Posted on 01/12/2002 6:29:07 AM PST by SJackson
As he tries to figure out how to handle the backwash from the collapse of Enron, George W. Bush has a great advantage. Having watched what happened to his predecessor, he should understand the importance of simply making everyone tell the truth right away.
It is going too far at the moment to call the collapse of Enron a scandal for the Bush administration. The head of Enron was one of the president's biggest campaign donors, and we now know that he called two cabinet officers last fall to warn them that the company was in terrible trouble. But none of that was necessarily improper, and there is no indication that those calls or other conversations between Enron executives and administration officials led to any action by the government.
That has not stopped Mr. Bush from trying to sidestep the Enron connections to his administration. He implausibly claimed this week that Enron's chief executive, Kenneth Lay, a longtime friend and financial supporter, was actually an associate he had somehow inherited from his Democratic predecessor as governor of Texas, Ann Richards. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's assertion that Mr. Lay never asked for federal help sounds peculiar now that a top aide to Mr. O'Neill has reported getting many such requests from Enron.
There are plenty of things Mr. Bush can do to inoculate himself against any taint from the Enron disaster. He should embrace campaign finance reform, demand a severing of ties between Enron and those around him and cooperate with all Congressional investigations on the issue.
Enron might seem less threatening to Mr. Bush if his presidential campaign had not received huge contributions from the company and its top officials. The best way for Mr. Bush to minimize such taint is to work with Congress to ban unregulated party donations by corporations, unions and rich individuals, known as "soft money."
Mr. Bush should follow the example of a predecessor he admires. After 1904 President Theodore Roosevelt discovered that corporations had been squeezed for donations to his campaign by his former commerce secretary, and he responded by calling for a ban on corporate donations. It was enacted in 1907.
Mr. Bush can take other steps on his own. He should ask his hand-picked choice for chairman of the Republican National Committee, former Gov. Marc Racicot of Montana, to withdraw from the party job or resign from a law firm that has lobbied on behalf of Enron and other clients.
The president can also prevent any taint from spreading by ordering administration members to cooperate with all relevant investigations into Enron and the extent to which it has influenced administration energy policies. Enron officials were frequently consulted by Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force in crafting an administration policy and an energy bill that conformed with Enron's financial interests, particularly on energy regulation. Mr. Cheney should immediately turn over all records on those consultations to Congressional committees and the General Accounting Office.
The president should recognize that secret consultations on energy have undercut the legislation that the administration backs in Congress. That is the nature of secrecy and campaign money. Mr. Bush can get rid of the problem if he acts boldly to disclose everything and place tight restrictions on the influence of money in politics.
It is going too far at the moment to call the collapse of Enron a scandal for the Bush administration. Tears on the NYT editorial board.
Enron prove the futility of campaign finance reform. The seventh largest company in the nation will always be able to TRY to influence the administration, in a multitude of ways. Enron successfully influenced the Clinton administration on several occasions, but was unsuccessful with Bush. We need honest government, and accountability from our leaders, not finance reform.
In case anybody missed it, there's a full-scale, no-holds-barred air war going on right now. A massive one. Daisy-cutters, 2,000-pound bunker-busters -- you name it. Bombs are dropping faster than you can blink. Squadrons of B-52s -- AKA 'big ugly fat fellows' -- are prowling the heavens, pounding enemy positions, unleashing their fiery wrath, carpet bombing around-the-clock....the works.
What's that you say? Haven't heard of this? Thought the war was over, eh? Well Fuggedaboudit! Flick on the idiot box, kick up your feet, sit back and enjoy (Drum roll, please?) -- OPERATION ENRON!!! Yep, folks, it's Enron at dawn, Enron at noon, Enron at dusk. Enron 24/7. The media high command has declared an air war against the Bush administration; The White House, like the mountains of Tora Bora, has become ground zero for media strike bombardiers.
Kidding aside, never -- ever -- in my life have I seen anything quite like what we're witnessing right now.
Media bias is one thing. We've all seen it. We've all tasted it. Heaven knows we've all groused about it, perennially. Bernard Goldberg's bombshell has soared to near the top of the New York Times best-seller list, and for good reason.
But, Ladies and Gentlemen, what we're witnessing goes beyond simple 'bias' -- well beyond. This isn't bias, this is fraud. Wholesale fraud.
The media is perpetrating one of the greatest frauds ever: To wit, the fabrication of a pseudo-political "scandal" -- out of whole cloth.
This isn't "news" "reporting", this is orgy-making -- a veritable orgy of innuendo. It would take years to tally all the libel and slander, all the malicious rumor-mongering, all the baseless smears -- the torrent of lies, insults and calumnies spewed straight from the bowels of our "major media" these past two days -- alone.
Question: Why is the media doing this? That's simple: Because they can.
Any proof of administration wrongdoing? No, not the vaguest hint, not the slightest intimation of official wrongdoing nor impropriety -- and even the media jackals know it.
Any proof of malfeasance or criminal activity by anyone in the Bush White House? Nope. None has been shown, none has been presented. Nothing even remotely resembling an allegation, even. But heck, who needs proof, anyway? Washington craves a 'scandal', and Enron fills the bill nicely, thank you very much.
No proof of 'cover-up'? Then fabricate some! Of course, we all know Bush had nothing to do with the shredding* of documents, the massive cover-up by Enron's auditor. But oh, yummy, yummy -- how exquisitely delicious to find ominous buzz phrases like 'document-shredding', 'cover-up' and the name George W. Bush jammed together in the same sentence, eh? Who cares if they don't belong together? Who cares if Bush did absolutely nothing wrong? This is not about truth or fairness or facts or evidence: This is purely -- first and foremost -- about vengence. Avenging whom or what, you ask? Why, the media's darling golden-boy, William Jefferson Clinton, who eles?
But the haters have a major problem on their hands, and it's this: Signs are this phony "scandal" is headed in the opposite direction -- away from implicating current administration officials.
Indeed, think of how ludicrous this sounds: Democrats want to know -- not why there were -- but why there weren't any quid-pro-quo shenanigans. Why didn't you do any special favors on behalf of your big campaign contributor, Mr. President? Why didn't you bail out your rich oil buddy when he came beckoning and calling?
In other words, what the heck is the matter with you, Mr. President? Why, O why, didn't you do something wrong? Lotting the treasury to bailout fat-cats; seedy backroom deals, bribery, extortion -- that's what we do here in Washington! How dare you be so ethical, so squeaky clean, Mr. President?!?!
Bottom line: Democrats want to know why Enron's generous contributions didn't buy it any favors from this administration. How utterly UN-Clinton-esque can this President get, eh?
This is the first "scandal" in history in which no wrongdoing IS the scandal du jour. No special favors, no shenanigans, no quid-pro-quo -- now that's an outrage!
The Attorney General recusing himself? What?! This earthshaking! Explosive! How scandalous!
Why the AG recusing himself to avoid tainting the probe should be seen as "scandalous"? You go figure.
But that's the nub of the problem with Enron as political "news": Its string of farcical flaws and fallacies.
It's why "Enron" will soon be running on fumes -- politically worthless, just like the company's stock. Absent some 'hook' -- proof of government cover-up, official malfeasance, etc. -- "Enron" inexorably reverts to its rightful place in the business page of the newspaper.
Already people are asking: Where's the beef?
*Ironies of ironies: The wholesale document destruction by Enron's auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, raises an interesting dilemma, particularly in light of the close ties between Ken Lay and the previous administration. Clinton was known to personally intervene on Enron's behalf on a number of occasions. Generous campaign donations would follow. The documents destroyed may have revealed a nexus.
My intrepid prediction: Enron will backfire on Democrats. Americans will see them as grossly over-reaching -- the "hearings" as sheer vindicativeness, an unwelcomed extention of Campaign 2000. Their vicious and spiteful crusade will be seen as bloodsport -- a thinly veiled, all-out effort to cripple this President; the Democrats' ultimate goal is to assassinate him, politically, with constant, deadly attacks and smears.
But it won't work, because it can't work. The public will not look to fondly at their "Wanted: Dead or Alive" modus operandi at politics (again, figuritively speaking).
A political party whose sole obession, whose only mission is to bring down the President -- come hell or high water -- is a party destined, rightfully, for the ash heap.
Fate will deal the Democrats, tone deaf and blinded by hate, a cruel blow, indeed. So let them nurse their hatred -- let them beat the dead horse of Enron: They will only bring down the wrath of a people, of a nation, still smoldering over September 11.
So true but what we REALLY need is honest reporting. The NYT acts holier than thou but they are so dishonest in their reporting, as is most of the media, it's pathetic. As to banning corporate donations to political parties, Bush called for that, both in the campaign and during the debate in the Senate. Perhaps they could check the record. Uhhhh...no, that would be honest reporting.
This also hasn't stopped the media from trumpeting this non-scandal into some huge scandal surpassing all of Clinton's scandals. No crime, no allegations of a crime, no nothing. Where is the story????
Consider this thought I had, and please expound on it if you wish...(I tried my hand at editorializing but can't sit still long enough...)
The party out of power is generally referred to as "the loyal opposition." In the case of clinton, actual crimes were uncovered, although they could not link them all the way to Bonnie and Clyde, there was a THERE, there. In Bush's case, no crimes are even alleged.
Because of this, seeking to get clinton was the "loyal opposition" thing to do...opposing wrong-doing while remaining loyal to America. In this case, the Dems and the pundits have become the DISLOYAL OPPOSITION. Going after a President for pure political advantage, when there is no THERE, there, when in fact most of the quid pro quo points squarley at IMPOTUS, can hardly be considered "loyal."
In fact, similar to the "peaceniks" who reflexively railed against America in the first days of the al-Queda war, these people could be considered to be acting in a traitorous fashion, if indeed there is no quid pro quo, as your editorial points out.
FReegards...
"Bush SHOULD do this, Bush SHOULD do that, Bush MUST do this, Bush BETTER do that....yadda, yadda...."
I've a mental picture of this "board" at an editorial meeting every Wednesday morning putting together the socialist, anti-Republican propaganda piece of the week. Each agreeing with each other. Each bloviated with his/her own perceived power over the masses. Each keeping the secretary busy running for coffee.
They must truly enjoy these power sessions because when they go home, these effete armchair critics of the President are probably beaten to pulps by their spouses for not helping do the dishes.
Leni
As much as I want this to be true, I doubt it.
Recent history proves that "bloodsport" is defined my the media.
Ahhh...everyone's an opportunist. Here we go again folks. John McCain, Tim "Trigger" Russert, the NYT, and every other Democrat's going to be ALL OVER the place yapping about CFR and "the special interests".
God help us.
We see the same thing in our own personal mailings from fund-raisers affecting legislation that would harm us. Some of these extreme bills are generated for the purpose of raising campaign contributions. Legislative blackmail is the name of the game.
Thanks for that article JH2!
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.