http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/20/column.billpress/index.html It has been too quiet in Washington since Bill Clinton left. No scandals. No hearings. No investigations. But that may soon change. Democrats on Capitol Hill, led by California's Henry Waxman, are talking about turning the tables on Republicans: holding hearings, conducting investigations and going after the Bush White House with the same zeal that Dan Burton and Al D'Amato once demonstrated when they pounced on Clinton and company. And there's plenty of fuel for the fire. The actions of three top administration officials -- Karl Rove, Paul O'Neill and Dick Cheney -- have raised serious questions about possible financial conflicts. O'Neill, former CEO of Alcoa, was named Treasury Secretary last December 20. He knew, if confirmed, he'd have to get rid of his $100 million in Alcoa stock and stock options -- which he finally promised to do on March 25. But he still hasn't acted. Meanwhile, Alcoa stock has jumped 30 percent. Legitimate questions for O'Neill: What's taking him so long? What actions has he taken as Treasury secretary that might have benefited Alcoa? And how much did his portfolio increase in value while he delayed selling his stock? Vice-President Dick Cheney is already subject of an investigation begun by the General Accounting Office, at the request of congressional Democrats. The GAO is looking into alleged improper ties between Cheney's energy task force and lobbyists for the energy industry. Since all sessions were secret, the GAO has requested copies of minutes and notes with outside lobbyists, but the White House has refused to turn them over. Legitimate questions for Cheney: Were oil and gas industry lobbyists allowed to write their own plan? Why won't the White House release records of who met with whom and what they talked about? What are they trying to hide? But Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser has the most to explain. Like O'Neill, he waited months before selling his extensive stock holdings in many companies, including Intel, Pfizer and Enron, on June 7. Before the sale, he met in the White House with executives of Intel, who were seeking administration approval of a corporate merger, which they later received; conferred with representatives of Pfizer who are in opposition to the Democratic version of the patients' bill of rights; and sought the advice of Ken Lay, Chairman of Enron, on energy policy. Legitimate questions for Rove: Why did he wait so long? What influence, if any, did he have on the energy task force, the Intel merger, or the president's continued opposition to the Kennedy-McCain bill of rights? How has he benefited financially from decisions he was involved in? So far, no hearings have been scheduled. But even the possibility of hearings has made Republicans apoplectic: accusing Democrats of merely seeking political payback. Nonsense. Republicans must realize that what goes around, comes around. If these were Clinton appointees, Dan Burton would have already tarred and feathered them in public without waiting for the facts. And besides, for eight years, Republicans repeated their mantra of "congressional oversight." It was their duty under the Constitution, they insisted. They had no choice but to investigate, and investigate, and investigate the Clinton administration. Did the need for congressional oversight disappear once Democrats took control of the Senate? No way. Not when there are concerns about potential conflicts of interest -- which is certainly the case with Karl Rove, Paul O'Neill and Dick Cheney. These are serious questions and they must be looked into. It's the only way Congress can do its job of making sure leaders of the executive branch are doing their jobs in compliance with the law. There should be no free ride for Bush administration officials. At this point, before we know all the facts, there's no reason to believe that Rove, O'Neill or Cheney did anything illegal. But it may have been unethical. And it sure was sloppy and arrogant. They knew what the rules were, they just chose not to follow them. And, in so doing, they created at least the appearance of wrongdoing -- which is just what President Bush promised would never happen. In swearing in his White House staff last January 22, the president said: "I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries that define legal and ethical conduct. This means avoiding even the appearance of problems." Promises made, promises broken. Let the hearings begin Looks like fun ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
That's a responsible attitude to take towards political power. It was so bad when we investigated Clinton's various scandals, when Congress' investigatory powers were ostensibly used as a partisan tool against the President. But when Democrats do it, it's OK. That's unbelievable. I could totally see it if Bill Press was saying, "No, this is different. Clinton was hounded unfairly for things he didn't do, but Bush's cabinet is totally rotten-- look at the evidence!" But he's not even making a pretense of that. He's flat-out saying "Yeah, this is payback!" Pathetic. What was the point of decrying the GOP's use of Congress to investigate the President as a negative or improper activity, if the Democrats were going to turn around and do the same thing when presented the opportunity? Complete hypocrisy.
Complete hypocrisy. Yes, but funny hypocrisy. Seriously, though, it will be interesting to see who says what if this all plays out. I think there will be a good number of hypocrites showing themselves, on both sides. If there's no merit to these and the investigations continue (similar to some of the Clinton ones), I think it'll hurt the Democrats badly. They have an opportunity to show that they are "above all that" if they would market themselves properly. Unfortunately, the opportunity for revenge and payback is much more enticing in the short-term. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
I don't think a guy keeping his stocks is anything illegal or unethical. Heck, if you think about it, when he DOES sell his stock, who do you suppose he's gonna sell it to? Some stranger, or some friend of his who will be willing to sell it back later? Nothing to see here. Move along. ------------------ Founding Father of the Refs Suck Club
Shanna, I agree-- I'm not saying the GOP's the good guys here... cracks me up that the Democrats cried about the terrible abuse of power committed during all of the various investigations of Clinton, and now they can't wait to do the same thing.
I don't think a guy keeping his stocks is anything illegal or unethical. Seriously? Heck, if you think about it, when he DOES sell his stock, who do you suppose he's gonna sell it to? Some stranger, or some friend of his who will be willing to sell it back later? He would probably sell it on the open market, seeing how that's the only place he can legally sell it. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets. <font size=1 color=white> [This message has been edited by shanna (edited June 21, 2001).]
This thread is practically an open invitation to the next re-incarnation of Bob Rainey. Let's see who can spot his new moniker first. ------------------ I always thought "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm discovered". Now I think "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm found out".
Turnabout's fair play, that's what I always say! ------------------ "Win if you can, lose if you must but always cheat!" - Jesse Ventura
Of course, some Republicans saw the investigations of Clinton as payback for the vigorous investigations of Reagan/Bush over things like October Surprise (in which there was essentially no evidence) or the investigation of Robert Bork (dragging out his video rental records) or Clarence Thomas. Even the Iran-Contra Investigations were seen as overreaching by some Republicans (and to an extent, there was some overreaching by Lawrence Walsh, especially in his final report when he makes serious allegations that he was never able to back up). ------------------
An unfortunate quote from the writer. "They say it's payback, but they have to realize it's just payback." Huh? But, imo, it doesn't matter that it is payback. We have to incentivize groups to root out corruption. We do it in part with guarantees of a free press. We're also doing it by sicking the parties on one another. I was happy that Clinton was getting investigated and disappointed they didn't have the balls to oust him. Same with the Bush administration. If the allegations are baseless, hopefully that will come out in investigation and we can continue. If there is something to it, however, they have no business in power. People are too sensitive about these investigations. I think they should be investigating all the bigwigs all the time (insofar as their budget allows). ------------------ RealGM Gafford Art Artisan Cakes
I don't see how there *couldn't* have been wrong-doing. They knew they had to sell the stock. They didn't. Do you really believe they simply forgot about $100 million dollars? Why wouldn't the minutes have been turned over? I think that if this was sex-related, the Democrats probably would have backed off. But it's a case of a businessman practicing collusion with industry - just the type of thing that Democrats go a little crazy about. Perhaps the real irony is of people living up to their stereotypes: the Democrat was a sex fiend without morals, and the Republican is a businessman who's first priority is money, money, money. Makes me laugh. In the end though, I think the Democrats should stay out of it. If there's serious wrong-doing, stay out of it and let the courts handle it. Cheney and co shouldn't have a free ride... but I don't want another round of political bloodbaths either. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
! I was thinking the same thing. Great minds think alike! ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
Especially since getting too focused on "bringing down the enemy" can cause the public to turn on the Party doing the investigating. Even Oliver North (who really was engaged in wrongdoing) became a sympathetic hero to many. And the Republicans were not ultimately helped by going after Clinton with such vigor. Think of some of the people in the Clinton Administration or people "close" to Clinton who were actually guilty of things, and then think about whether those people being guilty actually 1. Hurt President Clinton, and 2. Helped the Republican Party pushing the investigations. It's good to root out corruption, but Democrats should be wary of making it their cause. ------------------
I'm actually in favor of a full investigation of all three. It looks bad, it stinks of corruption-- Rove, Cheney, and O'Neill should be investigated. I think that Rove and O'Neill have behaved unethically and will suffer some consequences. Cheney, I don't think, did anything wrong. But that's just my feel for it. I don't know any specifics...
