert Musil argues that the milk ads would not be familiar to a British audience.
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.