Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on August 18, 2002, 10:29:55 AM
-
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,338580,00.html
Enron's Democrat Pals
Documents obtained by TIME show the energy giant enjoyed much
closer ties with Clinton Administration regulators than was generally
known
BY MICHAEL WEISSKOPF
Saturday, Aug. 17, 2002 Before its messy decline and fall,Enron had plenty of clout in George W. Bush's Washington, from the personal ties between chairman Ken Lay and the President to the company's alleged influence on Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force. But Enron's cozy relationship with Washington didn't start there.
Documents obtained by TIME show the energy giant enjoyed much closer ties with Clinton
Administration regulators than was generally known. Long before Cheney's task force met with Enron officials and included their ideas in Bush's energy plan, Clinton's energy team was doing much the same thing. Drafting a 1995 plan to help facilitate cash flow and credit for energy producers, it asked for Enron's input-and listened. The staff was directed to "rework the proposal to take into account the specific comments and suggestions you made," Clinton
Deputy Energy Secretary Bill White wrote an Enron official.
Clinton officials also made efforts to help Enron get business overseas. Clinton Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary included Enron officials on trade missions to India, China, Pakistan and South Africa. White, returning from a 1994 trip to
Mexico, wrote chairman Lay that "much opportunity" existed there for natural gas, and he sent a copy of Mexico's energy plans. To persuade an Enron
senior vice president to join a mission to Pakistan, White wrote, "I have strong personal relationships with the existing government."
Enron showed its gratitude. At Christmas 1995, documents show, it donated an unknown sum of cash in O'Leary's name to a charity called "I Have a
Dream." And when Clinton ran for re-election a year later, the company made its largest single contribution ever-$100,000-to the President's party.
MT, you out there? ;)
-
you're lucky im under the invluence of valiiium. You beat me to teh punch on this one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Nah, it's 10Bears that you want to debunk this Rip.
........ or maybe Politicians are all alike? ;)
(http://www.kressworks.com/Politics/Election_2000/Gore/Resources/Objects/buddhist_gore.jpg)
-
ROTFLOL Toad! Great pic!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nah, it's 10Bears that you want to debunk this Rip.
........ or maybe Politicians are all alike? ;)
(http://www.kressworks.com/Politics/Election_2000/Gore/Resources/Objects/buddhist_gore.jpg)
Hmm, I thought goron was just there for a new koan :)
the Enron/Clinton/Dumbacrat tie in is old news for anyone half way conscious & paying attention which lowers it to about 10% of the population of the US
-
Guess Time aint so liberally biased after all, eh?;)
-
Originally posted by Lance
Guess Time aint so liberally biased after all, eh?;)
They're losing subscribers along with alot of newspapers across the country, one tends to be less bias when the pocket book is affected ;)
-
No. Everyone knows things were squeaky-clean in corporate America during the '90's. No way the Clinton administration could or would ever have taken money illicitly.
Damn, why oh why couldn't Gore have won, retaining the honesty and integrity that was the hallmark of the Clinton era?
-
Makes you wonder what the republicans did for Enron to get their hands on the other four sets of $100,000 that Enron has contributed to political parties since '96...
ENRON CORP
WASHINGTON, DC 20006 10/20/1998 $100,000 NRCC/Non-Federal Account
ENRON CORP
WASHINGTON, DC 20006 3/27/2000 $100,000 NRCC/Non-Federal Account
ENRON CORPORATION
WASHINGTON, DC 20006 6/7/2001 $100,000 NRCC/Non-Federal Account
ENRON CORPORATION
HOUSTON, TX 77251 11/26/2001 $100,000 NRSC/Non-Federal Account
http://www.opensecrets.org/ (http://www.opensecrets.org/)
-
Swing and a miss, dead...
Fact is, both political parties take money from questionable sources. You don't have to "do" anything to get it, you can have a reputation for favoring corporations and anti-union legislation and that would be enough for many companies. Corporate America gave money to the Republican party? What a shock!
What's funny is watching Democrats rail against Enron and the Republican party as being in bed together, when in fact the Democrats were, too, and logically had to be. Enron didn't turn evil in 18 months, folks. The onus is going to fall across both parties and across both administrations.
It was mentioned in another thread the DNC gave back money from the temple after they discovered the source- isn't that ass-backwards? Don't you ask where the money is coming from BEFORE you take it, not afterward- that is, IF the media happens to find out and IF it happens to make your guy look like a greedy schmuck carnival huckster grabbing 10-spots from the hicks at the county fair?
No, I have to believe most of America just isn't buying it. The average American can figure out the Enron thing really started under another watch, that it took negligence from more than an administration, and that to a certain extent our blind greed made the whole thing possible? That maybe, just maybe, we believed what we wanted to believe so long as times were good?
-
Good post Kieren!
-
Nice site, Dead.
ListTop Soft Money Donors (http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/asp/softtop.asp?txtCycle=2000&txtSort=name)
"983 organizations gave $100,000 or more in soft money in the 1999-2000 election cycle: Totals reflect contributions made by individuals associated with that company as well as official company contributions:"
It's sorts them alphabetically. Interesting to see that an extremely high percentage give to both parties, eh? So which ones are evil and which ones are blessed again?
-
so when are the repubs gonna be responsible for somthing ? anything?
-
Probably right about the same time the Democrats are responsible for something or anything.
In other words, never. They're POLITICIANS. Responsibility and Accountability are foreign concepts to them.. otherwise they wouldn't be successful politicians.
"Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause and let out a respectful whistle:
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed."
-
I thought I was clear- both sides take money from industry. I am merely pointing out the hypocracy of our board Democrats trying to lay the whole Enron thing on Republicans. Common sense should tell you that both sides had their hands in it up to the armpits. I am also pointing out the sheer lunacy of thinking that any economy can tank within two months of an election because of anything the new administration did, especially when all the cabinet positions had yet to be filled AND the president has precious little to do with economy anyway.
-
Did I say either party was clean? I don't seem to recall saying that. I mean what do you people expect!?! They're politicians for crying out loud! :D
I was merely noting that the Republicans seem to have received a lot more cash off Enron than the Democrats: make of that what you will.
This from the same site:
1997-98 election cycle
Enron Corp Total:$691,950 To Dems:$112,200 To Reps:$579,750
1999-2000 election cycle
Enron Corp Total:$1,671,555 To Dems:$532,565 To Reps:$1,138,990
2001-2002 election cycle
Enron Corp Total:$424,409 To Dems:$102,050 To Reps:$322,359
Total to Dems 97-02: $746,815 Total to Reps 97-02: $2,041,099
As to the '96 Election (which is what the article deals with):
In the Oil & Gas sector, the 2nd highest contributor was Enron Corp with $1,154,266 in this ratio - Dems 19%, Reps 81%
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=E01&Cycle=1996 (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=E01&Cycle=1996)
cycling through...
The 94 election cycle
Ranked 4th in the Oil & Gas sector:
Enron Corp $541,676 Dems 41% Reps 59%
The 92 election cycle
Ranked 11th in the Oil & Gas sector:
Enron Corp $305,509 Dems 39% Reps 61%
The 90 election cycle
Ranked 15th in the Oil & Gas sector:
Enron Corp $162,250 Dems 41% Reps 59%
It almost looks like the Democrats fell into disfavour with Enron after '94, which runs somewhat counter to the article. But there it is - roughly 40% dem 60% rep contributions up to '94 then round about 20% dem 80% rep after that... then the dems go up to about 30% dem 70% rep in 2000 & 2002. And this is supposedly Enron "showing its gratitude the democrats" - go figure.
[Edit to add the 70:30 rise 00&02- it was late & I was tired]
-
Yossarian Ro0|z
-
Boy the lefties sure are quiet on this one... :D
-
They're losing subscribers along with alot of newspapers across the country, one tends to be less bias when the pocket book is affected
Or, more likely, your perception of them being liberally biased or a viable news source worth quoting is based mostly on whether or not they are saying something you like hearing;)
-
Not really Lance, the delivery, body language, the way it is worded(Reported Clinton was "Trimming" medicare, and Bush is "Gutting" medicare as an static example)... will say alot of whether that news reporter or station is bias. I'm not saying EVERY new outlet is bias, just saying overall, if you found a neutral agency that studied it, you'd find it leaning left.
http://www.gargaro.com/bias.html
http://www.mediaresearch.org/
http://www.honestreporting.com/
Most reporters aren't liberal or biased - right?
Let's see....
- 9 white house correspondents survey voted for Clinton in 1992, while 2 voted for Bush
- 12 voted for Dukakis in 1988 - one for Bush
- 10 voted for Mondale in 1984 - zero for Reagan
- 8 voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980 - 2 for Reagan
Of course, none of these reporters could be biased at all in their reporting.......
Source: US News and World Report White House Reporter Kenneth Walsh
Another survey...
Of the 1400 members of the national media who were surveyed:
44% considered themselves Democrats
16% Repubs
34% independents
89% voted for Clinton in 1992
7% voted for Bush in 1992
-
You should check the validity of all of your your sources Rip. A common practice in Propaganda (as differentiated from ethical PR) is to set up stealth organizations as "objective third parties" that are not objective at all.
Honestreporting and its parent, Media Watch International, are Jewish organizations developed entirely to shape unfavorable coverage of Israel though pressure tactics. If there is any question of bias in the media, there is absolutely no question that both of these "watchdog" organizations are highly biased and operating with a set agenda. They count on people not paying any attention beyond the headline, or the fact that their messages supports preconceived notions in the target audience so there is no incentive to see if it is the truth or not. Here is some information on those two groups.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4140042,00.html
Media Research is a decidedly conservative organization that is the polar opposite of the liberal Fair.org. I’m not sure I would take anything at face value from either organization. Here a link to a Columbia Journalism Review of both organizations: http://www.cjr.org/year/96/6/watchdog.asp
As for Gargaro.com, I respect her opinions on Marvin the Martian, http://www.gargaro.com/marvin.html but, you would probably have to go though each of her media examples with a fine-tooth comb to sort the urban legends from the facts, qualify all the “unbiased sources” etc. For a “Rightgrrl,” she’s not bad on the eyes though: http://www.gargaro.com/images/2001/work/
Now, as for your statistics... Just how many White House reporters are there? It looks like he interviewed 44 during a 22-year span. No information on how he selected this minute sampling. As for the survey, it seems most considered themselves Independent, which means they would vote for someone from any party that met their needs. I consider myself an independent, and would have voted for Republican McCain if I had the chance.
Is the media really biased, or is that just an easy way to explain away the unpleasant, to people who don't want to look at any negative side of their political focus? Probably both to some extent. Dan Rather has a lot more in common with Bush than I do (or most anybody on this board). IMO the broadcast media is too focused on pop issues and idle speculation, with selling ads being more important than quality journalism at the end of the day.
Here’s a guy that thinks the media has too much conservative bias. A real member of the looney left :) , but he makes a few interesting points and there is some pretty funny stuff: http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html
Here is a fairly level-headed analysis I came across (at least it fits with my view of the world, making it automatically correct :) ) http://www.cybercollege.com/bias.htm
Generally speaking—and there many exceptions—people in business tend to be conservative and people who have a background in the social sciences—through education or working with people—tend to be more liberal. (We'll avoid trying to define the terms liberal and conservative at this point and go with the rather fuzzy, widely held definitions of what the terms seem to imply.)
People in the hard sciences also tend to be more conservative than people in the social sciences. The latter group includes many news people and actors, and some writers and artists—people whose ideas often surface in the media. Their views also tend to "push the envelope" of social change.
So, if we can keep speaking in generalities, we seem to have a split between the basically conservative philosophies held by many of business-minded media owners and top executives, and the people who shape the messages.
Here’s something from Fair.org: http://www.fair.org/activism/cnn-gop.html
Charges about liberal media bias are nothing new: Republicans have long complained about the supposed left-wing bias of the mainstream media, and CNN has been one of the targets of this criticism over the years. At times, Republican strategists have explained the tactical wisdom of accusing media of liberal bias. As Republican Party chair Rich Bond said, "There is some strategy to it. I'm a coach of kids' basketball and Little League teams. If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one." (Washington Post, 8/20/92)
My take on the media, for what little its worth.
CNN: Good in a breaking story, but even then filled with too much idle commentary from the “experts.”
Fox: Targeted programming that presents 1.5 sides of the story.
MSNBC: Not sure yet. I’m tired of CNN and only watch Fox for the amusement factor, so I’ll have to start checking these guys out.
Network: So So. They don’t have the presence anymore to be really effective on the ground.
Dateline/60 Mins/etc. - Tabloid operations. They can do some good stuff but they also provide a reason for legitimate, ethical PR.
Newspapers: The Chicago Tribune is my favorite. It is considered the Republican paper of Chicago, and it provides good international coverage. Newspapers in general are a must to get good information on anything in the world (or local).
Newsmagazines: The worst reporting I ever encountered during my PR days was Time Magazine. They think they know everything (at least the 23 year, Manhattan, Sex in the City type swells that actually conduct most of the “grunt” interviews), won’t listen, start with a pre-conceived position and pump out a lot of crap mixed with some good coverage. Good photos though.
There is a lot of unbiased truth out there. It just requires a little work.
Charon
-
I think it is safe to say I have never made an anti-Bush post with regard to Enron. I will continue on this tack for the following reason:
What is the big freakin surprise when one of the biggest energy companies in the world has close ties with whatever the current administration happens to be? I mean ... DUH!
-
Charon, the tactic of trying to belittle "sources" is as old as history itself. :rolleyes:
Edit, grammar.
-
Charon, the tactic of trying to belittle "sources" is as old as history itself.
My point exactly with all the "Liberal Bias in the media" accusations that get thrown around. Please Rip, provide your specific analysis as to how those sources you listed could be considered fair, reasonable and reliable. Not all sources are created equal, and some deserve belittling. To me they look decidedly biased, just like Fair.org at the opposite end of the spectrum. They might contain some truth, but more likely it's only half the truth like the urban legends that pop up on this board and are so easily accepted by some as gospel fact.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the media is more socially liberal but fiscally conservative, at least in broadcast news. I rather think most “working” reporters are centrists, which would tend to make them liberal compared to the current Republican party. I would disagree that most are closer to Nader than say a MOR Republican or Democrat. Many probably see Washington for its true colors (shades of green) and probably lack the idealism to be a “true” Republican or Democrat.
I might, as a libertarian-leaning centrist, be receptive to the messages put out by Fair.org, but I wouldn't take them at face value. I've spun people and been spun, so I tend to always look for the angle behind the message and who exactly is funding the messenger. Sources like the ones you listed don’t make the cut. In fact, they are probably too biased to be worth the effort of using cross comparison of highly divergent sources to arrive at some central truth. Of course, tabloid news uses such sources so that there is a lot of yelling and flustered faces on the screen.
Charon
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
What is the big freakin surprise when one of the biggest energy companies in the world has close ties with whatever the current administration happens to be? I mean ... DUH!
BINGO!
-
right on Charon - dont trust `dem Jo0z, although, if you're looking for a good knich, a Gew is hard to beat. In a pinch, a perogi from a Russian is a not bad 2nd choice...
-
right on Charon - dont trust `dem Jo0z, although, if you're looking for a good knich, a Gew is hard to beat. In a pinch, a perogi from a Russian is a not bad 2nd choice...
I trusted one enough to marry her, by a rabbi no less. I just don't particularly trust ultra orthadox Israelis (such as those that run honestreporting), and [freely admitted] zionists like Sharon [where the Israeli perspective on the West Bank and palestinians are concerend].
And when he is not working for HonestReporting, Mr Simmons is to be found employed at another organisation altogether - Aish HaTora. This is an international group promoting orthodox Judaism. "I do some work for Aish," Mr Simmons says, from Israel. And Jonathan, the web-designer who started it all in London, also concedes: "I go to the odd class at Aish."
Aish verge on the colourful in their antics. Founded by Rabbi Noah Weinberg, who complains that "20,000 kids a year" are being lost to Judaism by marrying out, Aish invented speed-dating - eight-minute sessions in cafes to help New Yorkers find compatible Jewish partners. They're widely regarded as rightwing extremists. And they're certainly not people entitled to harass the media into what they would call "objectivity".
I suppose I'm more intune with jews like these:http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/index.html
I assume (oh, and I know the danger there) that you are aware that not all Jews support Sharon and his policies.
Charon
[btw, about the only traditional dish my wife prepares is Koogle, which I find rather boring compared to good, old fashioned kraft mac n cheese. I do most of the cooking, which is a frightening thought past grill season]
-
Originally posted by Charon
I trusted one enough to marry her, by a rabbi no less.
ka-BLAMO!!!! :D
-
if you found a neutral agency that studied it, you'd find it leaning left.
(http://www.mrc.org/images/ads/coulterbook.gif)
That is an advertisement on one of those neutral agency's website, Rip. You'll have to pardon me if I don't share your sentiment that they are themselves unbiased critics of the media;)
-
LOL! :D
I just wanted to say that this tread is HILARIOUS!
-
Thrawn. Nobody gives a rats bellybutton what a Canadian thinks about our politics. Your posts are like having the dog barking while we try to watch a movie. We don't care what the dog thinks of the movie. He is just a nuisance.
-
Originally posted by easymo
Thrawn. Nobody gives a rats bellybutton what a Canadian thinks about our politics. Your posts are like having the dog barking while we try to watch a movie. We don't care what the dog thinks of the movie. He is just a nuisance.
So?
What's your point?
:confused:
-
Thrawn,
RUF RUF RUF!!! YIP YIP YIP YIP AAAaooooooooUUUUuuUUUUUUU!!
ROWLF!!! ROWLF!!!
-Elf
-
The message didn't seem that complex. Maybe it was the typo in the word nuisence that confused you. I will try again. Nuisence
-
Come again? :confused:
-
Nobody gives a rats ass?
Easymo now speaks for the nation!!! :rolleyes:
-
How about new cents. There are only so many ways to twist this word around. Try harder.
-
LOL! God love ya, easymo. You might not like me, but I sure like you!
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
RUF RUF RUF!!! YIP YIP YIP YIP AAAaooooooooUUUUuuUUUUUUU!!
ROWLF!!! ROWLF!!!
-Elf
Elfie,
Is the injuries from your Bungee-Jumping accident flaring up again?
:D
Cobra
-
Easymo, you are my hero! I am absolutely doubled over laughing so hard at this!:D
Here is an apt quote from Dennis Miller, regarding Barbara Streisand and like-minded activists:
"Other than telling you how you should live your life, she doesn't want anything the f*** to do with you."
-
Kieran, Isn't Dennis Miller a Canadian?? Who gives a rat's bellybutton what HE says about America???
-
Too stoned to comment at the moment..
While you guys are all in your little cubes I was setting up lighting for a very famous rock band and got invited to smoke some of their great pot :D
-
When, as it inevitably will, the subject of drugs comes up again. I will refer to this post, by 10bears ,as a demonstration of the effects of drugs, on an otherwise intelligent mind.
-
Nah Elf, I have nothing against Canada or Canadians, per se, other than an incessant desire to turn the Americas into a Socialist continent. Too many U.S. citizens willing to help them out. ;)
-
Well, say what you want about the Canadians, but THEY never accepted money from Enron.
-
I think we should trade iraq some politicans for their all their nerve gas test dogs....
...maybe we can save a few dogs.
-
Okay let me see if I can find a scandal here..
First of all we know that OJ Simpson worked for the NFL and Warner Bro’s studio before he murdered his wife.
Long before Cheney's task force met with Enron officials and included their ideas in Bush's energy plan, Clinton's energy team was doing much the same thing. Drafting a 1995 plan to help facilitate cash flow and credit for energy producers, it asked for Enron's input—and listened. The staff was directed to "rework the proposal to take into account the specific comments and suggestions you made," Clinton Deputy Energy Secretary Bill White wrote an Enron official.
Key word here is “listened” and “rework the proposal to take into account the specific comments and suggestions you made”.... The article didn’t say they drafted deregulation by Sen. Phil Grahm or his Enron employee wife Windy.. Which is what happened on Dec 14th 2000. BTW that’s two days after the selection.
Clinton officials also made efforts to help Enron get business overseas. Clinton Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary included Enron officials on trade missions to India, China, Pakistan and South Africa. White, returning from a 1994 trip to Mexico, wrote chairman Lay that "much opportunity" existed there for natural gas, and he sent a copy of Mexico's energy plans. To persuade an Enron senior vice president to join a mission to Pakistan
Ron Brown had several trade missions where many CEO’s including Kenny boy went all over the place looking for new business as per requested by the Clinton administration. This was widely reported at the time. I’m not sure this is scandalous.
Enron showed its gratitude. At Christmas 1995, documents show, it donated an unknown sum of cash in O'Leary's name to a charity called "I Have a Dream." And when Clinton ran for re-election a year later, the company made its largest single contribution ever—$100,000—to the President's party.
The bottom line on this paragraph is that Enron donated $100 large to Clinton’s upcoming campaign... Still this hardly compares to Enron’s donations to GOP candidates in the ’98 and 2K campaigns. The split is something like 20/80 GOP. Not to mention the 100K for the recount effort or the 100K for the inauguration party.
What IS being questioned is if Key Ley and Enron had undue influence in not only suggesting legislation for the Vice President’s energy task force but hell, had their own lobbyist write the damn thing!.. Not only that but Enron lobbyist even wrote the legislation for deregulation that provided the groundwork for ripping off the good people of California to the tune of thirty BILLION dollars!. Before you squawk this is federal deregulation which needed to happen before he could go with the state deregulation already on the books signed by Pete Wilson in 1996. If all is fine and dandy with the VP energy report, then release the damn thing to the GAO and get this thing over with. The longer he holds onto this the longer these questions will linger. The problem with releasing it is someone might find out Cheney is up to his ears in the Sopranos type “cash out” for California.
No, I have to believe most of America just isn't buying it. The average American can figure out the Enron thing really started under another watch, that it took negligence from more than an administration, and that to a certain extent our blind greed made the whole thing possible? That maybe, just maybe, we believed what we wanted to believe so long as times were good?
You might be right here Kieran, according to Nielson ratings most Americans are more interested in WWF wrestling, the Anna Nicolle Smith show, and the Ten channel on satellite. Going through financial fraud research is complicated and boring. Both parties take money from corporations true... But you have to wonder why the corporations poured millions into the slime machine first on Sen. John McCain a war hero for Christ sake then Al Gore. Both these men were NOT going to give these swindlers everything they wanted.
In other words, never. They're POLITICIANS. Responsibility and Accountability are foreign concepts to them.. otherwise they wouldn't be successful politicians
So... WHAT Toad.. we American’s are just supposed to accept that our leaders are liars and thieves? NO sir, with all due respect you HAD two choices Republican and Democrat. Men of honor. The slime machine turned on both of them. I don’t accept that at all.
Sorry Rip, I’m not exactly ready to join up with FreeRepublic.com just yet. Keep looking you’ll find a scandal that’s equal to what the GOP is doing.
“If I am than so are you”
I get tired of hearing well, it's all Clinton's fault or if we can't find a tie in to Clinton than all politicians do it so what the hell.
Relax....
--------------------------------------------
While I was flying down the road yesterday (only 10 mph over),
I noticed a cop with a radar gun sitting on top of a bridge.
The cop pulled me over, walked up to the car and asked me,
"What's the hurry?" I replied, "I'm late for work."
"Oh yeah," said the cop, "what do you do?" I responded,
"I'm a rectum stretcher." The cop said "Whats.....a rectum stretcher,
and what does a rectum stretcher do?" I said,
"Well, I start with one finger, then I work my way up to two fingers,
then three, then four, then my whole hand,
then I work until I can get both hands in there
and then I slowly stretch it until it's about 6 foot wide."
The cop asked me, "What the hell do you do with a 6 foot amazinhunk?"
I simply replied, "You give him a radar gun and park him on top of a
bridge.."
The ticket -- $95 dollars.
The look on his face, PRICELESS