SON OF TEH ZOMBIE THREAD (This is clearly going nowhere)

[Brian Rucker]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/eveningnews/main620626.shtml

(CBS) When a forest fire shut down a major transmission line into California, cutting power supplies and raising prices, Enron energy traders celebrated, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports.

"Burn, baby, burn. That's a beautiful thing," a trader sang about the massive fire.

Four years after California's disastrous experiment with energy deregulation, Enron energy traders can be heard – on audiotapes obtained by CBS News – gloating and praising each other as they helped bring on, and cash-in on, the Western power crisis.

"He just f---s California," says one Enron employee. "He steals money from California to the tune of about a million."

"Will you rephrase that?" asks a second employee.

"OK, he, um, he arbitrages the California market to the tune of a million bucks or two a day," replies the first.

The tapes, from Enron's West Coast trading desk, also confirm what CBS reported years ago: that in secret deals with power producers, traders deliberately drove up prices by ordering power plants shut down.

"If you took down the steamer, how long would it take to get it back up?" an Enron worker is heard saying.

"Oh, it's not something you want to just be turning on and off every hour. Let's put it that way," another says.

"Well, why don't you just go ahead and shut her down."

Officials with the Snohomish Public Utility District near Seattle received the tapes from the Justice Department.

"This is the evidence we've all been waiting for. This proves they manipulated the market," said Eric Christensen, a spokesman for the utility.

That utility, like many others, is trying to get its money back from Enron.

"They're f------g taking all the money back from you guys?" complains an Enron employee on the tapes. "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?"

"Yeah, grandma Millie, man"

"Yeah, now she wants her f------g money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her a------ for f------g $250 a megawatt hour."

And the tapes appear to link top Enron officials Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling to schemes that fueled the crisis.

"Government Affairs has to prove how valuable it is to Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling," says one trader.

"Ok."

"Do you know when you started over-scheduling load and making buckets of money on that?

Before the 2000 election, Enron employees pondered the possibilities of a Bush win.

"It'd be great. I'd love to see Ken Lay Secretary of Energy," says one Enron worker.

That didn't happen, but they were sure President Bush would fight any limits on sky-high energy prices.

"When this election comes Bush will f------g whack this s--t, man. He won't play this price-cap b------t."

Crude, but true.

"We will not take any action that makes California's problems worse and that's why I oppose price caps," said Mr. Bush on May 29, 2001.

Both the Justice Department and Enron tried to prevent the release of these tapes. Enron's lawyers argued they merely prove "that people at Enron sometimes talked like Barnacle Bill the Sailor."

[Brian Rucker]

Relevant links:

Enron only just beaten out as largest lifetime contributor to Bush's political career.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/report.aspx?aid=220


WASHINGTON, March 11, 2004 — A small number of donations by employees of the credit card giant MBNA Corp. last month was enough to unseat Enron as President George W. Bush's top career donor.

The Delaware-based company has given Bush $605,041 over his career, while Enron ($602,625) slipped to second, according to a recent supplement to "The Buying of the President 2004," a book by the Center for Public Integrity detailing the financial interests behind each presidential candidate.

The Center's study found that investment companies continue to make staggering donations to Bush, driven by so-called bundlers. Nine of Bush's largest ten donors during October 2003 through January 2004 were financial services companies. All of Bush's ten largest donors from October through January are linked to bundlers who have pledged to donate $100,000 to $250,000 as part of the president's Pioneer and Ranger Programs.

Secrecy in Cheney's Energy Task Force in which Enron played a major role.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/27/scotus.cheney/

Before becoming Bush's running mate, Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Texas-based Halliburton Co., one of the world's largest service providers to the oil and gas industry.

Among those reportedly advising the group were former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay and two of the company's lobbyists -- Haley Barbour, a former Republican Party chairman and now Mississippi governor, and former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, now chairman of Bush's re-election campaign.

The task force developed a report that recommended opening up more federal land to oil, natural gas and coal development, including the remote Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Alaska. The energy bill crafted by the administration remains stalled in Congress.

In a January 2002 interview, after Enron's collapse, Cheney denied any improper contacts involving his advisory group.

"It's sort of of a classic feeding frenzy in Washington," he told CNN. "Nobody's got a charge to make; nobody did anything wrong. Enron didn't receive any special treatment. They were treated and dealt with just like a lot of other energy companies were that we talked to during this process."

Cheney argues that the executive branch needs to defends its right to confidentiality against "continual encroachment by Congress."

The government has not formally exerted executive privilege, under which it could refuse to turn over records or provide witnesses to testify. Instead, officials have claimed separation of powers allows them to keep certain documents private.

In court papers, Judicial Watch said executive privilege would not apply if energy executives and lobbyists participated in developing energy policy.

[Jason McCullough]

Go Washington state!

[chet]

Don't forget, (sorry for the poe-news links, but some of the original stories are gone).

Enron Recommeded Bush Energy Regulator Pick
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=8483

Cheney Refuses To Release Enron Notes, But There is Nothing To Hide
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=8111

The White House Tuesday accused Congress' investigative arm, the General Accounting Office, of overstepping its bounds in its request for information surrounding Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force.
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=8291

Bush Uses Odd Theoretical Math To Distance Self From Enron CEO
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=7537

Enron Didn't Pay Income Taxes 4 of 5 Years
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=7759


Also as far as contributions go. Ken Lay also lent Bush the enron jet for Bush's first presidential campaign to use - which made freaking foxnew's outrage that "enviro Kerry" is hypocritical because he uses planes to fly around in for his campaign, that much funnier.

If this shit doesn't sink bush... someone just needs to package it all up in one easy to digest format.

Chet

[noun]

If this shit doesn't sink bush...

I've been saying that every time solid proof of Bush and his cronies' misdeeds come up. The source material is endless, but for some reason, neither the media nor the general populace seem to be moved. I swear, Bush could rape a child in public while giving the finger to all European leaders as Cheney wire transfers American tax money directly into his offshore accounts, with Condi dressed up as a dominatrix flogging Ashcroft in the background, all while Karl Rove films the whole thing for a live cable audience, and I'm betting we'd STILL find that most people shrug it off as no big deal, and demanding to know why I hate America anyway. I mean, Jesus Christ, what will it take to prove these fuckers are evil and a danger to every man, woman and child on earth?

I suppose the best I can hope for in this instance is that this tape is enough to lock all those Enron bastards in jail for life.

[Jason McCullough]

He's no Reagan, but he's further evidence of what you can get away with if you seem like someone's playful uncle.

[Brian Rucker]

It just dawned on me that Bush did the same song and dance about knowing Ken Lay, after the Enron crash, as he did with Chalabi at the press conference this week.

"Ken...who? I mighta met him at a fundraiser or somethin'?"

Now it's

"Chalabi? Hmm. Mighta met him once or twice. Maybe in a rope line?" (Or how about sitting right behind his wife at the State of the Union.)

[Jason McCullough]

Wait a minute, the Justice department opposed the release of these tapes? This is the one time they're all squeashism about making their target look bad in the press?

[Damien Falgoust]

Oh, for God's sake people. Let's take each item one by one.

1. The Enron tape

This shows that Enron traders are, like most commodity traders, assholes who cheer at tragedy (most of the tacky Challenger tragedy jokes were supposedly started by Wall Street traders within hours of the explosion). It also serves as evidence that Enron may have manipulated the energy market.

What it doesn't show is complicity by the Bush administration in any of the above. All you've got on that front are two things.

First, a couple of traders expressing a pre-election preference for Bush over Gore because Bush was unlikely to implement price caps (and it turned out they were wrong; Bush resisted price caps, but finally implemented them in June of 2001). Well, so what? Opposition to price caps is hardly a radical position.

Second, the DOJ resisting turnover of the tapes. This is hardly unusual. Serious prosecutor's offices do not turn over key evidence to the media without a compelling reason for doing so. The DOJ has been pursuing Enron higherups with diligence -- they have already flipped Skilling and Fastow for testimony against Lay.

2. Enron as Bush campaign contributor

To which I say, "so what?" Shall we talk about the enormous contributions made by Global Crossing to Democratic candidates? Unless the administration goes to bat for such a corporation, then the contributions are aboveboard.

Which is exactly what happened with Enron. As Enron was spiraling downward, they sent an envoy to the White House to ask for intervention with some ratings agencies. They were refused. All that campaign cash didn't buy Enron much of anything.

3. The Energy Task Force

A reasonable argument can be made that the Energy Task Force was too heavily weighted towards industry, without others having an interest having a seat at the table. Having said that, the Task Force only made recommendations. None of those recommendations have the force of law absent Congressional lawmaking. That means that each recommendation would have to be heard in Congressional committees and debated on the floor of each chamber. The notion that actual policymaking was being done in a closed-door fashion is fallacious.

Reasonable arguments can also be made for forcing the handover of notes from those meetings. However, the arguments against handing them over are non-trivial as well. There is indeed an important separation of powers issue to be dealt with. Having the courts resolve that question is entirely appropriate, and it is not venal of the Bush administration to take the position it is taking.

4. Enron not paying taxes for 4 of 5 years

What exactly does this have to do with Bush? They didn't pay taxes for 4 of 5 years ending in 2000. Unless the governor of Texas somehow sets federal tax policy, the Bush administration has nothing to do with this.

N.B.: this also isn't Clinton's fault AFAIK. Enron, like many companies, used existing provisions in the tax code to eliminate their tax liability. That isn't the fault of any particular administration, but rather is the fault of the ever-growing behemoth that is the Internal Revenue Code.

[Brian Rucker]

Personally, I think it goes to character.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/02/17/bush.lay/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/26/enron.reed.cnna/index.html

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/05/24/dispensational/

(Fun article that explains why Reed was needed and why it was better to keep him off the books.)

Anyhow, one gets the feeling that Enron was really an important part of GW's GOP for both funding and connections. Quid Pro Quo? Well, I suppose they could be doing it out of the goodness of their hearts but I suspect it had more to do with the pressure the administration could put on congress to promote more deregulation and soften environmental restrictions among other things. Ya think?

[chet]

I love bush apologists. I guess if you put the blinders on tight enough its all good...

GWB has had an extremely tight relationship with Enron and Ken Lay, he not only used their corporate jet in the 00 election during his campaign. The relationship is not a simple one of just another donor. Enron/Lay played an important part in Bush's rise to power both in Texas and the national scene. All the while pushing Enron’s aggressive deregulation agenda. And when called upon by a democratic govenor to help figure out the mess in california - the bush administration failed to help.

To ignore that, and to call them just another donor, either shows your bias or your ignorance.

Chet

[Damien Falgoust]

Personally, I think it goes to character.
What the fuck is that, guilt by association?

It's a shitty tactic, especially when selectively applied. I note you aren't screaming about Global Crossing (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_08/c3771076.htm).

Anyhow, one gets the feeling that Enron was really an important part of GW's GOP for both funding and connections. Quid Pro Quo? Well, I suppose they could be doing it out of the goodness of their hearts but I suspect it had more to do with the pressure the administration could put on congress to promote more deregulation and soften environmental restrictions among other things. Ya think?
Again I ask: where is the "quo" for the "quid"?

You'd think that if the Bush administration was as bought and paid for as you claim, they'd have made some effort to slow Enron's descent. They didn't.

The simple truth is, money follows politicians, not the other way around. The Republican party is largely pro-deregulation and pro-free market. It follows that companies that stand to profit from deregulation and free market alternatives will thus support Republican candidates. Companies that are better served by the status quo will support their opponents. There is nothing venal about that.

[Damien Falgoust]

I love bush apologists.
Good thing I'm not one.

There's plenty that the Bush administration has done to be upset about. I've got my share of beefs with Bush and company, and I recognize arguments that have merit even if I don't personally agree with them (see my earlier post where I note exactly that).

That doesn't mean that this particular line of attack isn't total bullshit.

I don't mind criticism of the president; indeed, I encourage it. But I do suggest that those criticisms have merit. Just shouting "Bush!" and "Enron!" in the same sentence won't do.

And when called upon by a democratic govenor to help figure out the mess in california - the bush administration failed to help.
Did you somehow miss the part where Bush's FERC imposed price caps in June of 2001?

[Brian Rucker]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/enron011210.html

W A S H I N G T O N, Dec. 10 — When the energy-trading firm Enron collapsed recently after disclosing financial irregularities, thousands of employees lost their jobs and investors lost billions. Enron's fall also crippled one of President Bush's most loyal corporate supporters.

The Houston-based company was among the first to back Bush when he ran for governor of Texas. Enron and its executives went on to become the largest source of financial support for Bush's gubernatorial campaigns, giving more than $500,000, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity.
"Enron was the number one career patron for George W. Bush," said center director Charles Lewis. "There was no company in America closer to George W. Bush than Enron." Lewis says the company's goal in backing Bush and other politicians was to encourage further deregulation of the energy industry.

"Enron made a decision that they needed government to go their way and they put the money out to make sure that happened," he said.

Loyalty and Access
Congressional hearings open this week into Enron's financial implosion, which culminated in a Dec. 2. bankruptcy filing. The Labor Department, the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are all investigating Enron. It's unclear to what extent the inquiries are examining the longstanding ties between administration officials and the company, which was once the seventh-largest U.S. corporation in terms of revenue.

Enron CEO Kenneth Lay has been a friend of Bush and the Bush family for years. When Gov. Bush ran for president, Enron gave him access to a company jet. (The Bush campaign reimbursed the company roughly $25,000 for the flights.)

In April 2000, when Enron opened a new baseball stadium named for the firm, then-candidate Bush sat right in front of Lay in the Enron box.

Since 1999, Enron and its executives have given more than $2 million to the Bush campaign and other GOP causes. Democrats got about a quarter of that amount.

As Bush assumed the presidency, Enron had unusual access to the new administration's deliberations about energy policy and appointments to important posts. Lay served on the Bush transition team and helped interview candidates for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees the gas pipelines and electricity grids that are key to Enron's business. Earlier this year, the commission's chairman, Curtis Hebert, who was being considered for reappointment by the White House, declared himself "offended" by Lay's lobbying efforts. Hebert later quit the panel.

When Vice President Dick Cheney drafted a new energy policy, he met with Lay and other Enron executives. Enron was reportedly the only company to be granted such a meeting.

Lay declined to be interviewed for this story.

Washington Posts
Enron alumni also fill prominent slots in the Bush administration. The president's chief economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, and the top trade negotiator, Robert Zoellick, both served as advisers to the company. Secretary of the Army Thomas White was an Enron executive before joining the administration. When he assumed the Army post, White was forced to sell more than $25 million in Enron stock, according to a financial disclosure form he filed.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D.-Calif., has been pressing Cheney to detail his contacts with the troubled company.

"There is a very intimate connection between Enron and the Bush administration. How could they not have known what was happening?" Waxman said in an interview last week. "I think we need to find out what people in the administration knew, many of whom used to work for Enron. We ought to find out whether they ignored warning signs."

In the past, the White House has resisted requests for information about its dealings with the energy industry. The General Accounting Office, the investigative and auditing arm of Congress, threatened to sue Cheney earlier this year after he declined to turn over documents about his meetings with Enron and others interested in the energy policy he was developing. After the Sept. 11 attacks, GAO said the effort to get Cheney's records was no longer a priority.

Despite the administration's numerous ties to Enron, the White House has deflected questions about the company's failure. Reporters who asked White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer about Enron were referred to the Treasury Department.

However, Fleischer said last week that Congress has grounds to investigate how Enron fell so far so fast.

"It's very understandable why people in Congress… charged with oversight of any implications of Enron's bankruptcy would seek hearings," he said.

Okay, you make the case for Global Crossing. Tie it around Kerry's neck if you can.

[chet]

Much more was asked of the president than temporary price caps. Which is all that was offered.

And thanks Brian for saving me the time of digging something up, obviously our little friend here does not want to read about the entire history of the subject. I am surprised it wasn't brought up that Enron hasn't contributed to the Bush campaign in 04. Or my favorite, that Enron is not the #1 contributor to Bush anymore - well yeah, the company has been bankrupt for a bit now... but considering someone just passed them on that list, it is pretty telling to how much they donated so quickly.

Chet

[Andrew Mayer]

I don't mind criticism of the president; indeed, I encourage it. But I do suggest that those criticisms have merit. Just shouting "Bush!" and "Enron!" in the same sentence won't do.


I think I we get to do just that until we find out about who was at Cheney's energy task force meetings. Then we probably get to do it some more.

[Damien Falgoust]

Much more was asked of the president than temporary price caps. Which is all that was offered.
Much of what was asked was shortsighted and stupid. Had I been Bush, I wouldn't have even given them the price caps. Why is the refusal to dance to Gray Davis' tune such a terrible thing?
And thanks Brian for saving me the time of digging something up, obviously our little friend here does not want to read about the entire history of the subject.
Listen, goddammit -- I've forgotten more about the Enron debacle than you'll ever know. And I've got good reason to hate those fuckers. I used to work at a large law firm doing corporate transactions in the utility industry. Thanks to the assholes at Enron (and, to be fair, percieved infrastructure threats post-9/11 and a long-overdue popping of the utility M&A bubble) investment in utility assets dried up. That caused deals to dry up, which caused deal-related legal work to dry up, which caused my former employer to reduce their size -- including me. I've spent the last year and half either unemployed or doing in-house project work -- quite a fall from grace, really. I hate those fuckers with the fiery intensity of a thousand suns for what they've done, because it affects me very personally.

But all that doesn't mean that the Bush administration is responsible for or otherwise tied to the Enron fiascos. The arguments advanced for that proposition are fallacious. They amount to saying "Bush and Ken Lay were friends, and it turns out Lay was a bad guy, so Bush must therefore be evil as well." Which is stupid. Being friends with Ken Lay doesn't mean you know about the chicanery going on at Enron. God knows I've had folks I once considered friends who I've discovered were not nice people and who were doing awful, sick, twisted (and in one case, illegal) things, and I was none the wiser when they were going on.

Did Enron financially support Bush's election campaign? Yes, unquestionably. Bush was pro-free market and Enron sought to expand the number of deregulated energy markets in the country. Naturally they put their money behind the candidate whose ideology best served their business interests. When it thought it could make money from tighter environmental regulations, Enron threw money behind the Kyoto protocols (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-morris020802.shtml), something the Bush administration opposed. Again, money follows the politicians, not the other way around. If Bush was really in Enron's pocket, he would have supported those protocols, or at least those protocols that would prove profitable to Enron et al.

Okay, you make the case for Global Crossing. Tie it around Kerry's neck if you can.
I'm not interested in slamming the Clinton administration for GC, though those ties ran deep as well (hell, Clinton Secretary of Defense Cohen was appointed to their board of directors after leaving government service, and Terry McAuliffe made a shitload on GC stock while simultaneously setting up golfing dates between Clinton and GC's chairman). Nor am I interested in tarring Kerry with GC. The simple fact is, neither Clinton nor Kerry had anything to do with GC's meltdown, nor did Bush have anything to do with Enron's shenanigans in California or with its accounting tricks. It's stupid to tar either candidate in that fashion.
I think I we get to do just that until we find out about who was at Cheney's energy task force meetings. Then we probably get to do it some more.
Hey, I agree that there is a non-trivial argument to be made for releasing those minutes, just as there is a non-trivial argument to be made against doing so. But unless you're suggesting that those policy meetings included discussions about screwing California -- something that, to the best of my knowledge, no credible person has suggested, much less considered true -- the two are simply unrelated. It doesn't make sense to do that unless you're trying to unfairly tar the Bush administration with the conduct of Enron via guilt by association.

[chet]

Damien, you are now being purposefully a goofball. I don't care how it affects you. They executed a retard in texas, that doesn't make that retard an expert in criminal law.

To act like Ken Lay was just another donor is beyond ludicrous. To point to one of a few exceptions as some kind of proof is just silly. The bush/enron history is well documented and goes back years. Bush being Ken's boy back in Texas is a well known, not just some donor, but a puppet almost for Lay. So give it up. Or if someone else insist I will dig out the mountains of evidence showing their relationship goes well past donor/politician, but i won't for you, because as I said originally, you are either being bias or ignorant.

Chet

[Ben]

But Bush used Enron's jet! That's so clearly relevant and damaging that Chet doesn't even need to use it in a complete sentence.

[Nick Walter]

Damien, you are now being purposefully a goofball. I don't care how it affects you. They executed a retard in texas, that doesn't make that retard an expert in criminal law.

To act like Ken Lay was just another donor is beyond ludicrous. To point to one of a few exceptions as some kind of proof is just silly. The bush/enron history is well documented and goes back years. Bush being Ken's boy back in Texas is a well known, not just some donor, but a puppet almost for Lay. So give it up. Or if someone else insist I will dig out the mountains of evidence showing their relationship goes well past donor/politician, but i won't for you, because as I said originally, you are either being bias or ignorant.

Chet

I'd like to see those mountains of evidence.

[Squirrel Killer]

Damien, you are now being purposefully a goofball.

:yawn:

Another case of attacking the message, not the messenger, Chet?

[Damien Falgoust]

Damien, you are now being purposefully a goofball. I don't care how it affects you. They executed a retard in texas, that doesn't make that retard an expert in criminal law.
Perhaps you missed my area of specialization, noted above. Do tell if you want an education in the use of SPEs.

The point of that paragraph was simply to point out that I have no love lost for Enron's top dogs, that given my personal history it would be very easy to lash out and blame as many folks as possible, including Bush, but that I won't because the underlying logic is faulty. In short, I, perhaps better than most, understand the emotional impact of using "Enron" in the same sentence as someone you wish to tar, but I will not allow myself to fall into that kind of emotion-driven rationalization.

To act like Ken Lay was just another donor is beyond ludicrous. To point to one of a few exceptions as some kind of proof is just silly. The bush/enron history is well documented and goes back years. Bush being Ken's boy back in Texas is a well known, not just some donor, but a puppet almost for Lay. So give it up. Or if someone else insist I will dig out the mountains of evidence showing their relationship goes well past donor/politician, but i won't for you, because as I said originally, you are either being bias or ignorant.
Are you even reading my posts? I agree that Ken Lay and Bush were friends; indeed, I think that fact undeniable.

But that fact alone does not mean Bush should be held responsible for the Enron debacle. Consider: would you want to be held responsible for all of the actions of your friends and business associates?

The only question to ask is whether the Bush administration had knowledge of what Enron was doing. No such case has been made. No one has suggested that Bush (or his subordinates) knew of the accounting irregularities. No one has suggested that Bush (or his subordinates) knew about deliberate plant shutdowns. And the one piece of evidence we do have regarding the Bush administration's handling of the Enron debacle -- their refusal to intervene with rating agencies -- indicates independence, not obedience.

Guilt by association is a shitty tactic. It was shitty when they did it to Clinton, and it's shitty when they do it to Bush.

[Squirrel Killer]

But Bush used Enron's jet! That's so clearly relevant and damaging that Chet doesn't even need to use it in a complete sentence.

Story time boys and girls. I was working on a TV ad shoot for a congressional candidate, and we needed footage of a former congresswoman who now lives in Arizona. Rather than hire a local crew to get the footage, we arranged to fly down with the candidate to get it ourselves. When we asked for scheduling information (time, airport, fight plan, etc...) the candidate told us he barely knew the supporter who was flying us down. Turns out the guy was more of a party supporter who just wasn't using the jet that week. The whole thing broke down though when the Monday before we were to fly down, a slam-dunk candidate entered the race and our guy's money dried up.

The moral of the story: Just because a supporter gives a candidate an in-kind contribution, doesn't mean the two are best pals. (However, of course, with the amount of contributions Lay gave Bush, I doubt they were strangers either.)

[Jason McCullough]

Seeing how they hand-wrote each other letters all the time, yeah, they were probably a bit closer.

I don't see what's complicated here. Enron stole money from the residents of California and Bush let them do it, whether out of ideology or corruption.

[noun]

I'd like to see those mountains of evidence.

OK, here's a start: http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/12/column.billpress/

And that's the first link I found within 10 seconds of Googling, after discounting "leftie" news sites.

[Nick Walter]

Seeing how they hand-wrote each other letters all the time, yeah, they were probably a bit closer.

I don't see what's complicated here. Enron stole money from the residents of California and Bush let them do it, whether out of ideology or corruption.

"and Bush let them do it" is the complicated part. It's rather tricky to prove he knew what was happening and silently allowed it. I'm agreeing with Damien so far. "Enron/Lay gave Bush money" doesn't seem to logically lead to " . . . and so Bush conspired with them in a massive swindle".

[noun]

Here's another interesting link: http://www.apfn.org/enron/phoney.htm

Hmm...some of those other pages are pretty wacky, I'll try Googling a few Enron allegations to see what comes up...

[Damien Falgoust]

I don't see what's complicated here. Enron stole money from the residents of California and Bush let them do it, whether out of ideology or corruption.
Oh, bullshit. Unless you're trying to claim that deregulation is inherently evil and must lead to criminal behavior, your statement is absurd.

Let's set aside for a moment the issue of artifiically constraining supply by taking plants offline. Suppose that high summer demand was enough to outstrip California's generating capacity even with all plants running normally, without interference. When prices rise accordingly, would you characterize out-of-state energy companies as "stealing" from California? Surely not.

Unless you're suggesting that the Bush administration had knowledge of artifically-created scarcity, you cannot saddle them with any kind of responsibility for Enron's actions regarding plant shutdowns. Any other criticism is really a criticism of deregulation generally -- a policy argument. If you believe that government should meddle in the marketplace, fine, but it isn't venal for a politician to think otherwise and to act accordingly.

[Damien Falgoust]

Please note that both noun's links essentially say that Enron contributed a lot of money to Bush's election campaigns. Which is undisputed. And which does not amount to evidence of a connection between Bush and the Enron shenanigans.

Look, I'm willing to stipulate to the following facts:

1. Enron and Ken Lay gave Bush's campaigns a shitload of money and in-kind contributions.

2. Ken Lay and Bush were good friends.

So please, no more cites to prove those facts. It's unnecessary. No one is contesting that those two statements are true.

What is needed is a nexus between those two facts and the allegations that Bush was somehow connected to Enron's activities regarding California power plants, or was connected to their accounting irregularities. No one has yet cited anything that demonstrates such a connection.

[chet]

Damien Falgoust, I guess you can't read. I don't care what your area of expertise is, because it isn't modern history of the Bush family. I don't care if you are the arrogant prick lawyer you try to come off as here. Fuck. I don't care if you speak the queen's english, wear a wig and demand the young boys you bugger call your barrister. None of that come into play with the issue at hand. And you purposefully step over what davis was requesting and what Bush refused to do.

Did you know I can click and see your posting history? You are nothing but a Bush apologist and an ignorant one at that. Ohhh.... but you speak like an arrogant prick lawyer, well good for you, because we all know all arrogant prick lawyers are super geniuses. You make desslock look humble.

As for the planes, I say it passing. But the truth is, Ken Lay made 8 planes available around the clock not only for Bush, but for the entire bush team. Those planes were ready to go at a moments notice for the Bush team, they were not just a lucky happenstance that they were available. And that is only a minor, minor,minor thing, but it helps people like ben understand that pretty planes were involved.

Go check up on Bush writing letters for enron to the Gov. Pennsylvania, for his stepping in on Enron's energy deal in India, to the family helping in Argentia, blah blah blah. Why bother? You will tell me it is all moot, because your middle initial is E - JUST LIKE ENRON!!!!

Chet

[Jason McCullough]

Oh right, it works that way. Lay phones up Bush and tells him he's going to fuck California! Never said that.

What probably happened is that Bush, either because he had a lot of close connections to the industry, or just is ideologically unable to believe that something like this could happen, refused to do anything.

If you believe that government should meddle in the marketplace, fine, but it isn't venal for a politician to think otherwise and to act accordingly.

The government created that market out of whole cloth. This wasn't selling corn.

[chet]

You kill me, yeah, and Cheney is hiding his secret meetings with Enron because you know... general principle...

Chet

[Squirrel Killer]

Did you know I can click and see your posting history? You are nothing but a Bush apologist and an ignorant one at that.

...and we can do the same to see your posting history of "attack[ing] the message, not the messenger."

[chet]

Damien, lets look at a recent transaction that did happen in the open.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001944881_accenture02.html

Accenture, birthed from arthur andersen, you might remember them in this mess, or even this lovely video featuring Cheney.
http://www.truthout.org/mm_01/4.andersen.cheney.ram

See there the Bush team is rewarding a contract - to monitor visitors to the united states - to a company incorporated in Bermuda to avoid paying corporate taxes. That sounds fairly unbelievable, but no bother, the Bush team rewarded them with the contract.

Now according to Damien logic, no one can say anything bad about the administration for this deal unless there is a piece of paper that says.

Dick,
Let's get a company hiding from paying it's taxes, that we both have a long time relationship with, lets get a company like that, and reward it a big government contract dealing with homeland security. Won't that be a pisser? Think of the fucking democrats faces... haha fuckers...

Signed,

GWB

[Nick Walter]

Oh right, it works that way. Lay phones up Bush and tells him he's going to fuck California! Never said that.

What probably happened is that Bush, either because he had a lot of close connections to the industry, or just is ideologically unable to believe that something like this could happen, refused to do anything.


You still seem to be arguing, without evidence, that Bush knew fully what was happening and unethically participated by not putting a stop to it. That's the link that I'm not getting. I'm sure he knew there was an energy crisis, especially considering it was front page news. I'm not convinced he knew that illegal/unethical market manipulation was happening.

[Damien Falgoust]

Damien Falgoust, I guess you can't read. I don't care what your area of expertise is, because it isn't modern history of the Bush family.
Look, I was just pointing out that I knew a fair bit about this topic area in response to your amazingly absurd "retard in Texas" bit.
I don't care if you are the arrogant prick lawyer you try to come off as here. Fuck. I don't care if you speak the queen's english, wear a wig and demand the young boys you bugger call your barrister. None of that come into play with the issue at hand.
Oddly, I don't think my rather mild observation that I have experience in this area amounts to "arrogance." And if anyone's being a "prick" here, it's you -- I've replied to your points with politeness and restraint.

You've got me on "lawyer," though. One out of three ain't bad, I suppose. And you purposefully step over what davis was requesting and what Bush refused to do.
Oh, I acknowledge that Davis asked for more intervention that he actually got. But that's a policy dispute (indeed, as I've noted, I don't think Bush should have even given in on the price caps). The fact that Bush didn't ask "how high?" when Davis said "jump" is not evidence of malfeasance.

If you want to criticize the policy decision by the Bush administration to not intervene further in the California energy crisis, fine; that's a legitimate argument (although one I'd dispute). But don't suggest that this is the result of anything more than different worldviews on the intersection of government and the marketplace without evidence to that effect.

Did you know I can click and see your posting history? You are nothing but a Bush apologist and an ignorant one at that.
Y'know, I just went and browsed through my posting history, and other than this thread, I count only five or so threads that are political that I've been involved in: one on Bush hiring a lawyer, two on the Scalia recusal issue, and a few on gay marriage.

The overwhelming number of my posts are on such raging political topics as Jack Bauer in "24," the winner of "The Apprentice," and the trailer for "The Passion."

I don't think you have a big enough sample size to call me a "Bush apologist."

Furthermore, if you actually read my posts, you'll see I am often at odds with the administration or the Republican party. Consider this thread (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4421&highlight=) on gay marriage where I take Bill Frist to task.

I'll freely cop to being generally conservative in outlook, but I'm no political hack. You'd do well to learn the difference.

Go check up on Bush writing letters for enron to the Gov. Pennsylvania, for his stepping in on Enron's energy deal in India, to the family helping in Argentia, blah blah blah. Why bother? You will tell me it is all moot, because your middle initial is E - JUST LIKE ENRON!!!!Like I said, I do not dispute that Lay and Bush were friends.

What I do dispute is whether the evidence shows Bush had any part to play in Enron's shenanigans in California or in Enron's financial gamesmanship. I am perfectly willing to consider such evidence, but none has been forthcoming. All that's been proffered are articles that only show the two things I've stipulated to -- and not to any sort of venal conspiracy.

[Brian Rucker]

There's a difference between an enabler and a co-conspirator. What we have is a good old boys network where Bush helps out Kenny and Kenny helps out Bush. If it's somehow possible Bush didn't have an inkling over the decades Kenny's been helping him out, massively, humongously, that maybe this guy's lust for deregulation and the staggering growth in energy prices in deregulated markets were somehow linked...maybe he gets a pass. On venality. Not on stupidity.

But when you take it to the level of having your buddy create sham jobs to retain unpalatable political consultants off the books, one has to think Bush had a pretty good idea what the nature of this relationship was. Assuming he knew about Rove's role in Reed's tenure with Enron.

[Damien Falgoust]

Damien, lets look at a recent transaction that did happen in the open.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001944881_accenture02.html

Accenture, birthed from arthur andersen, you might remember them in this mess, or even this lovely video featuring Cheney.
http://www.truthout.org/mm_01/4.andersen.cheney.ram

See there the Bush team is rewarding a contract - to monitor visitors to the united states - to a company incorporated in Bermuda to avoid paying corporate taxes. That sounds fairly unbelievable, but no bother, the Bush team rewarded them with the contract.


Wow, where to begin...

1. Nice bit of tarring there. Look, everyone that worked at Andersen wasn't evil. My wife is an auditor for another Big 4 accounting firm. It is a massive organization. I don't think she'd take too kindly to being tarred as unethical based on the actions of an entirely separate audit team in an entirely separate office.

What happened with Andersen is tragic. Plenty of really good, talented accountants and support staff lost their jobs because of failures of a few audit teams and the failure of firm management to implement proper institutional safeguards (to this day I'm amazed that Andersen allowed local partners to overrule their opinion oversight committee). It isn't because the whole organization was corrupt.

2. If you know anything about the Accenture-Andersen split, you'd know it was hardly peaceful. I recall reading articles in Businessweek about how much the audit side and consulting sides hated each other. I think the Accenture folks would also be pissed at their continued association with Andersen. :)

3. What is wrong with a company using perfectly legal means to reduce its tax liability? You itemize your deductions, right?

Government contracts should go to the most competitive bidder capable of adequately performing the job. If they also happen to use legitimate tax loopholes, then that is an issue for Congress to deal with next time they revise the tax code, and not one for the executive when handling contracts.

4. Most importantly -- this has nothing to do with Enron or with the allegations implied by the OP. Quit moving the fucking goalposts, frcryinoutloud.

[Damien Falgoust]

There's a difference between an enabler and a co-conspirator. What we have is a good old boys network where Bush helps out Kenny and Kenny helps out Bush. If it's somehow possible Bush didn't have an inkling over the decades Kenny's been helping him out, massively, humongously, that maybe this guy's lust for deregulation and the staggering growth in energy prices in deregulated markets were somehow linked...maybe he gets a pass. On venality. Not on stupidity.

What are you smoking? No one's suggested that Bush didn't know that Lay had been "helping him out" by giving him campaign contributions, or that that help was because Bush was pro-deregulation, or that Enron (along with lots of other energy companies) thought it could profit from deregulation.

What is being disputed is whether Bush was in any way complicit in the manipulation of the California energy markets. One can know all the things I just enumerated and also not know that Enron was gaming the system, and knowing the former and not knowing the latter does not make one stupid.

What you're suggesting is that pursuing deregulation necessitates turning a blind eye to corruption. Which is false.

But when you take it to the level of having your buddy create sham jobs to retain unpalatable political consultants off the books, one has to think Bush had a pretty good idea what the nature of this relationship was. Assuming he knew about Rove's role in Reed's tenure with Enron.

I assume you're referring to Reed. Why do you call it a "sham job?" Reed, whatever you think of him personally, is a fearsome political organizer (along the same lines, I dislike James Carville personally, but respect his ability to run a campaign). Reed was brought in for some perfectly legitimate lobbying efforts directed at Pennsylvania. Are you suggesting that Enron wasn't lobbying Pennsylvania to deregulate? That Reed wasn't actually helping them in pursuing that goal?

As for "off the books," I assume you mean off the books of the Bush campaign. Which is false -- Reed claims he was doing work for both the RNC and the Bush campaign starting in early 1999. If Reed was so "unpalatable" to the Bush campaign, why did they start using him so early?

[Brian Rucker]

Frankly, there was quite a bit of coverage coming out of California at the time suggesting Enron, among others, was gaming the system. And if the idea of deregulation was to make markets more competative, hence lowering the costs to consumers, only a freakin' moron would sign on to this as a good idea with California as an example. You don't have to get down into the weeds to reason that through. Bush, based on his actions or lack thereof, didn't really seem to give a rat's ass.

I really wish I could find the original Times story on Reed and Enron as it's infinitely more compelling than Reeds unconvincing rebuttal. The interviewer is clearly skeptical herself. Yes, if you're inclined to take Ralph Reed at his word all's fine. I suppose the weakness of my assertion lies in my assumption he's just full of shit. This is a guy who makes his living lulling gullible saps into voting for his candidates. He worked tooth by jowl with Pat Robertson. For me, and yeah it's biased, that's like admitting you're a career conman and your credibility is zilch. But I'll withdraw this assertion until I can get better coverage.

[Damien Falgoust]

Frankly, there was quite a bit of coverage coming out of California at the time suggesting Enron, among others, was gaming the system. And if the idea of deregulation was to make markets more competative, hence lowering the costs to consumers, only a freakin' moron would sign on to this as a good idea with California as an example. You don't have to get down into the weeds to reason that through. Bush, based on his actions or lack thereof, didn't really seem to give a rat's ass.

Look, I agree that California's deregulation plan was foolish as implemented: a scheme where the costs cannot be passed along to the final consumer is a half-measure. California screwed the pooch in adopting a system virtually designed to fail.

That doesn't mean that deregulation itself is bad or never a good idea. It does mean that you need to deregulate both the wholesale and retail markets, lest the cure be worse than the disease.

The right answer for the feds (absent knowledge of actual supply tampering) was to let California fix its own mess. Unfreeze consumer power prices and let the market rise to equilibrium. It isn't a matter of "not caring." It's a matter of adopting the right public policy to fix the problem over the long term, rather than taking a short-term band-aid approach.

I really wish I could find the original Times story on Reed and Enron as it's infinitely more compelling than Reeds unconvincing rebuttal. The interviewer is clearly skeptical herself. Yes, if you're inclined to take Ralph Reed at his word all's fine. I suppose the weakness of my assertion lies in my assumption he's just full of shit. This is a guy who makes his living lulling gullible saps into voting for his candidates. He worked tooth by jowl with Pat Robertson. For me, and yeah it's biased, that's like admitting you're a career conman and your credibility is zilch. But I'll withdraw this assertion until I can get better coverage.

I'm no fan of Reed either, but he, like Carville, has an undeniable head for running political organizations. And it isn't like he's an obscure figure; it would be dumb of him to lie about something as easily checkable as when he was working for Bush or the RNC. Reed may be a snake, but he isn't dumb.

But more to the point, the whole notion just rings hollow. Evangelicals make up a significant part of Bush's base. Why would he be afraid of having Reed on board publicly, especially early in the campaign when he was just looking to win the nomination? Republican voters surely wouldn't be offended by Reed's presence -- indeed, the very voters Reed caters to are the voters that killed McCain's campaign in South Carolina. I can see why you'd want to keep your use of Reed quiet as the general election rolls around, but can't see why it would be important in the early stages of the campaign. Yet the allegation is just the opposite: that Bush wanted to keep Reed's participation quiet in the early going, but used him publicly later on. I'm not buyin' it.

[Brian Rucker]

Damien, doesn't the relationship between Bush and his gang and Enron trouble you in the slightest? I honestly don't see why anyone would spend his time saying things were hunky dory given the documented and lengthy history here. Can we prove, for a fact, Bush's owing his political soul to Enron caused him not to intervene, when asked, in California's energy crisis? Well, I doubt it. He'd be out of office if anyone could.

But doesn't this relationship, this level of access, the sheer number of Enron employees that ended up in this administration...make you wonder whether there might have been some improper behavior? And given all this smoke, and that's all it is right now, isn't it likely there's a fire?

For my money that fire will breakout when Cheney's Energy Task Force meeting minutes come to light. I suspect if there was nothing there Cheney would have let it go already just to kill interest in the story. Principles? These guys? It's secrecy pure and simple. They, for reasons of political discipline and message control or to provide cover for backscratching, have been about secrecy since day one.

A democracy can't function at all if we can't know what our government is doing, how, and make informed choices when it comes time to vote again.

I'm sorry, but no argument is likely to convince me barring stunning new facts that Bush didn't get involved in keeping the power on in California because of some economic principle or that Cheney's keeping his records sealed because of some Constitutional principle. These guys are just troughs for corporate funds. We're to just lay back and trust those constituencies aren't getting anything for these donations?

[Damien Falgoust]

Damien, doesn't the relationship between Bush and his gang and Enron trouble you in the slightest?
I think there is a legitimate argument to be made that the Bush administration considers energy industry concerns to be more important than the concerns of other interested parties. But I don't think there's anything venal about that -- I just think that Bush, being something of an energy guy himself, tends to see the world through an energy producer's glasses. He's a pro-business kind of guy, and with that position energy dollars follow.

I don't think there's anything untoward. I don't think anyone can plausibly suggest that Bush knew about the accounting shenanigans or the (alleged) power plant manipulation. There's certainly no evidence to that effect. And I don't believe claims on blithe assertions: I demand proof.

For my money that fire will breakout when Cheney's Energy Task Force meeting minutes come to light.
I'm not sure why you think that. It isn't like the Task Force was discussing how to screw California for Enron's gain. I mean, even if you subscribe to the "Cheney as Dr. Evil" view, you've got to admit that there's no way those kinds of discussions would take place at official policy meetings where records are kept.
I'm sorry, but no argument is likely to convince me barring stunning new facts that Bush didn't get involved in keeping the power on in California because of some economic principle or that Cheney's keeping his records sealed because of some Constitutional principle.
Oh, I agree that Bush isn't sufficently dedicated to the ecomonic principle of free markets. After all, he did back down on the price caps. Indeed, one of my principle beefs with this administration is their willingness to cast aside economically sound policy when it is politically expedient -- see, e.g., steel tariffs and the farm bill.

Separation of powers is an important principle. It deserves to be rigorously considered. Cheney's arguments are non-trivial.

These guys are just troughs for corporate funds. We're to just lay back and trust those constituencies aren't getting anything for these donations?
Again: Enron sure as hell didn't get much; when they were spiraling downward, the Bush adminstration refused to help them out.

[chet]

Damien, my bad. I forgot you are playing lawyer here so everything needs to be said like I am talking to a genie in a bottle who is looking to try and twist it every second. Sorry for using another example to show your foolishness, sorry for using common sense versus some kind of ispo facto de stupido el forumspeak.

Unless there is a written,notarized confession, everyone is innocent and it is insane to think otherwise.

Gotcha.

Chet

[Damien Falgoust]

Damien, my bad. I forgot you are playing lawyer here so everything needs to be said like I am talking to a genie in a bottle who is looking to try and twist it every second. Sorry for using another example to show your foolishness, sorry for using common sense versus some kind of ispo facto de stupido el forumspeak.

Unless there is a written,notarized confession, everyone is innocent and it is insane to think otherwise.

:roll:

I'd settle for anything -- anything at all -- that credibly suggests Bush was aware, or should have been aware, that Enron was secretly manipulating the power supply in California.

All you've got is that one of Bush's supporters and friends turned out to be a not very nice person who ran a not very nice company. That is not by itself evidence of a conspiracy.

I hope you never belatedly discover that one of your acquaintances is a not-nice person.

[Brian Rucker]

I think what this comes down to, largely, is gut instinct. Lawyerly rhetoric (non-trivial is one of my favorite lawyer words) or jaded suspicion aside, it's a matter of faith whether you decide to take Bush at face value or not on these issues. Or self-interest. Probably a bit of both, right?

I don't think anyone's ever gone wrong assuming where money and politics are involved there's likely something amiss or amoral afoot. In a democracy where we're the guys who are really responsible for what happens if suspicions are raised, non-trivial suspicions, it doesn't really behoove us to offer the benefit of the doubt too often.

Enron may be a relatively dead issue but it, along with Cheney and Bush's histories with the energy industry, do raise questions about how well they'll balance the concerns of the nation with that of the energy industry or other contributors. Bush has spent his entire career essentially getting bailed out by opportunistic wealthy folks looking to cover his ass, because of who he's related to, until he finally hooked up with Rove who forged that flabby 'goodwill' into political muscle. Cheney's career at Halliburton includes cases still being investigated of the company using overseas affiliates to do business in countries, including Iraq and Iran, American businesses weren't allowed in. Cheney as Secretary of Defense designed much of the infrastructure that was used as the Pentagon expanded it's outsourcing and contracting activities. Any surprise he ended up getting hired by the number one contractor once he got out?

I really have questions about these two men and their ethics and I don't think they suddenly shaped up once they got into The White House.

That's the source of much of my 'faith' when it comes to the question of Enron and its influence. What's to keep it from becoming influential?

And of course when Enron was obviously radioactive they didn't get any help. It was a sinking ship. Every man for himself.

[chet]

Just one last bit, because you crack me up so much.


Go check up on Bush writing letters for enron to the Gov. Pennsylvania, for his stepping in on Enron's energy deal in India, to the family helping in Argentia, blah blah blah. Why bother? You will tell me it is all moot, because your middle initial is E - JUST LIKE ENRON!!!!
Damien Falgoust wrote:
Like I said, I do not dispute that Lay and Bush were friends.


So past history of Bush doing this, showing a pattern of doing this for more than a decade?? Again, all moot, because someone didn't sign a confession in from of Damien. Damien, I have to ask then, what isn't covered by your ludicrous, friends helping friends bit?

That just cracks me up to no end. There are literally hundreds of well documented episodes of Bush doing things like this for enron, but this time?? Oh no!!! Not this time, because before it was different, just friends helping friends.

Hehe. That there is some good lawyering you got a going on...

Chet

[jeffd]

...There are literally hundreds of well documented episodes of Bush doing things like this for enron...
Chet

I'm sure you've provided tons of links already - but what well documented episodes?

JD

[Nick Walter]

I think what this comes down to, largely, is gut instinct. Lawyerly rhetoric (non-trivial is one of my favorite lawyer words) or jaded suspicion aside, it's a matter of faith whether you decide to take Bush at face value or not on these issues. Or self-interest. Probably a bit of both, right?

I don't think anyone's ever gone wrong assuming where money and politics are involved there's likely something amiss or amoral afoot. In a democracy where we're the guys who are really responsible for what happens if suspicions are raised, non-trivial suspicions, it doesn't really behoove us to offer the benefit of the doubt too often.

Enron may be a relatively dead issue but it, along with Cheney and Bush's histories with the energy industry, do raise questions about how well they'll balance the concerns of the nation with that of the energy industry or other contributors. Bush has spent his entire career essentially getting bailed out by opportunistic wealthy folks looking to cover his ass, because of who he's related to, until he finally hooked up with Rove who forged that flabby 'goodwill' into political muscle. Cheney's career at Halliburton includes cases still being investigated of the company using overseas affiliates to do business in countries, including Iraq and Iran, American businesses weren't allowed in. Cheney as Secretary of Defense designed much of the infrastructure that was used as the Pentagon expanded it's outsourcing and contracting activities. Any surprise he ended up getting hired by the number one contractor once he got out?

I really have questions about these two men and their ethics and I don't think they suddenly shaped up once they got into The White House.

That's the source of much of my 'faith' when it comes to the question of Enron and its influence. What's to keep it from becoming influential?

And of course when Enron was obviously radioactive they didn't get any help. It was a sinking ship. Every man for himself.

Nice post Brian, I think that really sums things up well. It does come down to a gut feeling since hard evidence either way will probably never see the light of day. I have no doubts Bush is overly cozy with the energy industry. My gut still doesn't tell me he had any knowledge of the shenanigans, but I can see how some people might feel the other way.

[Damien Falgoust]

I think what this comes down to, largely, is gut instinct. Lawyerly rhetoric (non-trivial is one of my favorite lawyer words) or jaded suspicion aside, it's a matter of faith whether you decide to take Bush at face value or not on these issues.

It's not a matter of taking Bush at face value; it's a matter of viewing the evidence before me. That evidence is sorely lacking. I do not accept accusations without evidence.

You seem to think that my refusal to presume guilt is tantamount to some kind of faith in Bush's veracity. That isn't the case. Show me evidence and I'll change my mind.

Or self-interest. Probably a bit of both, right?

What, exactly, are you suggesting here?

[Damien Falgoust]

That just cracks me up to no end. There are literally hundreds of well documented episodes of Bush doing things like this for enron, but this time?? Oh no!!! Not this time, because before it was different, just friends helping friends.

Define "things like this." Do you think the things you enumerate are unethical? (I'll presume them true for the sake of argument, though I would be interested in seeing your sources to be sure you've described things accurately).

Take the letter to Pennsylvania for example. If Bush, as a political favor, wrote a letter to Tom Ridge expressing his support for Pennsylvania's deregulation plan, do you have a problem with that? Why or why not? It seems like a commonplace thing for a politician to do for a supporter. Why is that bothersome?

More to the point, why does the writing of the occasional letter somehow translate into knowledge of what Enron was (allegedly) doing to California's power supply?

[Jason McCullough]

Um, I don't think I said "Bush knew Enron was stealing money." He probably believed they weren't, either because they were his good friends or he's dumb.

[Brian Rucker]

Damien, you really can't be all that knuckleheaded. Folks pour a bazillion gallons of money into a candidate and suddenly things just happen to go their way? I suppose it's because they sat down and had a long talk, long ago, about their shared values and belief in a free and fair market. Love blossomed. "Ah looked into his eyes and ah knew he was a good man."

I'm sorry. Bush has been in the business world and politics long enough that I can't believe he didn't know, or shouldn't have known, something was rotton in Denmark. I think he just didn't care either because his pockets were being lined and he had Rove whispering, "Stick to principle" in his ear or he was too stupid to know what was going on.

Principle seems to be the new buzzword for Bush Republicans. It means doing eggregious things or just allowing them to happen, which coincidentally benefit you in some way, and salving your conscience because some ideological theologian has handed you a rhetorical dispensation of some kind. And in return you accept the simony of your contributors peacefully knowing you're sticking to principle. Ching, ching.

[Damien Falgoust]

Damien, you really can't be all that knuckleheaded. Folks pour a bazillion gallons of money into a candidate and suddenly things just happen to go their way? I suppose it's because they sat down and had a long talk, long ago, about their shared values and belief in a free and fair market. Love blossomed. "Ah looked into his eyes and ah knew he was a good man."

Your mocking tone notwithstanding, this is more or less how it works. No, donors don't have long heart-to-hearts with candidates, but they are aware of a candidate's stated positions and his track record. And they give money accordingly.

Most Democrats share a belief that litigation is an appropriate way to shape public policy. Ergo, Democratic candidates get lots of trial lawyer money. Most Republicans share a belief in free trade and low tariffs; ergo, companies wishing to purchase supplies more cheaply from overseas support Republican candidates. The money follows the position, and not the other way around.

Bush is, and was, well-known as a free-trade, pro-privatization, pro-deregulation, pro-energy company politician. An energy company which could profit off of policies fitting that mold would certainly donate significantly to Bush's campaign. That just makes sense.


I'm sorry. Bush has been in the business world and politics long enough that I can't believe he didn't know, or shouldn't have known, something was rotton in Denmark. I think he just didn't care either because his pockets were being lined and he had Rove whispering, "Stick to principle" in his ear or he was too stupid to know what was going on.
There are lots of peole who have long been in the business world and who have long followed the energy industry who were not aware of supply manipulation in California. You are extrapolating knowledge to Bush from facts that do not support such extrapolation.

I get that you dislike Bush, OK? And that's fine. But you shouldn't let your personal dislike of the man cloud your judgment. You are reaching conclusions based on emotion rather than on reason.

[Damien Falgoust]

Um, I don't think I said "Bush knew Enron was stealing money." He probably believed they weren't, either because they were his good friends or he's dumb.

Or perhaps -- just perhaps -- the evidence just wasn't there at the time to support such an accusation.

[Jason McCullough]

I don't see how you could fail to recognize they were fleecing the market unless you're totally blinded by ideology.

http://gning.org/electricity-2001.html

Check out that offline capacity graph. It was pretty blatant.

[Brian Rucker]

You know, when you extrapolate things into the abstract it does sound ever so reasonable. What could I have been thinking? But if you look at the man, George W. Bush, and his career and how Enron's to him what bionics were to the 6 Million Dollar Man you might suspect his relationship, and that of his staff, with this particular entity definitely deserve a closer look. And I kinda suspect that's some of the powder that Kerry's keeping dry...

[Damien Falgoust]

I don't see how you could fail to recognize they were fleecing the market unless you're totally blinded by ideology.

http://gning.org/electricity-2001.html

Check out that offline capacity graph. It was pretty blatant.

What a dishonest asshole the guy who put up that website is. Note how he cuts off his numbers at April 2001? Kinda fishy, eh? Yeah, I thought so. So here's what we do:

Look at his source for his numbers (http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/1999-2001_monthly_off_line.html), especially the figures after April 2001. In fact, compare the same months in 1999, 2000, and 2001 -- the numbers increase each year, in a manner arguably consistent with aging facilities.

I'd also like to know if any new capacity was added in 2000 or 2001.

In fact, look at the revised figures for 1999-2004 (http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/monthly_off_line.html). Note that even after the Enron collapse (and thus their ability to manipulate supply) the numbers have remained roughly the same.

[Desslock]

Check out that offline capacity graph. It was pretty blatant.

No, it wasn't. Enron deceived the public markets, at least for a considerable period of time, despite constant scrutiny by financial analysts, regulators, and other third parties that certainly would have liked to have uncovered Enron's misconduct.

[Brian Rucker]

Here's one good resource I stumbled across.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/business/specials/energy/enron/

It's a complete archive of all the news and live interviews as well as summary and analysis of the Enron situation. I was going to go through and pull out stuff that's useful but it's probably better used by anyone looking to figure out for themselves what's going on and what, if any, influence Lay had with Bush. The problem really is, as Damien kindly pointed out, any real deal making probably happened in private, in secret, and is unlikely to come out. But one can only hope there's something good in those Energy Task Force minutes.

Here's a similiar site from the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1780075.stm

They actually have a handy-dandy section just on The White House.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/business/2002/enron/14.stm

There is no suggestion that the myriad connections between the administration of President Bush and Enron were illegal.
The corporation had close relations with many Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

Links exist between Enron and the current administration at all levels – personal, social, financial, professional and political.

Political rivals of President Bush have said, however, that the sheer volume of links between the administration and Enron may build up a highly damaging perception of guilt by association.

According to reports, 35 administration officials have held Enron stock – some had six figure investments. Several, less senior officials, have served as paid consultants for Enron.

The White House has given lawmakers access to thousands of pages of secret documents relating to Enron.

There are seperate entries for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul O'Neill, Spencer Abraham, Donald Evans, Karl Rove, John Ashcroft, Lawrence Lindsey, Thomas White, Robert Zoellick and a special guest appearance by Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary of the Clinton Administration.

[Desslock]

this lovely video featuring Cheney.
http://www.truthout.org/mm_01/4.andersen.cheney.ram

In a thread where facts and evidence are generally taking a back seat to gut animus and emotion, this is a particularly egregious example of drawing unsupportable conclusions from meaningless correlations.

Because a corporate officer thought he was provided with good service from a Big 5 Accounting Firm that has 85,000 employees, you conclude he's complicit or somehow involved when employees in that firm's Houston's office subsequently breach applicable law?

[Damien Falgoust]

Check out that offline capacity graph. It was pretty blatant.

No, it wasn't. Enron deceived the public markets, at least for a considerable period of time, despite constant scrutiny by financial analysts, regulators, and other third parties that certainly would have liked to have uncovered Enron's misconduct.

To be perfectly fair to Jason, he wasn't referring to Enron's misrepresentations on their own financial statements. He's referring to the offline power producing capacity in the state of California, which are publc statistics maintained by the state, and using them to support a claim that Enron artificially caused power plants to go offline under the guise of routine maintenance. That's a separate issue from their accounting shenanigans.

[chet]

First, Desslock, when the video came out the administration was in deep denial that they had any contact with them. Then the ringing endoresment by Cheney is that andersen doesn't do books by the numbers, that they are creative.

Sure.

Hell, Bush knew that first hand at Harken Energy. Same players, different day, same end result. Everyone but the pretty boys get screwed.

Which yeah, I know, you two kids are going to say, just because someone robs a house everyday, in no way means they robbed the house yesterday. Yeah, seriously... blah fucking blah blah stupid blah.

So many unlucky cirumstances in the Bush house, poor, poor bush. So many people he hangs out with, does business with get unfairly accused of actions, BUSH IS A GOOD GUY!! ! HE IS A SAINT!!! Blah fucking blah blah blah.

Chet

[Damien Falgoust]

Chet, you really shouldn't drink and post. Is there a coherent point in there somewhere?

[chet]

Only to the sane.

I thought someone so well versed in Bush history could understand the mentions.... hey wait... are you someone different now? Because using your and desslock's logic. I cannot assume you are the same person posting as the earlier Damien. You could be merely using the same account, posting in the same illogical ignorant manner, but that in no way means you are the same Damien who was previously posting. Because I cannot base any current situation on a previous situation or even pattern of behavoir. Regardless of the all the names being the same.

So before you post again.
To verify it is you.
We are going to need your signature notarized and 5 witnesses verify that it is actually you. You will also need to post your message to third party proxy who will hold the post in question, so that it can be verified at a later date.

Thanks,

Chet

[Brian Rucker]

I think what this comes down to, largely, is gut instinct. Lawyerly rhetoric (non-trivial is one of my favorite lawyer words) or jaded suspicion aside, it's a matter of faith whether you decide to take Bush at face value or not on these issues.

It's not a matter of taking Bush at face value; it's a matter of viewing the evidence before me. That evidence is sorely lacking. I do not accept accusations without evidence.

You seem to think that my refusal to presume guilt is tantamount to some kind of faith in Bush's veracity. That isn't the case. Show me evidence and I'll change my mind.

But thinking on it even more, here's what I see as one fundamental difference in how we're dealing with this issue. You're lawyering it. Reality checking it. Making sure the charges stick. Whether, at heart, you're fact checking as a prosecutor - testing the strength of the case before bringing it before a grand jury or as a defense attorney, looking to reject the charges because it's your goal to keep them from sticking, it's all about the facts and nothing but the facts.

Me? I'm thinking like a beat cop. I know the neighborhood, I know how people here live and how they've handled themselves in the past. I'm going to assume things. Now I may assume incorrect things but I wouldn't be able to do my job if I just sat back and waited for people to bring me facts and nothing but the facts. I'm out there looking and the pattern that search takes is based on my intuition and knowledge of the terrain.

So are we operating with different methods and likely to reach different conclusions here? Obviously.

[Bullhajj]

I am throwing in with Brian on this one. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Besides I'd rather be Andy Sipowicz than Matlock any day! :)

[Damien Falgoust]

Even the beat cop needs probable cause.

[Brian Rucker]

I think the information I and "Huggy Bear" Chet put out there is more than enough for a search warrant. Imagine Cheney was implicated in hiring a hitman and that was done in the context of the Energy Task Force. We'd sure as heck be able to get a subpeona for the Energy Task Force minutes and probably lock Cheney and Bush up for good measure to keep them from doing it again until we could sort through the evidence.

If not, the system is broken.

[Damien Falgoust]

Well, that wasn't quite my point, although in retrospect my desire to be snarky eclipsed my desire to make a clear point. :)

My point was this: the beat cop doesn't pronounce guilt, he investigates. I don't have a problem with calls for investigating Bush for suggested misdeeds. If that's all you're doing, then I have no problem with that. Indeed, that's the only way to generate the evidence needed to convince me that what you think happened actually happened.

But to say "this thing actually happened" without the slightest shred of evidence to that effect is, to my mind, fallacious. That's what I object to.

I do like the idea of Chet-as-pimp, though. A crazy-assed, incoherent pimp.

[Brian Rucker]

I can't say this for sure but I suspect cops don't go after people they think are innocent. I don't think Bush and his posse are innocent. I think they're drunk with money and power. I think they latch onto political ideologies and religious dogma as justifications, and excuses, for enriching and empowering themselves and their friends. And I'm positive that companies like Enron don't fund politicians, media outlets, and thinktanks that help them fill their coffers at the suffering of the public because they care a whit about the actual merits of those dogmas or ideologies. They do it because it helps their own bottom line and personal bank accounts and portfolios. I tend to suspect the politicians aren't that stupid either and that they go along to get ahead as do their advisors and cohorts.

But suspicion only creates suspects not convicts. We need facts to get there. Likely why the Bush administration has turned obfuscation and secrecy into an artform.

[Damien Falgoust]

I can't say this for sure but I suspect cops don't go after people they think are innocent. I don't think Bush and his posse are innocent. I think they're drunk with money and power. I think they latch onto political ideologies and religious dogma as justifications, and excuses, for enriching and empowering themselves and their friends.
Well, you could say that about almost any politician, given that we can't read minds. Is Kerry really a dedicated pro-choicer, or is he just latching on to that bandwagon as a means of furthering his own political career? There's really no way to tell how deeply a politician feels about a given ideology. Even when a politician abandons an ideological stance out of political expediency -- as Bush abandoned notions of free trade when imposing steel tariffs -- he can justify that abandonment on practical grounds (e.g., "I can't do the things demanded of my stated ideology if I'm not in office, so I will make small ideological sacrifices in order to do greater good on other issues.")

And I'm positive that companies like Enron don't fund politicians, media outlets, and thinktanks that help them fill their coffers at the suffering of the public because they care a whit about the actual merits of those dogmas or ideologies. They do it because it helps their own bottom line and personal bank accounts and portfolios.
I don't think I claimed otherwise. As I noted, Enron funded Republicans when it saw profit in it, and shifted their money when they didn't. A good example of the latter, cited earlier in this thread, is their spending on promotion of the Kyoto protocols. No one's suggested that corporations are altruistic.

I tend to suspect the politicians aren't that stupid either and that they go along to get ahead as do their advisors and cohorts.
There's a nifty scene in The Distinguished Gentleman, an otherwise forgettable Eddie Murphy flick where Murphy plays a con man who cons the voters into sending him to Congress. Murphy is sitting with one of his advisers, and they are going over who will contribute money to him. Murphy is asked whether he supports sugar tariffs; he replies by asking where the most money is. The adviser tells him it doesn't matter: if he's for tariffs, he's got lots of sugar producer money, and if he's against tariffs, he's got lots of candy manufacturer money. So it's his call.

Now, this scene is supposed to demonstrate how venal Washington is. But I think quite the opposite is true. If there are ample campaign funds to be had from either position, then the politician can follow his own conscience and still come out with ample funds.

That's true with a lot of issues, and deregulation is no different. Certainly, there are companies who enjoy the insulation from competition provided by a guaranteed monopoly and rate regulation. And there are other companies who wish to enter a regulated industry but are prevented from doing so by existing law. A politician can pick whichever policy suits his ideological worldview and still maintain his campaign war chest.

[Jason McCullough]

I have a hard time believing the dollars are comparable on anything but a few issues scattered here and there. Do you have hard data on this?

[Brian Rucker]

I don't think it's quite that easy to make this claim in established political dynasties. They've already got clout and are committed to certain economic and political blocs. Giving it up for the highest bidder would probably undermine long standing relationships. The Bush family is about oil and since before WWII it's been deeply involved with politics and, especially, military and intelligence aspects of government. That's not to say there's anything sinister about this but it does show serious savvy and focus on what matters and who you need to know to get things done.

George W. seems to have been something of a wastrel and disappointment but, with the exception of his bonding with the Religious Right (something his father and grandfather found, in their patrician and wise ways, distasteful) the old friends of the family kept him out of debt, out of Vietnam and eventually into the governorship of Texas. Oil was the family business and while he was pretty useless at it he still made contacts that helped him out throughout his career. Mostly folks his family already knew or who wanted to curry favor with it. Even the Saudis and friends of the mostly law-abiding Bin Laden family got into the nurturing act.

So it was never likely Bush was going to have any curiousity about competing interests like public welfare or environmental considerations. Well, aside from anything his political team could pump up for PR purposes rather than actual beneficial consequences.

[Ben]

Jason- We have some evidence that dollars are roughly comparable for ideologies, as we do have two large successful parties. But really, the idea that a Republican would need to be bought to support deregulation doesn't pass the giggle test. That's what Republicans do.

Brian- Remind me not to be a citizen of any city you are a cop in. You should lock up the boss of someone implicated in a murder for hire scheme?

[Damien Falgoust]

Jason: what Ben said. Also, I think this is true on more issues than it is not, though I can certainly think of exceptions (copyright law lacks both strong corporate interests and significant issue advocacy groups on the limited-copyright side of the debate).

I'm not sure what kind of data you want, or how it would be generated. Certainly we could pick issues at random and consider what kinds of companies would have interests on either side, but I don't think that would be terribly meaningful or productive.

Brian: What you've posted really just buttresses my point. Regardless of how Bush reached his ideological views -- whether that be by actual intellectual inquiry or, as you suggest, by longstanding tradition within a political dynasty -- you indicate that Bush's views are his own and aren't for sale to the highest bidder. Yes, they favor big business in general and energy companies in particular, and that indeed probably is a function of having spent significant time working in the energy field, but as you note there is nothing sinister about that.

An example: John Edwards was a successful trial lawyer before he ascended to the Senate. I'm sure his pro-trial lawyer views are at least partially a function of that prior experience, and there's nothing wrong with that. Ditto for Bush.

Let me turn this around for you: I challenge you to find a conservative blood member of the Kennedy clan (I consider Arnie a special case). That family has built a widespread dynasty by supporting largely liberal causes. I expect that some of the folks from the shallower end of that particular gene pool (*cough*Patrick Kennedy*cough*) haven't exactly delved into the intellectual underpinnings of modern liberalism. Yet liberal interests funnel lots of money their way because they are reliable votes. Is that venal? Why or why not?

[Brian Rucker]

The gut level response from this beat cop, but not my final answer Regis, is that there's little profit incentive running the 'liberal' agenda. In fact, there's not even a 'liberal' agenda as such. What you have are a variety of often conflicting social interests and values that are cobbled together into a political confederacy. Largely these issues deal with questions of fairness, equality and public health. If they have a uniting theme it's the belief that government can function in ways to help the public that private enterprise can't or won't. Some of these ideas extrapolate from the struggles of the industrial revolution where capitalism became synonymous with Social Darwinism and only communities pulling together would find themselves treated with any decency. Over time the need for some of this agenda may have dissipated as the social climate has changed or the government and the private sector have adopted progressive measures. Or you can see the rise of the orchestrated Right as a very real threat to the modern values of our society.

It's true that Republicans are hardly monolithic in reality and some of those tensions are starting to cause Bush serious internal problems but it is also true that wealthy patrons, conservative ideologues and GOP activists have concertedly put together thinktanks (corporate sponsored alternative to academic peer review policy development) and media outlets (PR houses) to push specific agenda points in a way liberals haven't inclined to until very recently, and largely as a response. It's why you can turn on Limbaugh in the morning and find his 'off-the-cuff' banter matching in lockstep the GOP press release and then 'impromptu' commentary by right wing spokesmodels on cable talk shows. It's how a David Brock writing for a rag like American Spectator knows his slime will get picked up by the Washington Times or Drudge and passed right along to the major publications who now can't afford to 'miss the story' after Fox News gets ahold of it.

I tend to think liberals are liberals for the same reason conservatives are conservatives. It's how you were raised and/or what your friends are. However I think the driving ideologies behind liberalism and conservativism come from radically different sources. Liberalism is about taking care of your community and finding out the best ways to do it. Conservatism is about profiting from your community and rationalizing why in a paper about the same weight and density of something that might come from a real academic institution but without all the trouble of proving your points.

Of course, that's just my gut level answer.

[Damien Falgoust]

The gut level response from this beat cop, but not my final answer Regis, is that there's little profit incentive running the 'liberal' agenda.

Not true. There is money to be made in regulated environments just as there is money to be made in nonregulated environments. There's a reason things like steel tariffs get passed over conservative objections. And unions certainly profit from the protectionism afforded them by pro-union legislation.

It's how you were raised and/or what your friends are. However I think the driving ideologies behind liberalism and conservativism come from radically different sources. Liberalism is about taking care of your community and finding out the best ways to do it. Conservatism is about profiting from your community and rationalizing why in a paper about the same weight and density of something that might come from a real academic institution but without all the trouble of proving your points.
My first inclination after reading this is to just say "fuck you" and decline to continue discussing issues with you. If you can't even admit that conservatives also believe they are working to make the world a better place -- if you insist that they're only truly interested in raping and plundering their fellow man -- then you've ceased discussing things in good faith.

In fact, this attitude is the one thing that disgusts me about these sorts of discussions. Conservative discussion partipants (a few Ann Coulter types excepted) generally proceed from the assumption that liberal views are misguided but held with the noblest of intentions. Liberal participants, on the other hand, proceed from the assumption that conservatives are evil. I don't think a dialog can be productive until both sides acknowledge the good faith of their counterparts.

[Brian Rucker]

If I wasn't discussing this in good faith with you I wouldn't be admitting my biases now would I? I am biased. And I think, based on who the new conservatives are, where their votes and money come from, and how they've conducted themselves as they try to subvert, as I see it, the process of policy formation and public opinion there is good reason for my bias.

That said, do I think all self-described conservatives fall into one neatly categorized package? No. In fact, I'd say the majority of real conservatives simply take advantage of this new machinery rather than truly embracing it. At heart, there's a tremendous difference between a Southern Moral Majority veteran and a northern old school moderate Republican or a midwestern libertarian Republican and all kinds of shades of grey in between. But right now there seems to be a very effective and unholy alliance between wildly pro-industry vested interests and Religious Right ideologues that dominates the Republican party and this machinery as a whole. This combine even challenges moderate Republicans in primaries and is the muscle behind Bush's success, even when he games them to try to get electable moderates into close races.

You can't tell me that the far right isn't much more powerful and organized in the Republican Party than the far left is in the Democrats. Al Gore speechifying aside, real lefties join the Greens or whatever party Nader's hanging his hat on. But the far right nuts in the media, they're all respected statesmen of the Republican Party. As much as I respect guys like Hagel and McCain and our own John Warner, I don't think they'll ever get the GOP back.

[Damien Falgoust]

Keep digging that hole, Brian. Being up-front about your bad faith does not transform you into a good faith discussion participant.

The rest of your post basically says that the Republican party, politically speaking, has their shit together and the Democratic party doesn't. Bringing together groups with different but significantly overlapping views and organizing them in a politically effective manner is the job of a political party. I fail utterly to see why the Democratic party's failure to effectively corral those folks whose views would be best served under their party's banner should be a basis for criticizing Republicans.

If you can't accept that, for the most part, conservatives of all stripes hold their views in good conscience, then you aren't discussing things in good faith. If you see me as the devil, we cannot have a productive discussion. And the discussion about the relative competence of the two political parties is a sideshow to that issue.

[Brian Rucker]

If you can't accept my reasons for seeing conservatives in a certain light as being valid then we don't have to continue this discussion. Unlike some folks I'm neither inclined to rant or to say "Gee, kumbayah. We're all alike deep down." Because I know I've got nothing in common with someone who'd knowingly endorse the efforts of the Jerry Falwells, Rush Limbaughs and Jeff Skillings of the world.

I think some Republicans and conservatives do see they've got a big, big, problem now. I may not agree with these folks on everything but at least they admit there's a problem. The views of John McCain on campaign finance reform and seperation of church and state were enough to get me to cross over for a primary and handwave on his other stances I don't agree with. I think he knows there's a serious cancer in the GOP but I believe his mistake is to believe it can be reformed from within. The cancer has all but become the patient.

[Brian Koontz]

If I wasn't discussing this in good faith with you I wouldn't be admitting my biases now would I? I am biased. And I think, based on who the new conservatives are, where their votes and money come from, and how they've conducted themselves as they try to subvert, as I see it, the process of policy formation and public opinion there is good reason for my bias.

That said, do I think all self-described conservatives fall into one neatly categorized package? No. In fact, I'd say the majority of real conservatives simply take advantage of this new machinery rather than truly embracing it. At heart, there's a tremendous difference between a Southern Moral Majority veteran and a northern old school moderate Republican or a midwestern libertarian Republican and all kinds of shades of grey in between. But right now there seems to be a very effective and unholy alliance between wildly pro-industry vested interests and Religious Right ideologues that dominates the Republican party and this machinery as a whole. This combine even challenges moderate Republicans in primaries and is the muscle behind Bush's success, even when he games them to try to get electable moderates into close races.

You can't tell me that the far right isn't much more powerful and organized in the Republican Party than the far left is in the Democrats. Al Gore speechifying aside, real lefties join the Greens or whatever party Nader's hanging his hat on. But the far right nuts in the media, they're all respected statesmen of the Republican Party. As much as I respect guys like Hagel and McCain and our own John Warner, I don't think they'll ever get the GOP back.

Well said.

[noun]

OK, I'm lost. What the hell are we talking about now?

[Damien Falgoust]

If you can't accept my reasons for seeing conservatives in a certain light as being valid then we don't have to continue this discussion. Unlike some folks I'm neither inclined to rant or to say "Gee, kumbayah. We're all alike deep down."
Well, no one said you had to say that. Recognizing that your political opponents are genuinely motivated by what they see as means to better society, as opposed to simply putting a happy face on more nefarious schemes, is not the same as singing kumbayah.

Because I know I've got nothing in common with someone who'd knowingly endorse the efforts of the Jerry Falwells, Rush Limbaughs and Jeff Skillings of the world.
I wish we could divorce this from specific personalities. I agree there are shallow-thinking conservatives, and that Falwell and Limbaugh are among their number, just as there are shallow-thinking liberals (see, e.g., Michael Moore, Janeane Garafalo). That doesn't mean that conservatism writ large is itself a nefarious political philosophy.

It's also pretty goddamned dishonest of you to include Skilling in that list. As far as I know, no one "endorses" financial shenanigans on either end of the political spectrum.

I think some Republicans and conservatives do see they've got a big, big, problem now. I may not agree with these folks on everything but at least they admit there's a problem. The views of John McCain on campaign finance reform and seperation of church and state were enough to get me to cross over for a primary and handwave on his other stances I don't agree with. I think he knows there's a serious cancer in the GOP but I believe his mistake is to believe it can be reformed from within. The cancer has all but become the patient.

Well, campaign finance reform is a good example. I, along with many other principled conservatives, oppose campaign finance reform for both constitutional and policy reasons (and yes, I think the SCOTUS dropped the bal on this as well). Gagging issue adverstisements sixty days before an election (to cite one particularly terrible provision of McCain-Feingold) is the very anathema of what the first amendment is all about.

That's a principled stance against CFR. Yet you would consider that stance as desirious of furthering a "cancer" on the GOP. You see that position as a character flaw rather than one held on principle and in good faith.

[Peter Frazier]

Just bumping in here, but I'll quickly observe that in any rational discussion between liberal and conservative, the conservative always sounds like an utter bastard. At this moment it's like watching a defence lawyer who knows his client is guilty but is trying his level best to still get his client off. That's understandable in a real trial. You seem to be doing this by choice, Damien.

Back to lurk mode. I'm sure a lurking conservative will pop up to counter my comment.

[Damien Falgoust]

Just bumping in here, but I'll quickly observe that in any rational discussion between liberal and conservative, the conservative always sounds like an utter bastard. At this moment it's like watching a defence lawyer who knows his client is guilty but is trying his level best to still get his client off. That's understandable in a real trial. You seem to be doing this by choice, Damien.

What, exactly, have I said that makes me come off as an utter bastard? Is it my refusal to presume guilt? My calls for civil discourse? My statements in defense of free speech? What, pray tell, led you to that particular conclusion?

[Peter Frazier]

My description basically comes down to this: your defence of the GWB/Enron relationship draws on expecting an element of impartiality and fairness in people which hasn't been displayed by the parties themselves. Much like David Irving claims that there is no evidence that Hitler authorised extermination to occur, can you really think that people will step back and nod their heads and say 'Oh, got me there. Guess he didn't know about it then.' (BTW- sorry if I invoked Godwin's Law here.)

Despite yours and Desslock's disdain of 'gut animus and reaction', that is what we tend to go with initially. After a while I'll probably reflect and think that I should have kept my mouth shut. Since I'm not a robot though, I'll continue to have to battle my feelings with my logic.

Combined with the innate sense of slime that comes from defending sleazy characters and their motives comes the sense of wonder about your motives. If you were a flaming a liberal, I would accept that you are doing this in an attempt to show that in your eyes, the facts are more important than the politics. At the moment though, it doesn't feel that way.

As I said, most conservatives seem like people who have decided to be selfish and succesful rather than caring and poor. It's an extremely gross generalisation for sure, but if you compare the posts and stances of either side, that is the vibe that you get.

Hence my observation that conservatives sound like utter bastards.

What, pray tell, led you to that particular conclusion?
And talking like that also brings the word 'prat' to mind.

[Ben]

Peter- Jesus, that's really insulting. What's wrong with you guys? Are you reading the same thread as I am?

I don't see how anyone reading this thread with any sort of objectivity is going to pick Damien as the bastard. Chet is making incoherent posts full of poorly-worded insults and Brian has revealed that he's essentially a zealot uninterested in the facts.

Perhaps we should create a new forum specifically for Bush bashing, whereby someone can post a detailed play by play of his daily life and you guys can have your little circle jerk about how he eats babies. This forum has an awful lot of some liberal posting a completely innocuous action by Bush or a negative action by someone else and painting it as "People's Evidence #45,654" in the case that Bush is Satan.

Everyone else will stay out of this proposed forum so you guys don't have to hear the truth about grand juries or the hierarchy of the FAA or whatever that conflicts with "If it's bad, Bush did it. If Bush did it, it's bad".

Deal?

[Doug Erickson]

Hey hey, I think Damien's been pleasantly civil in this thread. I don't agree with him, but of the lawyerly Libertarian Bush apologist trio here, he's been by far and away the most dignified.

Maybe Peter's reacting to the name DAMIEN FALGOUST, which does kinda sound like the name of a monocle-sporting, Syrah-sipping-with-the-pinky-outstretched, handlebar-mustachioed Eastern European vampire lord.

[Squirrel Killer]

As I said, most conservatives seem like people who have decided to be selfish and succesful rather than caring and poor. It's an extremely gross generalisation for sure, but if you compare the posts and stances of either side, that is the vibe that you get.

No, Peter, that is the vibe you get. The vibe that I get is that liberals are quick to make a shallow good impression, but do little to solve the underlying problem, whereas conservatives try to rectify the cause of the problem. Take affirmative action for example. I see liberals as using affirmative action to patch the symptom of lingering racism and conservatives as trying to create a truely color-blind society (essentially, how can African Americans be seen as equals if there's a lingering suspicion that they didn't work as hard to get there.)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can assure that I came to conservatism from liberalism because I felt that it was a better way to address society's problems. I didn't do it because I was selfish. Also, it is possible to be successful and caring.

But thanks for calling all conservatives selfish bastards, it really helps the tone of the debate.

[Squirrel Killer]

DAMIEN FALGOUST, which does kinda sound like the name of a monocle-sporting, Syrah-sipping-with-the-pinky-outstretched, handlebar-mustachioed Eastern European vampire lord.

I'm sorry, but DAMIEN FALGOUST is clearly a merlot drinker, you insensitive clod! :wink:

[Peter Frazier]

As I said in the first post that I made, I was sure that another conservative lurker would counter my post. Maybe I should have said dog-piled. Anyway, the circle is complete.

Ben- Sigh. If you're going to get indignant about name-calling, don't call me out and then insult Chet and Brian in the next paragraph.
Do you really, truly, absolutely believe that Bush actions have been innocuous or always someone elses fault? How about you set up your own circle-jerk forum where you can high-five Bob and Cindy and tell each other what a great job he's doing.

Doug- I agree with you completely.
I should have called him a dignified, civil utter bastard. Naah, just kidding.
You're right about the name though, Damien, you should be working with Tyrion Lannister.

Squirrel- I wouldn't know where to begin with you. That part where you bitch about my name-calling and then add your own insults seems to be a common conservative characteristic.
As to your views about the conservative's colour blind society, well, I guess if you don't see the darkies in your neighbourhood there is no colour problem, is there? I'll not go down that path though.

Gentlemen, I would have believed that conservatism comes from a desire to conserve the status quo. If you are at an advantage, it is natural for you to wish to maintain it. Hence my 'selfish' comments. You are free to extend these comments to say that liberals therefore must suffer from envy. Maybe they do. Sorry for derailing the thread, I was probably more interested in Damien's motives for his defence.

Carry on with your outrage guys. I mean, your contributions also really helped the tone around here.

[Doug Erickson]

Conservative discussion partipants (a few Ann Coulter types excepted) generally proceed from the assumption that liberal views are misguided but held with the noblest of intentions. Liberal participants, on the other hand, proceed from the assumption that conservatives are evil. I don't think a dialog can be productive until both sides acknowledge the good faith of their counterparts.

Er, no. Adding my own slant to this, I'd say that most conservative commentators see liberals as "self-loathing" types jealous of acquired wealth or as free-wheeling amoral quasi-communists out to enforce a false equality in order to pump up the status quo and/or cripple any meritocratic institutions in society. The Ann Coulter crowd and the religious types take this further and add in "moral relativist" and "atheist" into the litany of slurs. In the eyes of the average conservative, especially the rural flavor, liberals are often characterized as an elite academic evil, having abandoned morality and populaist sensibility in favor of an overarching agenda to rid the world of Christianity, heterosexuality, and/or freedom.

I won't deny that you've characterized the perspective of the more ignorant type of liberal bandwagoneer aptly enough. Personally, I have a healthy respect for basic (little "l") libertarianism and economic conservatism, even if I think it's often quite naive and a little selfish.

That said, any friend of the Constitution is a friend of mine, even when I vehemently disagree with them on more specific issues.

[Ben]

Peter- Remember when you started your "contributions" by claiming conservatives are bastards? Or that bit where conservatives decided to be successful and selfish rather than caring and poor?

Then you want to bitch about how people aren't nice in response to that? And throw in ridiculous bullshit like "Do you really, truly, absolutely believe that Bush actions have been innocuous or always someone elses fault? How about you set up your own circle-jerk forum where you can high-five Bob and Cindy and tell each other what a great job he's doing. "

I can't tell whether you are illiterate or being a jackass, but I guess I don't care. What the fuck? Did you honestly think you were adding something to the discussion?

[Midnight Son]

I like Snapple.

[Ben]

You only like Snapple because you're evil, duh.

[Peter Frazier]

Ben-I'm not bitching about people not being nice. I wasn't and I don't expect it in return. I'm bitching about your bitching, bitch.
Who started the 'circle-jerk forum' concept? You did. Who ranted about liberals attacking Bush's innocuous actions? You did. I combine them and send them back to you. Who can't take what they give out? You can't.

I don't think that you're illiterate but you certainly only read the part of the messages that you can abusively reply to. Keep up the dignity, big fella.

Doug- Again, I agree with what you say. (Even the part where you think I've characterized the shallow end of the liberal gene-pool).
The problem is, do you think there is a place for people who pick and choose ideologies when it really comes down to the main ones fighting overhead? A Democrat who believes in fiscal conservatism and a Republican who believes in social equity will both vote for their respective parties despite the inner glow their personal ideology gives them for feeling more enlightened or responsible. The end result is the installation of a government which is still only one of two choices.
That's why I tire of people saying that they lean 12 degrees to the right on this issue and 34 degrees left on that one. It's a convenient out- you can believe that you care even when the government you voted for tramples over the constitution. I don't think that the two Party system allows for nuance.
I've moved from left to right to the middle and now I'd rather be a bit poorer than richer if it means my community gets better. Sometimes the choice is simple.

Now Ben, can you note the difference in my replies? Perhaps you should reflect on this.

[Squirrel Killer]

Squirrel- I wouldn't know where to begin with you. That part where you bitch about my name-calling and then add your own insults seems to be a common conservative characteristic.

Excuse me? Where did I insult anybody? Look, if you can go around calling people selfish bastards, I can certainly say that I see liberal solutions as quick patches that make a good impression. My comments aren't insulting anybody, they address the policies they advocate. Your comments attack the people who advocate policies you disagree with. There is a difference.

As to your views about the conservative's colour blind society, well, I guess if you don't see the darkies in your neighbourhood there is no colour problem, is there? I'll not go down that path though.

I am quite offended by your implication that I'm a racist. If you knew me, you would know how wrong that implication is. I won't go into my relations with African American, because since I live in a state with a very small minority population, it would pale in comparison to others who live in more cosmopolitan areas. And I wouldn't say that I am proud of the relations I have with African Americans because, frankly, it's kind of...well...racist to even draw that distinction. It would seem that in your warped perspective (I can think of no kinder term), because I happen to be conservative, I'm a bastard.

In fact, at the risk of exacerbating an already tense thread, I would ask you to retract that statement.

Carry on with your outrage guys. I mean, your contributions also really helped the tone around here.

Says the guy who calls all conservatives selfish bastards.

[Peter Frazier]

Heh, I was thinking of PMing you and taking it there, right up until I saw this:
In fact, at the risk of exacerbating an already tense thread, I would ask you to retract that statement.
If you want to duel at dawn, so be it.
I see liberals as using affirmative action to patch the symptom of lingering racism and conservatives as trying to create a truely color-blind society (essentially, how can African Americans be seen as equals if there's a lingering suspicion that they didn't work as hard to get there.)
If African Americans had started off equally, I'd have no problem with this supposition. However, you are saying that all support should be taken away because people may be suspicious that they didn't achieve it on their own merit. Given the choice between having people be suspicious or having covert racist policies continue, which do you really think is better? Or do you really think that there is no racism and that the removal of AA will bring forth a time when colour is no problem?

My comment
As to your views about the conservative's colour blind society, well, I guess if you don't see the darkies in your neighbourhood there is no colour problem, is there?
Follows on from what I believe your solution will cause. I will apologise about the flippant use of the word 'darkies' but I still feel that what you call a 'conservative's colour-blind society' is really just another way of saying 'If they can't catch up after our head start, it's their fault.'

Says the guy who calls conservatives selfish bastards
Selfish Thin-Skinned Bastards.

[Ben]

Peter- You understand that bitching about bitching leads nowhere, right? At the end of the chain, you started it. You made a content-free post insulting an entire class of people. It's incredibly hypocritical to enter a thread with an insult and then complain that people had the gall to complain about your insult. I mean, clearly everyone to the right of you is a selfish bastard. We should just leave it at that.

"Who can't take what they give out? You can't. "

Beyond the humor of you saying this, you combined those two concepts with a hefty dose of shit I didn't say. Because I complain about people bitching about bullshit things that aren't Bush's fault doesn't mean I think nothing bad is Bush's fault. Since no one thinks those are the same, you weren't throwing anything back at me. You were being needlessly antagonistic in a remarkably stupid way.

The circle jerk forum was about the pointless threads where somebody posts a link to either Bush doing something trivial or someone else doing something bad and then everybody jumps on Bush.

[Mehrunes]

Where does bitching about bitching about bitching lead? :D

[Peter Frazier]

I'm not worried about people complaining about my insult. I'm pointing out that your indignation about my use of language didn't stop you from being insulting to other people. The hypocrisy is all yours.

Because I complain about people bitching about bullshit things that aren't Bush's fault doesn't mean I think nothing bad is Bush's fault. Since no one thinks those are the same, you weren't throwing anything back at me. You were being needlessly antagonistic in a remarkably stupid way.
I was mirroring your antagonism. If you don't like it, start puching yourself.

Perhaps we should create a new forum specifically for Bush bashing, whereby someone can post a detailed play by play of his daily life and you guys can have your little circle jerk about how he eats babies. This forum has an awful lot of some liberal posting a completely innocuous action by Bush or a negative action by someone else and painting it as "People's Evidence #45,654" in the case that Bush is Satan.

'How about you set up your own circle-jerk forum where you can high-five Bob and Cindy and tell each other what a great job he's doing. '
Yes, I see now. Yours was a smart post and mine was stupid. Actually, I think I win points for brevity.

I guess we both lose.

[Derek Meister]

Nothing like a Qt3 thread that's manages to swallow itself over and over and over . . .

http://meisterplanet.com/images/quartertothree/qt3-falling-thread.gif

[Peter Frazier]

And then I turned around, and Saturday was gone.....
Jesus.

There's nothing worse than a deathmatch with no timer or score limit.

[Squirrel Killer]

Heh, I was thinking of PMing you and taking it there, right up until I saw this:

In fact, at the risk of exacerbating an already tense thread, I would ask you to retract that statement.

If you want to duel at dawn, so be it.

Hrm...I added that comment at the last minute because as I was looking over my response one last time before posting, I realized that your accusation actually hurt. Yes, I'm admitting I'm a big wuss. That accusation hurt me. Call me an asshole, a jerk, a moron, an idiot who doesn't know what I'm talking about, fat, smelly, a callous bastard, whatever, I won't mind. I'll point out that your personal attacks aren't helping the tone of the debate, but fine, have your little name-calling tizzy. But by implying that I'm racist you're lumping me together with the KKK, neo-Nazis, and David Duke, all of which I despise with every fiber of my being. They are abhorent people. So, yes, I'm a big pussy who wants you to take back what you said.

Note that I didn't "demand" a retraction or an apology. I didn't call you names to badger you into honoring my request. I asked you to voluntarily retract a statement you made about my character when you know so little about me. A simple request.

I see liberals as using affirmative action to patch the symptom of lingering racism and conservatives as trying to create a truely color-blind society (essentially, how can African Americans be seen as equals if there's a lingering suspicion that they didn't work as hard to get there.)

If African Americans had started off equally, I'd have no problem with this supposition. However, you are saying that all support should be taken away because people may be suspicious that they didn't achieve it on their own merit. Given the choice between having people be suspicious or having covert racist policies continue, which do you really think is better? Or do you really think that there is no racism and that the removal of AA will bring forth a time when colour is no problem?

Racist policies, overt or covert, need to be dismantled, no question. However, I'd question your underlying supposition, which is that there are a significant number of racist policies still in force. I don't claim that there are no racist policies, but that there are far fewer than activists claim. There are certainly far, far fewer than even a couple of decades ago. Like Bill Cosby, I feel that some African Americans have actually built additional barriers to their success. Additionally, I think younger generations (probably starting with the Baby Boomers) are dismantling whatever racist policies they do find. One of the really encouraging things I see in the generation behind mine is that they are even more color blind than GenX. Sure there are occasional idiots, but even when all traces of racism are eliminated from our society, there will be idiots who ostracize someone for the color of their pants.

Surely there is still racism, and removing AA will not magically result in racism's death, but I feel the time is ripe to phase AA out. Surely you must feel that sometime AA will no longer needed, right? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I simply argue that I feel the time to phase AA is sooner rather than later.

My comment

As to your views about the conservative's colour blind society, well, I guess if you don't see the darkies in your neighbourhood there is no colour problem, is there?

Follows on from what I believe your solution will cause. I will apologise about the flippant use of the word 'darkies' but I still feel that what you call a 'conservative's colour-blind society' is really just another way of saying 'If they can't catch up after our head start, it's their fault.'

Since this is the closest I think you'll get to retracting your statement, I'll take it and say thank you.

Note that "conservative's colour-blind society" is your term, not mine. I said "I see...conservatives as trying to create a truely color-blind society." There is a difference. Your term, based on your past disparagement of conservatives and your defining my [non-]use of the term as "If they can't catch up after our head start, it's their fault", is clearly meant negatively. What I said was that I see the goal of conservatives was a "true" color-blind society. Which would you rather see, a society where most decisions are based on the color of the skin of those involved, or a society where everyone is judged equally?

[Peter Frazier]

It's nice to see that we're in agreement of some things, ie a desire of how things should be.
I still can't get my head around you saying that conservatives wish for a "true" colour blind society. This kind of goes against everything I've read.

Are you trying to tell me that conservatives are aiming for a meritocratic utopia? I'm not talking libertarians here.

As for AA, sure, it shouldn't be forever. What is needed is a critical mass of advantaged people to create a self-perpetuating middle class.

And I'll do it properly since it seemed to cut deep: I apologise for implying that you were a racist. I shouldn't have twisted your words to frame a racist mind-set.

As for being a conservative utter bastard, we'll work that one through. :wink:

[Squirrel Killer]

I still can't get my head around you saying that conservatives wish for a "true" colour blind society. This kind of goes against everything I've read.

Are you trying to tell me that conservatives are aiming for a meritocratic utopia? I'm not talking libertarians here.

I've worked much of my professional career in politics, and worked with literally hundreds, if not thousands, of Republicans. I didn't discuss race issues with all of them, but my impression is that most of them wanted no more than a "true" color blind society. MLK Jr. really made an impact on many of them, he's easily as quoted as Reagan. Of course, I have to grant that my experience is mostly limited to the Midwest, so other regions may be different.

I'd suggest that what you've read may either focus on a small subset of conservatives or has an ax to grind. Conservatives not wishing for a color blind society just doesn't mesh with what I've seen or heard.

And I'll do it properly since it seemed to cut deep: I apologise for implying that you were a racist. I shouldn't have twisted your words to frame a racist mind-set.

Sincerely, thank you very much.

As for being a conservative utter bastard, we'll work that one through. :wink:

Great, now we can get to work on that whole color/colour thing. :wink:

[Damien Falgoust]

DAMIEN FALGOUST, which does kinda sound like the name of a monocle-sporting, Syrah-sipping-with-the-pinky-outstretched, handlebar-mustachioed Eastern European vampire lord.

I'm sorry, but DAMIEN FALGOUST is clearly a merlot drinker, you insensitive clod! :wink:

Or a nice Chianti (no fava beans, please).

And before someone makes an even more obvious joke, yes, Hollywood ruined my childhood (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075005/). Ironically, I was actually named after this guy (http://www.state.hi.us/about/damien.htm).

As for the rest of the thread, others have ably said basically what I would have. I would only add that I find it interesting that there are those who not only reach their opinions based on pure emotion (that is understandable), but also admit to it and defend that method of reaching conclusions as superior to reason and evidence. That's just nutty.

[Erik]

As usual, the Village Voice is the voice of the village of reason of record. This time on the putative humanity of conservatives. From a recent theater review (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0403/feingold.php):

No U.S. president, I expect, will ever appoint a Secretary of the Imagination. But if such a cabinet post ever were created, and Richard Foreman weren't immediately appointed to it, you'd know that the Republicans were in power. Republicans don't believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don't give a hoot about human beings, either can't or won't. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.

I wonder if the Secretary of Imagination would also be in charge of running the extermination camps?

[Damien Falgoust]

I see that Brian Rucker and Peter Frazier each have a promising future writing for the Village Voice.

[Ben]

Peter- You really shouldn't be reading things that claim conservatives want a non-color-blind society. I mean, we know they aren't for Affirmative Action, which means that what you read was claiming conservatives as a group support the return of Jim Crow laws.

I guess you don't know very many conservatives. Actually, this should be sort of interesting: Where are you getting that information and what kind of society do you think conservatives want?



At least Midnight Son is trolling when he claimed that one of the principles of the Republican party was 'keeping the darkies down.'

[Brian Koontz]

I'd suggest that what you've read may either focus on a small subset of conservatives or has an ax to grind. Conservatives not wishing for a color blind society just doesn't mesh with what I've seen or heard.

I think you're blind to the reality of the situation.

To most people of all political stripes, "color blind" means a whitewashing of race. A cultural assimilation by which minorities are culturally unified with the larger (and whiter) society.

The dichotomy is no longer "racist" versus "colorblind". Its "colorblind" versus "multicultural".

"Colorblind" is something of a cover. For social reasons, few humans are overtly racist. "Colorblind" is a nice catchphrase indicating (hopefully clearly, as far as they are concerned) NON-racism.

They hope to not SEE color. But someone's race is often an important part of their culture, as well as their personal history. They might as well be "humanblind" if they are going to be "colorblind".

So next time you talk to one of your self-righteous conservatives congratulating themselves over a MLK quote and their own "colorblind" status, you might ask them to consider the importance of culture to race and specifics of their own culture and that of various minorities.

Conservative: "But I'm *colorblind*. There is no importance of race! No importance of culture to race!"

"Colorblind" should be destroyed.

[Anaxagoras]

Ben does it again! Man, I love having you around.

He makes several posts along these lines:

I can't tell whether you are illiterate or being a jackass, but I guess I don't care. What the fuck?


And then he posts this:
Did you honestly think you were adding something to the discussion?

Ha ha ha.... ha.. Stop... stop.. you're killing me.... <pant pant> Hoo. Man.

The best part is.... you do end up adding something to the discussion. It's not the something you think you're adding, but it is something.

Hoo boy. Keep it coming, Ben. Please.

[Ben]

Anax- Could you not do that? Please? Grow up.

[Peter Frazier]

Ben, Brian's post probably explains the issue.
Do you really think that most people who oppose affirmative action do so out of concern that the recipients may have problems acheiving true equity because of it?
If so, I didn't know that they were so warm cuddly.
As I said before, conservatives favour the status quo, either because they know thay have it good or that they fear change will shift the balance of power.
I've taken the time to explain my views. All you do is aggressively come in and demand explanations without giving any yourself.
Every time I've asked for your personal reasons you have failed to respond. What is your problem?

[Ben]

Peter-

I've taken the time to explain my views. All you do is aggressively come in and demand explanations without giving any yourself.
Every time I've asked for your personal reasons you have failed to respond. What is your problem?

"Every time"? Jesus, how can I have a conversation with you when you'll just make more shit up out of whole cloth? Here's a complete list of every question you've asked me in this thread:

1. "Do you really, truly, absolutely believe that Bush actions have been innocuous or always someone elses fault?"
I responded to this. By the way, did you honestly think I was saying that everything Bush does is either good or someone else's fault?

2. "Now Ben, can you note the difference in my replies?"(this is reference to a post in which he responded to both Doug and myself)
I didn't respond to this at the time, because it's pretty obvious. Doug is a liberal and thus one of the "good guys." I'm a conservative and thus evil.

3. "Do you really think that most people who oppose affirmative action do so out of concern that the recipients may have problems acheiving true equity because of it? "
and
4. "What is your problem?"

These were in your most recent post. So what are you talking about?

And you've taken the time to explain your views? You don't even have views. You have ravings. "I think conversatives are selfish racist bastards" is not a well developed viewpoint on a social issue.

I guess you sort of explained yourself by claiming you've read something about the issue, but it seems that whatever you read claimed the conservatives opposed affirmative action for neither "meritocracy" or "future problems" reasons. You later elaborated by claiming that conservatives oppose AA because they know they have it good and fear it will shift the balance of power. You just accused half the electorate of conspiring to keep the black man down.

Count me on the raising teacher salaries side from here on out.

[Peter Frazier]

I responded to this. By the way, did you honestly think I was saying that everything Bush does is either good or someone else's fault?
I was responding to your hyperbole in kind.

I didn't respond to this at the time, because it's pretty obvious. Doug is a liberal and thus one of the "good guys." I'm a conservative and thus evil.
Actually, Doug wasn't obnoxious and thus one of the "good guys". Of course, you can keep on justifying your antics by saying I grievously insulted you first. Because that's the best way to do things, isn't it?


I guess you sort of explained yourself by claiming you've read something about the issue, but it seems that whatever you read claimed the conservatives opposed affirmative action for neither "meritocracy" or "future problems" reasons.

Can you expand on those reasons please? Maybe it's the way I see things but I still believe that there is an unwillingness to concede that the playing ground is not level in the first place.

So Ben, what do you do for employment? I'd like to throw in a few glib comments the way you have.

[Ben]

I wasn't using hyperbole, Peter, that's the problem. There really are a bunch of threads where someone posts that Bush hires a lawyer or that some flunky in the FAA erases a tape or the Justice department wants abortion records or whatever and the usual suspects chime with in with mindless anti-Bushisms with a complete disregard for the facts and really no interest in understanding the issue beyond that it might somehow be bad for Bush.

As for being obnoxious, yes, you did start throwing around insults first. Basically you'd like to come in here with your half-formed bullshit and call people selfish racist bastards and then have everyone respond to you politely?

The conservative opposition to affirmative action is simply and basically one of supporting meritocracy. That's always been the case, and whatever you read that suggested otherwise isn't worth the pamphlet it was scrawled on.

[Peter Frazier]

I wasn't using hyperbole, Peter, that's the problem. There really are a bunch of threads where someone posts that Bush hires a lawyer or that some flunky in the FAA erases a tape or the Justice department wants abortion records or whatever and the usual suspects chime with in with mindless anti-Bushisms with a complete disregard for the facts and really no interest in understanding the issue beyond that it might somehow be bad for Bush.
Because this isn't hyperbole according to Ben:
Perhaps we should create a new forum specifically for Bush bashing, whereby someone can post a detailed play by play of his daily life and you guys can have your little circle jerk about how he eats babies. This forum has an awful lot of some liberal posting a completely innocuous action by Bush or a negative action by someone else and painting it as "People's Evidence #45,654" in the case that Bush is Satan.
Jesus, let me know when you're going to exaggerate something, I really wanna see that.
As for being obnoxious, yes, you did start throwing around insults first. Basically you'd like to come in here with your half-formed bullshit and call people selfish racist bastards and then have everyone respond to you politely?
I don't understand your phrasing of this one. Are you acknowledging that you are obnoxious because I was insulting? I would prefer it if you didn't try to mix the two. You are obnoxious because you are obnoxious. The nature of your posts goes above and beyond any reasonable indignation.

The conservative opposition to affirmative action is simply and basically one of supporting meritocracy. That's always been the case, and whatever you read that suggested otherwise isn't worth the pamphlet it was scrawled on.
Conservatives simply and basically support meritocracy? Every person in charge is there because they are the best person for the job? Ability is the only factor in regard to employment? Yeah, I see that all the time. :roll:
Things are looking more even now, but back when AA was advocated did you think things were fair? The same arguments were produced then.
Do you think it fair to ignore a legacy stretching back over hundreds of years and just tell all parties concerned that it's a free market now- even though one side is all at the top?
And what was the 'future problems' issue that you mentioned?

[Brad Grenz]

Maybe some conservatives just think you can't enforce equality through the implementation of policies that are, by definition, inequitable. This goes beyond affirmative action.

[Peter Frazier]

I'm fine with that belief if there are other strategies or options available. There just doesn't seem to be any other viable methods. At the moment there seems to be a choice between doing something and doing nothing. Social engineering is always going to seem ugly and interfering but what other choices are there? I'll accept that there will always be an underclass but what is the best way to develop a self-sustaining middle-class from a disadvantaged group?
Probably the biggest step is to acknowledge if there is a problem. Is there?

[Brad Grenz]

That's the biggest problem, ain't it? Knowing when something isn't neccissary anymore. The Rainbow Coalition isn't going to declare victory anytime soon cause, well, Jesse likes the money. Meanwhile, though, for every person this helps, another person gets screwed. I think it would be better if we could effectively enforce equal opportunity laws and do away with quotas.

[chet]

First, may i just mention renaming this thread was pretty stupid as it made it hard to find.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20040708/capt.sge.llr96.080704125246.photo01.default-384x381.jpg

US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) walks away from a briefing with the media, refusing to answer questions after he was asked about Enron and the reported indictment of former CEO Kenneth Lay, who was a close adviser and fund-raiser for Bush and his father, earning him the presidential nickname of 'Kenny Boy.'

I would make a monkey joke, or anti-jew joke - since those seem to be the only acceptable jokes for the right-anti-joke squad, but there just isn't one in me.

Bush, like Lay, is exercising the 5th - because we can't handle the truth about how innocent they are. It would break our fragile minds.


Chet

[Derek Meister]

< midnight-son > You know, if you swing that crooked E logo that Enron had on it's side, it becomes a crooked W. I bet George would love that. < /midnight-son >

[Midnight Son]

I'm sorry, I really don't remember this thread, so why you callin' me out, beeyatch? :lol:

[Ben]

Chet- Again, what was it exactly that Bush did for Enron?

Also, when did press conferences become courts? You have to take the 5th to say "no comment" to a reporter?

[Andrew Mayer]

Chet- Again, what was it exactly that Bush did for Enron?


He got Max Yzaguirre, former Enron president, appointed to FERC, for one thing. Basically put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

[chet]

He didn't act when a democratic Governor begged him to step him - which we now find out there were all kinds of shenanigans going on.

And more...

I know this is hard from some Bush backers to believe, but Enron's guilt does not make Bush innocent.

And hey, Cheney's meetings were fine, again, the administration does not want to talk about them - because they would show how innocent the administration really is, and it would blow our minds. Thank god the administration is looking out for us. (And ben, since you never get it, this paragraph is being sarcastic)

Chet

[Ben]

Chet- He didn't do everything Davis wanted isn't damning evidence. It's nothing.

What shenanigans? This is page 5 of this thread, and you still haven't a single piece of actual wrong-doing.

[chet]

Ben are you kidding me? Seriously, this is why I ignore your posts. You are going to sit here and tell me Enron has done nothing wrong? Do you read a newspaper? Even yearly? You make Bob Cherub look like Einstein in comparison. You have to be a troll, or a third grader, no one could be as dumb as you, seriously. You are a troll right?

And since you are too fucking stupid to get sarcasm by anyone, not just me, let me just say, that first paragraph has no sarcasm in it, you really are a moron.

Chet

[Ben]

Why do you constantly pull this shit, Chet? Of course Enron did lots of bad things, I'm claiming that you can't link Bush to any of it. And, of course, you can't. So you do your little strawman song and dance. What a fucking shock.

Also, why the hell do you feel the need to pepper your posts with swipes at uninvolved people? You got picked on as a child and this is your grand chance to be the bully now that you've got your little coterie of retards to back you up?

[chet]

You are right Ben, I am sorry Einstein, for involving you in the stupidity of Ben. That was entirely uncalled for. I am sorry that because Ben lacks any reading comprehension, not just my posts as you can see he does this in every thread, but all posts, I am sorry Albert for involving you in this. That was uncalled for. It is useless to try and explain anything or have a conversation with Ben, I should have just remembered that and ignored him, not have used your name in my frustration. We both know he will puzzle for hours trying to figure out if this post is being sarcastic or not.

Ben, you truly are the stupidest person I have ever had the misfortune of running into in my life. And yes, I am counting Corky from those few minutes I watched "Life Goes On".

Chet

[Ben]

That's what I thought, Chet. Why bother trying to discuss the issue when you can ramble about Einstein for a paragraph and then throw in some poorly worded insults?

Nice comma placement, though. Is an act or are you really that incapable of forming functional English sentences? Here, let me polish that up for you.

"
Einstein, I'm sorry for involving you in the stupidity of Ben. That was entirely uncalled for. I am sorry because Ben lacks reading comprehension, not just for my posts but for all posts.

It is useless to try to explain anything to Ben, I should've just remembered that and ignored him, not used your name in frustration. We both know he will spend hours trying to puzzle out if this is sarcastic or not.

Ben, you are truly the stupidest person I have ever had the misfortune of having any sort of contact with. I include Corky from "Life Goes On" in that list.
"

God, it's still horrible. You need to work on basic composition, Chet.

[Andrew Mayer]

That's what I thought, Chet. Why bother trying to discuss the issue when you can ramble about Einstein for a paragraph and then throw in some poorly worded insults?

Nice comma placement, though. Is an act or are you really that incapable of forming functional English sentences? Here, let me polish that up for you.

SELF AGGRANDIZING BULLSHIT

God, it's still horrible. You need to work on basic composition, Chet.

See Ben, this is an EXAMPLE of what I was talking about in the other thread.

You find an irrelevant point and try to make that the central argument.

No one is discussing punctuation here boyo, but YOU.

[Midnight Son]

I like apostrophes. Something about them excites me no end.

[Ben]

Andrew- Yeah, and who derailed the thread into insults? I asked for evidence of Bush doing bad things, and you came up with a single tenous appointment(what did Yzaguirre do?) and Chet came up with his usual insulting bullshit. So I responded in kind.

Was me being the stupidest person Chet has ever had the misfortune to run into a core element of the conversation? How was I supposed to respond to all the delicious content that Chet had in his posts?

[Andrew Mayer]

Anyway, back to the point.

Billmon lays out the ugly trail between Enron and Bush in great detail right here (http://billmon.org/archives/001593.html).

Some highlights:

When Bush took office - even before, actually - Lay had his wish list ready. Kinder (the Enron president who had served as Enron's in-house money tree shaker during the campaign) got a seat on a 17-member commission appointed to recommend an overhaul of the Texas state tax system. The commission eventually recommended a $3 billion tax cut (surprise!) for heavy industries, a category which included gas and power utilities - like, say, Enron, for example.

The tax plan failed to make it through the Texas legislature - a deeply competitive arena, at least as where bribery is concerned. But Lay got something even better - his own pet chairman of the Texas Public Utility Commission, a man named Patrick Wood III. Actually, according to the Ft. Worth Star Telegram, Enron got the entire commission:

Lay also sent a June 16, 1999, letter to Bush recommending the reappointment of Judy Walsh to the Public Utility Commission. The three-member PUC at one time consisted entirely of appointees with Enron connections. The company recommended Wood and Walsh, and the third commissioner, Brett Perlman, worked as a consultant for the firm in 1996.
Wood's name is the one worth remembering, though, because when Bush moved into the White House in 2001, he nominated Lay's man to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and a few months later promoted him to chairman. (It was the least Bush could do, given that Lay and what Michael Moore likes to call "the good people of Enron" were collectively the GOP's largest single corporate donor in the 2000 campaign.)

It's a job Wood holds to this day, and one where he's been extremely effective at stonewalling efforts to get to the bottom of the Great California Power Scam - a caper which may, if the full truth ever gets out, be remembered as one of the most brazenly successful heists in history of unarmed robbery.

At the time, as you may recall, the administration - in the shape of Dick "Go Fuck Yourself" Cheney - blamed the Golden State's soaring power bills on either crazy environmental wackos or high marginal tax rates (depending on the day of the week or what particular piece of pork barrel legislation he was trying to sell).

These theories, no doubt, were the topic of many interesting discussions on Cheney's Energy Task Force, of which Kenneth Lay was a star member (after having served on Bush's Energy Department transition team.)

Some of Enron's other useful connections in the second Bush administration:

* Bob Zoellick, Bush's U.S. Trade Representative, is a former member of Enron's advisory board, and was for a number of years a research scholar at the Enron-funded Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard.

* Larry Linsday, Bush's first chief economic advisor, was also a former member of Enron's advisory board.

* Karl Rove was not only an Enron shareholder but also - according to the former Texas Republican Party chairman - a key political advisor and contributions conduit for the company.

With all this inside juice (or "blat," as the Russians call it) it's reasonable to wonder why the Enronistas didn't get more for their money when things fell apart of them. Certainly, GOP propagandists have tried to paint the fiasco in the most favorable light for George W. by highlighting the administration's willingness to let the company go to the devil when its off-balance-sheet house of cards finally collapsed.

There's a lot, however, that we still don't know about the events leading up to Enron's demise. Nor will we know about them any time soon - thanks to the Supreme Court's willingness to stall the release of the Cheney task force's papers, the Justice Department's mysterious slowness in seizing Enron-related documents before Arthur Anderson could shred them, and - not least - the complete absence of any serious oversight by either the U.S. Senate or the loyal party hacks in Tom Delay's Chamber of People's Deputies.

We may not have answers, but we do have questions. Why, for example, did FERC adamantly refuse to use its statutory authority to impose even limited price controls on soaring California power prices until very late in the game (June 2001) - too late to prevent a multi-billion loss to the state and its ratepayers? Was this a staunch defense of free market principles, or a bid to keep desperately needed, if illegally obtained, revenues flowing to the tottering Enron giant?