Posted on 01/14/2002 5:05:25 PM PST by Republican_Strategist
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.
I think you've bought into the hype, which is understandable, since I bought into myself for a few days there. There are no "documents" the WH needs to worry about, nor does Enron's participation in energy policy meetings cause a problem for Cheney. Those meetings were completely unrelated to Enron's collapse. And those "regular folks" you mention "suffered" only because they were dumb enough to put their money into an enterprise whose numbers were telegraphing trouble for many months prior to the demise of the company, as FR poster innocentbystander pointed out on this thread yesterday. Read his comments and then see if you still think "regular folks" were taken.
Enron was a one week story. We already see the media backing off. It's over.
It is irrelevant that there was likely no impropriety on the part of the White House. It is the appearance of impropriety in the form of refusing disclosure that will bury the administration. The Democrats and the media will turn sh*t into gold if Cheney and others don't cough up the documents.
First of all, this admin is not getting buried. I am well aware that a few partisans are accusing Cheney of something nefarious for sitting in the same room with energy execs while coming up with an energy policy. The reason that this is not turning into Whitewater is that Cheney is not partners with any of these execs, there has been no government bailout of failed partnerships, and none of what Cheney has recommended is anything but common sense. Even the Liberal press cannot fabricate a scandal without accusing someone of something. So far, nothing, nada, zip. Cheney is right up there with Rummy, and is not about to take a dive because some fat-assed writer has a hissy fit.
Bush/Cheney came in to office vowing to change things. If they make it look like they are covering things up, connected to a scandalous corporate collapse that has captured the people's attention, and connected to one of the more unpopular of the administration's policies (ANWR), there is no telling how bad this could be for the party and the president.
See my previous comment. A scandal has to have someone who committed a crime. Cheney has not been accused of anything, and is not going to be buffaloed by the likes of Helen Thomas. Lord, its good to have grownups in charge.
This is politics. You and I both know that the White House should be in the clear. But it's they who will be shooting themselves in the foot if they allow the Democrats and the media to create a scandal where none exists.
Actually, my boy, they could be in trouble if they start to look nervous. So far, your hopes and dreams of a Bush Whitewater are being dashed.
Better luck next time. Although I have heard it said: You cant cheat an honest man.
See post # 37 for amplification of my remarks by an associate who has something very worthwhile to add.
Count me in that crowd. The piece of the financial puzzle that consistently gets missed, is that Arthur Anderson not only did ENRON's books, they certified the financial reporting processes as well AND had a $1million dollar a day consulting gig with ENRON to boot.
Sounds like a conflict of interest to me, and I'm more than willing to bet that when the investigations are all done, there'll be a closing of the loophole in the law that allows the above.
I never said it did. I said that creating the appearance that there is something to hide causes a problem for the president.
Read his comments and then see if you still think "regular folks" were taken.
I've read them, and while I don't claim to be an expert, my initial reaction is that his argument is a little ridiculous. While some people might well have decided to sell based on falling stock prices, the truth is, the freeze occurred prior to the lies about Enron's finanical condition being exposed, and the 401(k) shareholders were prevented from protecting themselves in light of those revelations. Those folks were used to help artificially prop up the stock price, and then were prevented from getting out in the public market. I don't think it's unreasonable for people who believe in the free market to find that questionable at best, and possibly actionable.
Enron was a one week story. We already see the media backing off. It's over.
It would be nice if you were right, but I really think this is wishful thinking. Time will tell.
I have no such hopes. What I know is that appearing guilty is as bad, or worse, than being guilty. If the White House comes out of this with less credibility because they don't have the foresight to disclose fully and make it clear that nothing improper was done, they have only themselves to blame. (Well, no one but themselves and FReepers who seem to think that our administration shouldn't be held to the same standard to which we have wanted others to be held.)
From the Washington Post
Enron Also Courted Democrats
Chairman Pushed Firm's Agenda With Clinton White House
By Dan Morgan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 13, 2002; Page A01
Democrats are savoring the chance to use embattled Enron Corp.'s Republican ties to embarrass the Bush administration at upcoming congressional hearings. But Republicans might turn the tables, to some extent at least, because Enron has courted and supported prominent Democrats as well.
According to internal Enron documents and the recollections of former employees, Chairman Kenneth L. Lay had the ear of top Democrats in the 1980s and '90s. He and his colleagues used that access to promote the company's interests with the Clinton administration and key congressional Democrats.
In a White House meeting in August 1997, for example, Lay urged President Clinton and Vice President Gore to back a "market-based" approach to the problem of global warming -- a strategy that a later Enron memo makes clear would be "good for Enron stock."
The following February, Lay met with Energy Secretary Federico Peña to urge White House action on electricity legislation favored by Enron. Peña "suggested that President Clinton might be motivated [to act] by some key contacts from important constituents," according to another Enron memo.
Taking the cue, Lay, one of 25 business executives on Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development, wrote to the president the same day.
Check the rest of the story. This may not be over soon, but if it isn't I have a feeling it will be at the Democrats' own perile.
Even if Enron management attempted such a clumsy maneuver (they maintain that the ten trading days when the 401k was unavailable was necessary to effect a transfer of the plan from in-house to an outside manager), it would still only concern Enron itself, and, in all likelihood, the matter could be settled in civil court.
None of it should be of any concern to the Bush WH.
See, you're using common sense. How many times do I have to say it? This is politics. It matters, because a lot is at stake depending on the White House response, and how the Democrats and the media are given the opportunity to spin it.
Well, there you go again; speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You continually post replies that are against President Bush and his administration, and then wildly for them. Make up your mind, and stick with one position.
YOU CAN NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS !
The problem is, that while more and more people are invested in the market, ( pension plans ) few understand it at all.
Hmm... interesting observation. How will the demise of Enron figure into the demise of the Bush Social Security privatization reforms? This may not be over as soon as we all think!
We got on this early. I've been feeding numerous articles to Larry Elder and Al Rantel at KABC in Los Angeles. They have effectively carried the debate and outed the RATS.
Yeah, right! ROTFLOL!!!!!
The WAR ON TERRORISM will heat up again, and again, and the somewhat privatization of SS, is on the back burner, and probably will stay there; for a while.
Market investiments, though much more common today, than at any other time in or nation's history, are still something confusing to most people. They refuse to be informed / inform themselves ( I have NO idea why ) about these matters ; even though many have investments. Even semi-privatization od SS ( which I wholeheartedly endorse, BTW ) will fai miserably, unless the public finally decides to act like responsible ADULTS, and so some study, on the matter.
You just don't get it. I hope the White House does...
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.