Minimizing the Enron Taint

New York Times ^ | January 12, 2002

[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.

[Salvation]

Jennings: "I am sure we will be reporting on this matter every day until the November 2002 elections". Can't wait until the Media Watch folks issue their latest newsletter but the Jennings comment HAS to make their weekly Top-10 media bias list.

Media Watch Alert!!!!!!!!!!

[JohnHuang2]

Thanks for the compliment, friend.

[SJackson]

Seven Mr. Bushes. One President Theodore Roosevelt

A search of their site for the last 30 days reveals:

2092 hits for President Clinton
3248 for Mr. Clinton (not necessarily all Bubba)
2106 for President Bush
3286 for Mr. Bush (not all GWB, they probably call the governor and ex president Mr. too)

Just think, the NYT managed to mention the President 14 more times in the last month than the ex-pres.

Just honest reporting.

[JohnHuang2]

Thanks =^)

Can't wait until the Media Watch folks issue their latest newsletter but the Jennings comment HAS to make their weekly Top-10 media bias list.

Indeed.

[spindoctor]

That "wide and deep" comment jennings made in reference to the Bush administration's link to Enron was a blatant example of fabricating news. However, if he had said "wide and deep" in reference to hillary's behind, it would be nearer the truth.

[SJackson]

Of course, a search of their site for the last 90 days reveals:

6253 hits for President Clinton
9972 for Mr. Clinton
6163 for President Bush
9897 for Mr. Bush

No bias there

[JohnHuang2]

Thank you for the compliment, my friend.

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."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[SJackson]

Great post. Thanks.

[Political Junkie Too]

I just wish the media were this aggressive in pursuing campaign donations from China, Buddhist temples, and such. If the investigation leads in any way towards the Clinton administration, maybe the media will have to acknowledge it this time. If it does and they don't, the contrast would be glaringly obvious to all.

-PJ

[JohnHuang2]

Thanks =^)

[MamaLucci]

I just wish the media were this aggressive in pursuing campaign donations from China, Buddhist temples, and such.

No kidding....the "drumbeat" of the last few days is precisley what was missing in the coverage of the real clinton scandals.
Had the press done their jobs, public opinion would have forced clinton from office.

[Bahbah]

Doggonit. I thought so. Very impressed by your ability to do the search BTW.

[Benjamin Dover]

This "scandal" will die a quick death for three reasons.

1. Both sides took lots-o-cash from Enron. Too much real digging would let the crazy Aunt out of the basement for a lot of Senators and Congress folk.
2. Clinton. Their fingers are still healing from paper cuts they suffered counting the cash they took. Lay could fry Clinton in a nano-second for the "favors" Enron got and Bill/Hillary knows it. They are probably more pissed about the media firestorm than we are. A couple of McAuliffe phone calls will squelch this pretty quickly.
3. Polls. Once the rabid medialites figure out that this assault has backfired, and would ultimately hurt their poster boy, they will conveniently switch gears to some other "breaking" story.

I imagine there are a lot of squirming Congressmen huddled together right now trying to pee on a forest fire. Mallox is the soup du jour for them. This isn't the 70's when the big three could conspiratorially dictate what was the important news. 24 hour Cable and the internet have relegated those outfits to has-beens; only they haven't figured it out yet.

Lay, while apparently greedy and self-serving, is not a dummy....and he understands Washington. He spread the bucks around efficiently on both sides. He has enough markers out to thump a house of cards. He knows it, they know it and somebody will soon be whispering this reality to the press.

All indications are that the Bush folks laughed in Lay's face when he came calling. Clinton couldn't get his pants up fast enough to assist Lay when he knocked. This Bush scandal will resemble a Roman candle; exciting anticipation, a little smoke, pretty colors, a loud boom and then ....nothing. Enron and Lay will be in the news for months, but when the press realizes their gaffe, they will leave Congressmen, and (gnashing of teeth) Bush out of this. Crickets....