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.
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, it’s 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 can’t 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.