Both parties stub toes on scandal

Boston Globe ^ | January 15, 2002 | Tom Oliphant

[billorites]

The Bush White House has followed the well-trodden path of its modern predecessors and drawn attention to itself while trying to draw attention away from itself.

The Democrats are faring only a little better. The Democratic National Committee is playing politics shamelessly, but that act itself is keeping it from being taken seriously. Party figures in the Senate, like their Republican counterparts in the House, decided well in advance of last week's feeding frenzy to treat Enron as one of those rare business scandals that easily engages the public and not as a governmental story as long as the evidence doesn't make it one.

[untenured]

Can someone tell me what exactly is the "scandal" in the "Enron scandal"?

[NittanyLion]

Can someone tell me what exactly is the "scandal" in the "Enron scandal"?

Well, I see it as a scandal in that Enron execs knowingly overstated profits year after year. The liberal media sees it as a scandal that Pres. Bush's popularity remains at 89%, and is attempting to smear him.

[Pete]

The first consequence is that the administration's efforts to keep under wraps the records of Vice President Cheney's dealings with the company on energy policy have become politically untenable. The second is that the House GOP leadership's long efforts to block a vote on campaign finance reform are in the process of being abandoned.

Mr. Oliphant is a lefty from way back and his agenda can be seen in the excerpt above. Everything else in this article is fluff.

I have emailed Mr. Oliphant the text from my post from last Friday concerning Lieberman and Citigroup. Let see if he has any comments on that!

[untenured]

Well, I see it as a scandal in that Enron execs knowingly overstated profits year after year.

I guess you have higher expectations of your fellow citizens than I do (which is probably good). I don't see that as a scandal, just garden-variety fraud, which has now been rooted out in the usual way.

[Russ]

I've read and re-read this article and Mr Elephant curiously leaves out all mention of the real Enron/Administration scandals that occurred during the previous administration. No mention either of the call or calls from Robert Rubin. He must have just forgot...

[The Enlightener]

It should not have taken too many minutes for White Houses operatives to realize that the impending bankruptcy under mysterious circumstances of the country's seventh largest firm might prompt an administration to mobilize on behalf of innocent victims and not to just make sure the financial fallout was manageable.

Not to burst the idiot writer's bubble or anything, but who was it that called for a Justice department investigation and a re-examination of 401k and pension laws? What, exactly could the government do besides investigate after the fact? Bail them out? Oh yeah, that wouldn't have caused any political fallout, right?

Isn't it interesting that that author thinks that Bush should have gotten all the information out at once, quickly, not in "dribs and drabs", but then proceeds to tell us that he released the information as soon as he found out about it?

Further, the author aludes to Democrats accidentally pointing the finger at themselves, then goes into the rant about how Bush screwed up and drew attention to himself. If you ask me, Bush did exactly the right thing--he did nothing wrong, and when he found out about things that might look bad, he told everyone about them as soon as possible.

[VRWC_minion]

Stand back folks. Let a pro handle the translation

< Gilda Radner=on>

Never Mind.

[Lazamataz]

If Oliphant says that both parties have a lot to lose on this scandal, that is a sure sign that most of the fault can accurately be pinned on DemonCraps. Oliphant is a partisan hack with few peers.

[steve50]

The scandal will be if it is prosecuted in the same way. If this DOJ thinks they can pass this off as an "account reporting guideline" problem they better get ready for the heat.

[Steve_Seattle]

"might prompt the administration to mobilize on behalf of innocent victims"

Oliphant is here picking up the spin that the administration SHOULD have intervened, which became the spin after it was revealed that the administration DIDN'T intervene. If the administration had intervened, the Dem spin would have been - not that the administration was trying to help the "innocent victims" - but that it was bailing out rich criminals as payback for previous campaign contributions.

[Ronnie Radford]

I have only met a small percentage of the people on this planet, but I can say with a high degree of confidence that Tom Oliphant is my least favorite person.

[billorites]

"I can say with a high degree of confidence that Tom Oliphant is my least favorite person. "

How come?

Is it the pretentious bow tie?

Those silly little round-rimmed glasses he wears?

Maybe it's the smarmy, unctuous manner he oozes.

Or, his chronic Clinton bootlicking, his syncophantic fawning ...

[horsewhispersc]

And Bush himself hurt the cause with a false claim that Lay had backed Ann Richards over him in the 1994 Texas campaign for governor and given her more money.

It will be interesting when this investigation is in full swing right to the inception of Enron.

btw when was the last press conference with Ari and what time is it usually on. I can only get msnbc over the net, no tv here.

[horsewhispersc]

You need more enlightenment to be "The Enlightener" ;-)

go to google and type in Enron Argentina Bush. This will be called the awakening to enlightenment. ;-)

[The Enlightener]

You know, I never give much credence to stories that can't even get their facts stright. Supposedly, in 1988, W called the president of Argentina to try to get them to do a contract with Enron.

Okay, first, how is this a scandal? Second, all the stories say he failed at this attempt, so even if it were scandelous(making a phone call?), it didn't pan out anyway, so what's the big deal? Further, in 1988, his father was not yet president since he was still running and would not be elected until November of that year(unless you count the fact the Dukakis was a total loser and could not possibly have won), so what kind of bargaining tools is that--My dad might be the president?

To quote:

President Bush was born July 6, 1946, and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University and a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard before beginning his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975, working in the energy industry until 1986. After working on his father's successful 1988 presidential campaign, he assembled the group of partners that purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989.

I especially love the conspiracy pages that have W as governor of Texas in 1988--it's a neat trick to be governor 6 years before anyone voted for you.

Now, which one of us needs the enlightenment?

[horsewhispersc]

The correct article came from Mother Jones when they were talking about Bush Sr. being VP in '88 and how he had his sons involved......

told you to do a search on google, to seek enlightenment one must search on ones own.;-)