Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WorldCom downfall fuels political attacks [Will Wall Street Scandals hurt the GOP? No. Here's why]
Miami Herald Online ^ | Monday, July 1, 2002 | BY STEVEN THOMMA

Posted on 07/01/2002 6:53:45 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

WASHINGTON - WorldCom's revelation that it fudged its accounts by $3.8 billion could whip the politics of corporate corruption into a Republican disaster. Continues.

===============================================================

Will Wall Street Scandals hurt Republicans? No. Here's why

The election-year Democrat/Media campaign to tie Bush with sleaze/scandal on Wall Street saw its wheels come off over the weekend as the President forcefully seized the initiative, beginning with his weekly radio address, in which he vowed zero-tolerance for "violations of the public's trust."

If Dems expected Bush, on this issue, to roll over and play dead, they had another thing coming.

Instead, the President came out swinging.

To corporate sleaze-bags, boardroom looters and business con-artists, Bush's message was blunt, unequivocal, explicit: Expect indictments and prosecution under his administration.

"The government will fully investigate reports of corporate fraud, and hold the guilty accountable for misleading shareholders and employees", the President said, adding that "executives who commit fraud will face financial penalties and, when they are guilty of criminal wrongdoing, they will face jail time."

Bottom line?

The Clinton era is over. Moral adventurism, license, excuse-making, evasion -- lauded on Clinton's watch -- will no longer be tolerated. Corporate fraud, flimflam, double-dealing -- condoned by acquiescence under Clinton -- will, under Bush, be punished severely.

Bamboozlers, swindlers, con-men, cheats, listen up: The fun-and-games are over -- time to face the music.

Bush: "The federal government will be vigilant in prosecuting wrongdoers to ensure that investors and workers maintain the highest confidence in American business."

SEC Chairman, Harvey Pitt, echoes the President: "We don't give anyone a pass; if anybody violates the law, we'll go after him", he told ABC's "The Week".

'Wait a minute -- hold on there!', the Clintonistas loudly demur.

'These scandals are happening on Bush's -- not Clinton's -- watch!', they squawk. Daschle blamed the Bush administration's "laissez-faire attitude", the "deregulatory, permissive atmosphere that has relied too much on corporate America to police itself" as the culprit.

Gee, lemme see if I get this straight: Directors and executives at WorldCom, under the moral tutelage of the Clinton administration, behaved impeccably; their business dealings -- accounting, auditing, contracting, sales -- all were clean, honest, transparent, irreproachable.

Then along comes George W. Bush. The 'moral/ethical climate' under Clinton -- so spotless, so honest, so pure, so flawless, so chaste -- now suddenly descends into darkness.

In the instant Bush's sworn in as President, corporate managers at WorldCom grow fangs and morph into criminals.

Yessiree, Bob.

You see, it's all Bush's fault! So quit blaming Bush on Clinton!

Well, hate to break the news to you, libs, but that dog won't hunt.

Businessweek magazine reports that "internal auditors" probing WorldCom shenanigans "are uncovering further troubles", including "double-counting of revenue as far back as 1999, debt that may not have been previously disclosed, and booking of revenues that haven't yet been received from long-term contracts".

Golly gee ... guess who was "president" back in '99?

Anyone have a clue?

Well, Big Media and the Democrats obviously don't: they were harping on WorldCom as "proof" -- 'solid', irrefutable 'evidence' -- of Bush's corrupting influence on business. WorldCom was showcased as the veritable 'smoking-gun', the straw that broke the camel's back.

(Psst! Psst! WorldCom and others were cooking-the-books when Der Schlickmeister was "president".)

'Others'? What 'others'?

Well, here's some more bad news for Bush-haters who thought they had landed an "issue": An audit of Xerox Corp. uncovered yet more improper revenue accounting -- again, on a massive scale. The copier giant, based in Stamford, Conn., accelerated more revenue -- gobs more revenue -- than estimated by the Securities and Exchange Commission in its settlement with Xerox in April.

Worse for the Clintonites, the book-cooking shenanigans had been going on for five years!

This takes us back, way back, to 1997.

Again, any guess as to who was "president" then?

Remaining on offense, Bush will deliver a major address July 9 pushing for top-to-bottom reform and stiff new penalties -- legislative changes modeled in part on proposals submitted to Congress in March. Under Current law, financial misstatements to the SEC, short of fraud, prompt civil penalties -- but no jail time. According to published reports, Bush will propose making intentional misstatements a crime, subject to serious prison sentences. In the interim, evidence will continue to mount showing the current wave of accounting scams really began under the Clinton administration, further diminishing this issue as campaign fodder for Democrats hungry to tarnish the President, who enjoys a commanding advantage on questions of morals and ethics.

Polls show Americans, by overwhelming majorities, give this President exceptionally high marks on character, integrity, ethics -- the key reason Democrats fail to gain any traction on 'scandal'.

Tactically, the effort to smear the President, while goofy, silly and politically motivated, is a gauge of Democrat desperation, their fruitless struggle for campaign themes as the parties head into midterm elections with Bush's popularity essentially undiminished and Democrats on defense over a host of issues, the recent Pledge flap among them.

For both parties, the stakes couldn't be higher: Elections this fall will decide which party has the upperhand in Congress for the balance of Bush's current term. After reapportionment, and with only a handful of competitive House races, the odds are Republicans will keep control of the House and wrest the Senate from Democrat control.

In what little time remains before voters head to the polls, Democrats plan to launch a 4-pronged attack:

1) Prey on seniors: Elect Republicans, and watch them steal your Social Security check, right from your mail box! Why? To payback fat-cat contributors and corporate polluters -- that's why! Vote Democrat!
2) Prey on the working poor: Elect Republicans, and lose your job or watch your paycheck shrink -- Vote Democrat!
3) Prey on the sick: Elect Republicans, and watch them raid your medicine cabinet -- Vote Democrat!
4) Prey on blacks: Elect Republicans, and vote for church-burnings and dragging-deaths -- don't do it! Vote Democrat!

Will the fear-mongering pay-off -- revive the Democrats' demoralized base?

If past is prologue, not likely. Again and again, on issue after issue, this President out-flanks/out-maneuvers his enemies -- at times, even on their own turf. Democrats have failed to demonize Bush, despite their best efforts. To electrify their base, they must.

But they can't.

And they won't.

Anyway, that's....

My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"



TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last
Monday, July 1, 2002

Quote of the Day by Poohbah

1 posted on 07/01/2002 6:53:45 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: xm177e2; mercy; Wait4Truth; hole_n_one; GretchenEE; Clinton's a rapist; buffyt; ladyinred; ...
Gotta run -- see y'all later. Have a nice day.
2 posted on 07/01/2002 7:08:26 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The Dems will get about as much traction on this one as they did on Enron. Zero.

More and more people are awakening to the fact that the Democrats have had as much or more support from corporate boardrooms as Republicans, notwithstanding their phony populist rhetoric, and that corruption knows no party.

Also, it is obvious to any sentient being that the Clintons used their office to go after those who were either their political opponents or who had failed to pony up soft money to the DNC.

All the Bush Administration needs to do is the right thing...apply the law equally and fairly to all. That alone will defang the sleazoid attack dogs of the Carvillites.

EV

3 posted on 07/01/2002 7:18:24 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
So, Terry McAuliff has been awful quit recently. Could it be that the Global Crossing and WorldCom connection are too evident for the Demonrats to be able to exploit the "holier than thou" political card?

Yeah, ain't Martha Stewart a money grubber. Of course, the junior Senator from NY knows all about cattle futures and how to launder a BRIBE! I'd like to see her answer to the Tyson connection.

4 posted on 07/01/2002 7:20:31 AM PDT by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Young Werther
It is even better than that. I just heard Cramer on the radio driving to work. He had at least one valid point - there were some people caught in cooking books and other stuff during Clinton years - nobody got prosecuted - everybody was able get off with a tiny slap on the wrist.

I suppose Bush can give another "I'm not gonna fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt" speech this time talking about white collar crime.

5 posted on 07/01/2002 7:44:43 AM PDT by alex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Did these corporations have to pay corporate income tax on all this phony "income"? If so, the Treasury (through tax revenue) and the corporate executives (through bonuses tied to inflated stock prices) benefited at the expense, ultimately, of the corporations and the stockholders. I wonder if the corporations can file for refunds of their tax overpayments.
6 posted on 07/01/2002 7:48:13 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Hopefully, the sheeple will see this pap for what it is. Harvey Pitt et al need to instill a "this has gone on for years and years and now it is going to stop" mantra just to make sure...
7 posted on 07/01/2002 7:53:55 AM PDT by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I suspect there's more than enough blame to go around. And of course, with both Parties play political football with the issue, and with all involved with something to lose, the guilty will most likely skate.
8 posted on 07/01/2002 7:58:31 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Excellent "two cents" as always! I agree with you!!!
9 posted on 07/01/2002 7:59:02 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Excellent! Right on the money!
Ya' done good, JH2. ;o)
10 posted on 07/01/2002 8:32:37 AM PDT by dixiechick2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Thanks for the Ping John.

Harvey Pitt should have been all over this scandel sooner.

11 posted on 07/01/2002 9:15:34 AM PDT by joyce11111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Right-on John, great two cents, perfect !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

Molon Labe !!

12 posted on 07/01/2002 10:13:49 AM PDT by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steven Thomma

To corporate sleaze-bags, boardroom looters and business con-artists, Bush's message was blunt, unequivocal, explicit: Expect indictments and prosecution under his administration.

Why don't you write about the NYSE? Something's fishy there, as evidenced by Grasso's (Chairman NYSE) hand-clinching until his knuckles were white during his entire interview yesterday with Sam Donaldson on ABC. Suspicious behavior! Was he involved in keeping the SEC at bay?

13 posted on 07/01/2002 10:41:36 AM PDT by Jackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
These recent scandals are merely "BUSINESS SCANDALS" they are not political scandals. Everyone should stop reading the business section of the newspaper for scandals and go back to the lifestyles/hollywood gossip. The markets in America can't take much more of this crud. Let's all get back to the way things were... and remember that the business of America is BUSINESS.
14 posted on 07/01/2002 10:44:08 AM PDT by CecilRhodesGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Bully for President Bush!
15 posted on 07/01/2002 1:11:27 PM PDT by GretchenEE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The 90's...an era of if it feels good, do it. Of need taking a back seat to greed. An era of a stock market so over inflated, sometimes on nothing more than a wish and a prayer, (along with a good bit of momentum), that it was destined for a hard fall.

I can't tell you how many times I got calls in the morning right after the market opened where somebody was just sure they should buy pets.com or drkoop.com or any other fly by night dot com that had zero revenues, and was trading at a PE of 2000 - 3000. Two guys working out of a one room office with a desk a phone and a computer...now that's a business I want to own a piece of, not!

When they would tell me that they just, "Felt like they should buy some", we'd tell them to, "Lay down until the feeling goes away".

This will be Clinton's legacy if the dems really want to make an issue out of it. Any bets that Clinton tells them to back off? It's likely a better bet than most of the surviving dot.com's!
16 posted on 07/01/2002 4:25:46 PM PDT by terilyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; JohnHuang2
"I suspect there's more than enough blame to go around."

Which reminds me.......I've been trying for a couple years to get my phone co.(Sprint) to remove Worldcom as my long distance carrier that is listed on my bill. I have NEVER had their service. I even got two billings from them, with zero balances. They just said something like, "Oh, don't worry about it, we send them to everyone". I'm wondering if this is part of their boast of all the business they have.....people who do not use them, they just bill "everyone" and what part Sprint has in it all. Bigger isn't always better. :<)

17 posted on 07/01/2002 6:20:34 PM PDT by AuntB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Hi John, gosh I love your writings so much.
18 posted on 07/01/2002 6:54:06 PM PDT by Snow Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Well said, my friend.
19 posted on 07/02/2002 10:39:13 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Young Werther
Bingo.
20 posted on 07/02/2002 10:39:52 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson