Posted on 01/14/2002 4:17:40 AM PST by cody32127
Former Bill Clinton spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri criticized President Bush's handling of the Enron scandal on Sunday, saying it had already become "a major problem" for the White House that would likely damage his image with the public.
"Even if no more damaging information comes out, this is a major problem for this administration," Palmieri told the New York Times. "It is going to damage the president's credibility and it's going to hurt their ability to get their message out."
Palmieri was one of three spokeswomen hired by Mr. Clinton after he left the White House last year. Over initial objections by Democratic National Committee officials, Clinton had Palmieri installed as DNC press secretary.
The former Clinton spokesgal suggested that the Enron scandal would pose a much more difficult challenge for the Bush administration than the 9/11 attacks and the ensuing war on terrorism.
"Since Sept. 11, they have all performed well under ridiculous pressure," she told the Times. "But they have never been through anything like this."
Palmeiri's Enron remarks would have likely been cleared with top Democratic Party officials, and possibly even with the ex-president himself.
In exclusive comments to NewsMax.com last year, Palmeiri denied gossip column reports that her then-boss had become a regular at several bars and saloons in Chappaqua, NY, the town where the former first couple settled after leaving the White House.
This is we planned,and with the help of the media fools we can make it stick.
Jennifer may be his official spokesgal, but Donna Barzille is the one who wears the kneepads.
What ties did Bush actually have with Enron?
"Well I don't know, but it sounds pretty horrible. Besides, they're all crooked anyway. He's no different. What we need is a breath of fresh air - I really like that good-looking lawyer from North Carolina. He seems honest."
Barf.
Yeah, sure, whatever you say honey.
Yeah, I see what she means. Bogus accusations which have a half-life measured in nanoseconds vs militant Islamic fundamentalists hiding around the globe. Sure.
Pure leftist political hogwash. What is the worst thing done here? That the Bush cabinet declined to help Enron. These slimey bottom feeders are trying to make something from absolutely Nothing!!
I'd say that depends to a large degree on what happens in the war: (1) Will there be another terrorist attack on the Homeland, (2) Will we pin down Osama or Omar in some location and begin the endgame of either capture, (3) Will we extend the war to a smaller country such as Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, etc. (4) Will we go after Iraq?
I'd say that any of these will push Enron hearings to the back page. And once it gets to the stage of accountants testifying about how beancounters do their business, then the public will nod off.
That's going to be quite the dynamic duo for the next campaign. My wife said, while watching the "Why do they both make me ill?"
Actual facts are not important. Take a look at the way media reports fill the first eight paragraphs with innuendo, then report the facts in one sentence in paragraph nine, which was continued on 17-A. The media understands that perception trumps facts any day of the week, and that's the game they're playing.
The Teapot Dome scandal of the Harding/Coolige administration did not hurt the Republicans. Coolige was relected in a landslide. That one was about a sweetheart give away of government property to Republican contributors. FDR among other Democrats screamed about it, but it had no effect on the votes in 1924 or 1928.
The WWII scandals of Roosevelt found contributors ripping off war contracts for big bucks. That happend during war time but it did not hurt Roosevelt. He won the presidency for the 4th time and held the house and senate easily. There were the Alger Hiss communist Scandals of the Truman administration. The Democrats did lose the 1952 election, but people were certain that Truman would lose in in 1948 and he did not. Certainly the communist scandals did not help the Republicans much. It was not the Truman scandals that elected Eisenhower. It was "I like Ike" that did it.
Eisenhower had the Vicuna coat scandal but it wasn't all that much. It certainly didn't hurt his administration. LBJ had some sweetheart FCC deals on a Radio and TV station, but it never made a blip. NAM took LBJ down. The Nixon Watergate scandal was the only one that hurt a candidate and party in this century. Watergate did indeed hurt Republicans.
The Jimmy Carter "Billy Gate" story of selling influence to Arab States didn't hurt Jimmy. It was the economy that hurt the Georgia flash. Iran Contra never hurt Reagan or Bush Sr. and made Ollie a media and talk radio star. We know for a fact that none of the Clinton scandals hurt him.
The only time a scandal has hurt at all, is when the Democrats make charges against a Republican and the Republicans agree with those charges. It was a Republican, Senator named Howard Baker who greatly contributed to taking Nixon down. The lesson of the last 100 years is it takes both parties to take a president or his party down with scandal. We just learned that once again. Without Democrat support for removing Clinton, the Republicans could not take him down.
A president gets in trouble with voters when he does something that hurts the American people or he fails to do something to help the American people. Herbert Hoover failed to try to fix the economy and paid a big price. Roosevelt tried and failed to fix the economy and was rewarded. Truman was seen as being for the little guy, and was relected against the odds. The Alger Hiss scandal did not hurt Democrats or Trumans and Roosevelts reputations. Reagan has gained a huge amount in prestige since he left office and Iran Contra is a footnote in the resume of the man that won the cold war.
The fact is, unless both parties jump on a president there is zero evidence scandal will hurt him. Failure to try to fix the economy is what costs presidents their jobs. Hoover, Carter, and Bush Sr. are the three examples of that.
Dubya is trying to fix the economy and the Democrats under Daschle are trying to stop him. That is the best win-win situation for a President since the depression. The FDR situation in the 1930s was created when the Republicans tried to stand in FDRs economic way. Back then if the economy got better is was because only Roosevelt was working to fix it. And if it got worse it was the Republicans blocking Roosevelt's plan to fix the economy. That is the situation today. If things get better Dubya did it. If they get worse, Daschle caused it.
Enron is an attempt to side track that situation after the polls show what a debacle Daschle has created for the Democrats. But you can't side track 35 thousand laid off auto workers and their families with an Enron story. They don't even know what Enron was, is, or could have been. They don't even care. They do know they are losing their jobs and Daschle won't pass an economic plan.
If the Democrats were smart they would propose a huge simulus plan way beyond what Dubya could accept. When Dubya opposed it, the Democrats could blame him for not fixing the economy. They are not that smart.
If I were the Republican strategist and got a genie to allow me to pick the Democrat leader, my first three choices would be Daschle.
The media always follows the Democrat lead... and Daschle has the look of a deer in Dubya's headlights.
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.