This is a great article! I agree with all of it, and now that I know a top speechwriter can freelance and make $250 an hour, I think I am going to have to re-think my career path. Seriously, though, I agree with her premise, which is basically: * This is a big deal; "everyone" is not "doing it too". It's a special case and frankly, I'm beginning to support the idea of a special prosecutor-- especially given the apparent complicity of Arthur Andersen in Enron's efforts to cover its tracks. * Republicans have a particular responsibility to police the excesses of the free market because we're its strongest advocates. We can't very well trumpet the market's benefits and then, as Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill did, blow off the monumental abuses committed by Enron as just part of the game, or leave the enthusiastic prosecution of said abuses to the Democratic Party (which is, to judge by its response thus far, all too eager to indict the entire free market system).
Nice article. I agree that not everyone is doing it, and that Enron is a special case, one of rampant greed, massive fraud and cooked books. I agree with you that a special prosecutor needs to be appointed. I also believe that the Bush Administration needs to release every shred of information it is withholding concerning it's contacts with Enron. I also believe that if the Enron fiasco does not bring about true campaign finance reform, nothing will.
Yeah, if I was in the Bush administration, I'd be clamoring to get all Enron related documents, from meeting notes to anything else, released. The dude's still got a high approval rating, he should take advantage of it. If, and a big if (I don't believe so), he's done anything remotely unethical, this would be the best time to try and explain it away. If not, he's got nothing to worry about.
Do you guys remember Clear and Present Danger, the Tom Clancy novel...? In the movie adaptation, Jack Ryan's character urges the President to head off the potential development of a scandal by being as upfront as possible about his relationship with someone involved in drug trafficking. Tell the press that you didn't just know him, but were good friends with him, Ryan urges the President, because it leaves them nothing to dig for. It's oversimplification obviously, but I think that in this case, that's an excellent approach for the Bush Administration to take regarding Enron. As I've said, I believe that their ties to Enron went no further than campaign donations and energy-policy discussions. O'Neill's response to Enron when it came desperately calling in October-- "sucks to be you"-- seems telling. Having said that, then, what advantage is there to trying to prevent the release of Enron-Bush information? I'm of the opinion that they've done nothing wrong; if that's the case, the best way to shut the scandalmongers up is to prove to the rest of the nation that they're wrong. The current approach, which I would term the "I'm-not-going-to-dignify-that-with-a-response" method, just leads to further suspicion.
Exactly...that's what the Clinton administration did from the very beginning starting with the first scandal. Had they answered truthfully, much of the pain and embarassment of the next 7 years could've been avoided simply because the press wouldn't have been trying to find something that could actually stick. Of course, that would've led us to Gore as well!!
I didn't want to bring that up, but that's also what I was thinking. It seems to me the Clintons thought they could outsmart the investigators, which indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the investigatory process. Investigators aren't smart. At least, not in the sense of trying to be Sherlock Holmes, brilliantly deducing the criminal act through genius. Modern government investigators are diligent and persistent and they basically keep piling up evidence until even the most stubborn attempts to stonewall them fail. Exhibit A: Ken Starr. Clinton approached the Starr inquiry by trying to outsmart him, obfuscating his testimony and dabbling in plausible deniability. It didn't work. It practically never does-- and it won't work for the Bush Administration if it turns out they've got a legislative blue dress stained by a campaign-donation orgasm.
The best thing the Bush Administration can do for themselves is come clean and release all information. Doing what they are doing now just makes it look like they have something to hide.
I don't think this is true. Had it not been for a semen stain, in the publics eye (except for the most conservative who actually believe the Clinton's were Satan’s minions, extreme liberals, and stole 2 elections) the whole series of investigations thing would have been heavily, heavily politically tilted towards the Demos. As it was it is debatable the end effect, many non-conservative people were very embarrassed by Clinton's actions but thought the investigation and Repub. congressmen went too far as well. Additionally, the delay, obfuscate, and "I don't recall" tactic worked beautifully for Iran-Contra. Unless you cold busted (Nixon, semen), it probably usually works. Bush and his folk just need to make sure their isn't a smoking gun.
I have a tendency to believe that much of this was simply crony-ism (sp?) that went crazy because Enron was so incredibly crooked. I don't doubt that Cheney and others were influenced by Enron but did they play a role in the collapse? Probably not. Influence peddling is rampant in Washington (and Austin and Houton). If it isn't the trial attorneys paying Dems it is the energy industry paying the GOP. If this doesn't lead to campaign finance reform, I don't know what will. I also agree that the Republicans absolutely MUST begin to prove that the concept of loosening the strings on corporate America does truly benefit everyone because, in this case, all the rich guys go richer while the employees got bent over and molested. Increasingly, people are getting tired of companies polluting, downsizing and mega-merging while being either subsidized by or given a free ride by the government. This goes for the democrats too because they may not ask for benefits in terms of deregulation but they sure as hell loosen up regulations for legal malpractice (the main reason why Vincent and Elkins - Enron's attorney - won't get busted in all of this though they probably deserve it too) and close down any attempts at lawsuit reform. If this whole debacle doesn't wake people up to the way our government has been doing business, I don't know what will.
DesertScar, are you aware that President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives and after leaving office was barred from arguing in front of the Supreme Court? I would not call his strategy effective. Leaving aside any discussion of why he was called to testify, his attempts at obfuscation were made solely to cover the fact that he had lied under oath about his affair with Porkchop Lewinsky. It didn't work. He was caught and punished. I'll grant you that the strategy worked during Iran-Contra.
But BK, do you think it really would have amounted to anything if there was no semen stain. Like with Nixon (tapes), there was some completely and totally unambigious evidence about shennanigans. Such evidence I think is typically quite rare. Yes, Clinton was impeached by the House on a near party line vote, but he was acquitted (or whatever the word for it) by the senate (in fact the majority, not even the 1/3 as stipulated by the Const.) and consequently he finished his term. IMO it will go down as a humongous multiyear, multipronged and expensive taxpayer funded investigation that found a President perjered himself about voluntary sexual liasons in the process of addressing civil suit, in which the end result did not cause him to be removed from office involuntarily or voluntarily. As far as his personal repercussions after his office, that is more about him than the political landscape.
When you reply "probably not" to your hypothetical question, you are telling me that you are also answering "possibly yes". How on Earth can any of you lefties believe that Bush and the White House could have "play(ed) a role in the collapse"?? I am not picking on you, but I see many Democrats and Liberals postulating that Bush is either guilty of causing the collapse, or not preventing the collapse, but you are unable to provide a motive for either action. Your lack of motive is why these charges against Bush should not be taken seriously. Enron officials were friendly to the Bush administration, and money was contributed to the Republican Party. This would provide a motive for Bush to prevent the collapse or bail out the company. He did neither, and thus these attacks against Bush are not only illogical, but petty.
cmrockfan: How can you RIGHTIES constantly misinterpret what we LEFTIES say simply out of paranoia? Sounds like a gang war! Did they have a direct role? I seriously doubt it. Did Republicans, in general, have an indirect role. Absolutely. How? Things like deregulation or the fact that Phil Gramm's wife loosened the strings on Enron right before she got a job with them lead you to the fairly obvious conclusion of influence peddling. I'm not saying the Dem's don't do it too, but I'm saying that IN THIS CASE, it is pretty much a given that Enron was given access to the highest areas of government because of the money they funnelled to the Bush campaign. It happens in every administration. Does that mean that Bush and Cheney sat in the back room of the oval office with Lay and plotted how they could screw thousands of workers out of their 401(k)'s. Even I'm not LEFTY enough to believe that hogwash. Personally, I think this should be a wake up call for ALL POLITICIANS that allowing access to people based on what they contribute is not only dangerous economically but politically as well. But, if you really want to come after the LEFTIES here, why don't you take a shot at that liberal wacko Brian for even suggesting that Bush should reveal everything he knows. What a conspiracy freak!
LOL, I will be a Shark, and you can be a Jet. Wait, which guy did Maria like?? I want to be him. Come on, Republicans always favor deregulation- this is a core principle for their political philosophy (unless you are talking about deregulating the bedroom). That is not a sign of anything, and Ms. Gramm does not represent the White House. That is a separate issue that should be taken seriously, but should not be linked to Bush. Enron was supposedly the 7th largest company in the nation (based on Anderson's accounting). Why is it a scandal that the corporations that drive our economy have access to the White House economic strategy team?? Brian is missing the point here. The Jets, err, the Democrats, are asking Bush to prove a negative. This is the oldest political game in the book. Bush has nothing to hide, so he has nothing to reveal. The Democrats are complaining that he won't reveal anything, so he must be hiding something. When Detectives are trying to solve a crime, they look for <b>motive</b>. I know this for a fact, because I have seen every Columbo twice. The outcome for Enron does not make sense if Bush was influenced by money or cronyism. Read this article to further understand my point. Jonah is the best because he can simplify complex issues, and always insert several Simpsons references- Why Liberals Need to Make Up Their Mind About Enron .
But, I didn't say "white house." I said "Republicans." There is a difference. It is like I said in my first post, it is up to Republicans now to convince us that providing subsidies and tax breaks to large corporations will, as they suggest, truly benefit the little guy. Enron was an example of the exact opposite being true. I still want the country to be by, of and for THE PEOPLE not THE CORPORATIONS. Because they do it, oftentimes, to the exclusion of the everyday person who isn't in a position of power. They have the ability to influence how the government deals with regulations which directly effect their bottom line. History has shown that the profits of corporations are more important than their benevolance. We don't have the option of electing and paying CEO's so we have to elect and pay political leaders and hope that they will do the right thing. In the case of Enron, they did whatever they wanted to increase the value of their stock (and their bank accounts) in detriment to their shareholders AND their employees and the Secretary of the Treasury said, "That is the BEAUTY of American business." How can the loss of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in pensions all while the highest levels of power in the company are getting richer and richer be a thing of beauty? Ken Lay even asked for a $51 million severance package upon resigning! Are you freakin' kidding me!?? The problem, for me, is that corporations aren't consumer-based. If you didn't like the policies of a grocery store or a single-owned establishment, you could simply protest their actions or boycott their products and the market forced them to change. How do you boycott, for example, Dow Chemical, who manufactures millions of different additives to products that go across a wide spectrum? Hell, the Mac I'm typing on probably has chemicals in them from Dow. If they are doing something you don't like, how can you possibly put pressure on them when they pollute or downsize heavily? How can you boycott Enron? Is there any way that any of us could put pressure on them? If I had a few million bucks, I might be able to buy a sizable enough minority share in the company that they'd have to listen, but I don't and neither do most of the people who got screwed. The other problem I have with that level of access from comapnies is that the constituents who elected these people into office don't have the same access or influence. I mean, we gave them their freakin' jobs and pay their salaries but they won't give us the time of day? Even term limits have basically eliminated our power. Once they are in, they don't have to answer to us. They'll be term-limited out evenutally. So, the only people who have their ears are the one's who also have their wallets. First, you have no idea whether or not he has something to hide. You are just a believer in his administration so you assume nothing is there. However, even if there wasn't anything to hide, his response that they will not release documents pertaining to Enron gives the perception that there IS something to hide. If there is one thing I have learned about politics, it is that perception (in politics) IS reality. Did something really happen? Who cares as long as we can get people to believe it did. That is how politics works. The issue here is that Bush has the chance to really screw the Dems by releasing everything and coming clean. If he IS innocent, then he not only comes out looking like a victim but he ALSO crams one up the ass of the Dems and that should be something he would want more than anything. I'm not going to pretend I understand every nuance of the whole crash, but it seems pretty clear that there isn't much motive to support a crash but that really isn't the issue. The issue is: did Enron influence policy while it was screwing over its employees and, if so, did the President and his advisors KNOW they were collapsing and say nothing about it all the while they were consulting with Enron exec's on said policy? If they knew Enron was going down, why still allow them to be an influence? If they also knew Enron was in trouble, why allow the general public to believe they were not? Their responsiblity is FIRST to the American people and second to the corporations who funded their campaigns.
<B>Bush has nothing to hide, so he has nothing to reveal. The Democrats are complaining that he won't reveal anything, so he must be hiding something. </B> That's the problem. He IS hiding things. New information comes out daily about meetings and such. I doubt this is of much relevence, but just yesterday, we learned that Karl Rove helped get Ralph Reed a job at Enron. Ralph Reed <I>still denies it</I> even though Rove point blank said it. Someone is lying. Why? More importantly, though, why can't the White House reveal documents about meetings? If they are just standard stuff, what's the big deal? Congress is planning on SUING Cheney tomorrow for it, so we'll find out who's right when the courts take it. I doubt anything's going on either. However, there are plenty of reasons to be looking into it. The fact that a major corporation who was committing massive fraud at the highest levels had top-level access to the White House is something that needs to be looked into. At at the very least, we should know if senior execs TRIED to use their influence to get out of trouble, because that reflects on how much the senior execs really knew (something that is still murky) and reflects on the criminal investigation of Enron. <B>When Detectives are trying to solve a crime, they look for motive. I know this for a fact, because I have seen every Columbo twice. The outcome for Enron does not make sense if Bush was influenced by money or cronyism. </B> Unfortunately, that's not how politics works. There are a thousand ways Enron <I>could</I> have influenced the Bush administration that did not directly benefit Bush. Bush could have gotten campaign money and in return kept the SEC off of Enron for the last year. Remember, there were discussions at Andersen in February of possible fraud. The SEC didn't look into it until it was too late. Probably nothing there, but part of investigating is to FIND OUT. The MOTIVE there would have been to try to help the people who helped Bush get into office. <B>I am not picking on you, but I see many Democrats and Liberals postulating that Bush is either guilty of causing the collapse, or not preventing the collapse, but you are unable to provide a motive for either action. </b> Why are Republicans so afraid of an investigation that could and probably will completely clear the Bush Administration? BTW, who the hell has said Bush helped CAUSE the collapse?!
Congressional Democrats should just be patient with this Enron/Bush White House connection "thang." I'm sure all relevant meeting notes, including Cheney's, will appear on a table in a third floor White House book room eventually.
