Posted on 01/14/2002 5:05:25 PM PST by Republican_Strategist
“Those who know when to fight and when not to fight are victorious” – Sun Tzu
Congressional Democrats have chosen their first major assault on the presidency of George W. Bush. But they have chosen the wrong time to fight. Two of President Bush’s likely challengers are leading the effort – Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn) and Senate Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD). They have called for an full investigation into the Enron bankruptcy, hopefully to forge a link between the likely illegal and immoral activities of Enron Corporation corporate and the Bush Administration.
But the emergence of extensive Internet data resources has enabled traditional and online news services to rapidly present a far different story than the one being pushed to the media by the Democrats.
As an early indication of the folly of Lieberman and Daschle attacks, two other possible Democrat Party challengers in 2004 have been silent on the accusations – Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and California Governor Gray Davis. Both have wisely chosen silence as they too have Enron Corporation links.
Senators Lieberman and Daschle have couched their ambitions by stating the official purpose of the Congressional investigations is to protect Enron employees who indeed suffered from the way the company entered bankruptcy. Certainly Enron employees could not have been aware of the shady loans taken to save the company through hidden partnerships. And they were blocked from selling company stock held in their retirement funds, while company executives made over $1 billion in their liquidation of company stock. So, there are legitimate reasons to hold congressional hearings on the Enron Corporation bankruptcy. President Bush has wisely and quickly called for a thorough investigation into the employees plight, despite his acknowledged long term friendship with Ken Lay, chairman of Enron Corporation.
During the Seventies’ Watergate scandal, the combination of media investigations and congressional hearings led by the Democrats was successful in bringing down a president. But there has been a major evolution and expansion of media since the Seventies. Traditional media reporters and Internet websites can use vast online resources to develop background for breaking stories.
Using vast array of online and in-house database tools, Net and traditional media blunted the impact of the first announcements by democratic leadership of an alleged Enron – White House link. For example, within twenty-four hours, it was revealed that Bill Clinton had accepted a $100,000 political contribution just prior to facilitating a $3 billion major overseas contract for Enron.
This brings us to Senator Hillary Clinton. Since becoming a U.S. senator, she has attempted to distance herself from her husband and his administration. Her husband acted on Enron’s behalf after receiving a hefty political contribution. The Bush White House did not respond to Enron pleas to bail out the company. Enron also contributed to Bill Clinton’s presidential campaigns.
Within 48 hours following the Democrats initial allegations of a link to the White House to the Enron debacle, media researchers, like the Center for Responsive Politics and National Review Online, using sites like tray.com were able to assemble the mass of important background information. They found that Enron had contributed to Democrats including U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), $21,933, Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), $14,124, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), $38,000 and Tom Daschle (D-SD), $9,000. In fact, they discovered that half of Congress had received contributions from Enron.
In the Watergate incident, the famed Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein needed months to trace campaign contributions, as they followed the money.
Using the vast Internet resources, websites like WorldNetDaily also established close links between Enron and the Clinton White House, as well as Bill Clinton himself. For example, that Enron executives got seats on at least four Energy Department trade missions and at least seven Commerce Department trade trips. Traditional media like the Washington Post were able to instantaneously call up documents and previous stories that relate to Enron. Like that Former Clinton Treasury secretary Robert E. Rubin telephoned a top Treasury official last fall to probe whether the Bush administration could intervene on behalf of Enron Corp. as the giant energy company neared collapse.
There’s an irony there. The Washington Post, which broke the Watergate story in the Seventies and launched “investigative reporting,” was now holding Democrats feet to the fire by showing an Enron/Democrat connection. The Washington Post then and now is no friend to the Bush White House.
The second reason the Democrats have chosen the wrong battle is, as the media has uncovered, Enron has been so successful in infiltrating government at all levels. Even campaign finance reformer, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) received $9,500 from Enron. This brings us to the fourth possible Democrat challenger in 2004 — California Governor Gray Davis.
Last summer, in the middle of the worst energy crisis in California history, it was revealed through public financial disclosure records, that Gov. Davis's spokesman, Steve Maviglio, owned between $10,000 and $100,000 of Enron stock. At the same time he and his boss were accusing Enron and other energy wholesalers of making “obscene” profits while California has been “on its knees.” Then it was shown that a business leader appointed by Governor Davis to a state energy board, Bruce Willison, reported having more than $1 million of Enron stock. Enron’s influence was in fact direct to Governor Davis.
When electricity prices soared in California and blackouts hit, it was Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay who was sought out for consultation by Governor Gray Davis, even as Davis charged Enron with a “wildcatter attitude” about soaking the state.
Finally, the Democrats have chosen to launch “Enron-gate” at a time when the nation is still at war and in danger from worldwide terrorists. The economy is undergoing a recession, and the President’s popularity is vast and significant. The American people are accustomed to alleged scandals and the endless congressional hearings that follow the allegations. They pay scant attention until the final days. Then they evaluate and judge for themselves.
At the end of this episode, they will approve reforms which will likely be instituted to protect employees of failing companies. They will applaud that some Enron executives will pay dearly for the windfalls they collected through inside information by selling their shares as the company’s stock price dropped. And they will appreciate, that with his usual clarity and forthrightness, President Bush gave no special favors to a lifetime friend even in a time of critical need. The President will be stronger after this episode. And Democrats who staked a claim to this “scandal” will earn the distrust and perhaps contempt of the American people.
“Those who know when to fight and when not to fight are victorious” - Sun Tzu
Share your views on this column with other readers
Write to Arthur at bruzzone@rightturns.com
Award-winning TV producer, talk show host, and Republican leader Arthur Bruzzone has written over 150 political articles for national and regional media, and has commented on political issues for American and European television and radio networks. His articles and columns have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, Campaign & Elections Magazine, among other publications.
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using Enron_List, click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Enron_List | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
Yeah. Right.
This at least for the dems has knocked the War on Terrorism off the front pages of the media. Good or bad I'm not sure.
Calling for help from The Guild here.
Everyone keeps referring to the close friendship between President Bush and Ken Lay. But I have read elsewhere that Lay was among those who spent one of those infamous nights in the Lincoln bedroom.
Didn't #97 state that only close friends of theirs stayed at the White House when they were there? ... (in spite of the fact that there was evidence that the first couple was not there at the time).
If my recollections are correct, I sure would like for some people to start calling Ken Lay a long-time and dear friend of the Clintons.
I'm not entirely convinced. The problem is that even a lot of Republicans, myself included, feel that the whole Enron mess must be investigated fully. It's not that we expect the White House to be implicated (quite the opposite), but there seems to be a strong possibility that crimes were committed at Enron, and at Andersen, and that a lot of regular folks like you and me suffered as a result.
So, the problem is this: No one cares about the Clintons and Enron, simply because the president out of power is considered boring in the media. (And despite the lefty bias of most media, I believe this would be true even if the outgoing administration had been Republican.) So, the focus will be on Bush and Cheney as far as the government ties that Enron had are concerned.
Conventional wisdom is that the cover up is always worse than the crime. In fact, the appearance of a cover up can wreak damage on an administration even if the evidence is ultimately exculpatory. So what does this mean?
Well, first of all, it means that Cheney has to suck it up and provide the info about Enron's participation in the energy policy. I don't think there's anything there, but every day he resists, terrible damage is done to the President and his administration in the eyes of the public. Full disclosure is the only way to stop unfounded attacks.
And it doesn't stop there. A lot of documents are going to have to come out that the White House doesn't want to release, and there may be a price to pay. But the price to pay for not releasing them is much, much higher, politically speaking.
Please, pray tell.....HOW? WHEN? WHERE? WHY?
I'm wondering if Steve Maiviglio et al., sold his Enron stock.
And, if he did; date, and at what price?
Is it any wonder that the mainstream media propagandists desire campaign finance reform so bad in order to control the flow of information, data, and as well be our only source of opinion?
Long live the free flow of information on the vast world wide web and most of all for Jim Robinson for creating this wonderful home in cyberspace called the
FREE REPUBLIC.
Protecting them from what? Bankruptcy? Investigations? Sounds like some mighty ineffectual protection to me. Maybe Ken Lay should demand his money back - Comrade Clinton did a hell of a lot more for him than Evil Capitalist Bush.
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.