"You may not know it yet..... but the Enron scandal died over the weekend"

January 15, 2002 8:11 PM

"You may not know it yet..... but the Enron scandal died over the weekend" John Podhoretz of the New York Post figures the Bush administration is not going to be damaged in any meaningful way by the collapse of the ill fated energy company, and makes some thought-provoking points explaining why he feels that way.
posted by BGM (59 comments total)

Not to dignify the rag that is the NYPost with a serious rebuttal, but it does trouble me that Bush supporters think somehow that glib comments somehow absolve the administration of any ties to the Houston based company that was Enron. It all has yet to be seen. It smells like graft and in Washington vague suspicion an innuendo is all it takes to push otherwise common sense folks into a frenzy of investigation. I certainly hope that these people did their dry cleaning in a timely fashion as we all know a little dried jizz can make all the difference in an administration. This time, the jizz is merely figurative and the dog faced woman has either yet to surface or remains anonymous behind her fears of impending calamity.
posted by shagoth at 8:32 PM on January 15, 2002

I think the biggest loser in all of this is either gonna be Rubin or leiberman. It's a shame, Joe was a stand up guy before he started hangin' out with the wrong crowd.
posted by Mick at 8:42 PM on January 15, 2002

John Podhotez, evenhanded dispassionate commentator.
posted by y2karl at 8:52 PM on January 15, 2002

Leiberman? Huh?
posted by raysmj at 8:54 PM on January 15, 2002

Oh, and it's Lieberman, not Leiberman. Just for future reference, for everyone - including myself.
posted by raysmj at 8:57 PM on January 15, 2002

Oops, I meant this John--but you get the picture...
posted by y2karl at 9:04 PM on January 15, 2002

I'll tiptoe on the Liberal Mefi Ice, but hey, I can have an opinion right? :)

Lieberman is in as deep if not deeper than any of them and yet he thinks he can run a fair investigation? What should the white house have done? You want GW to get up an tell people to sell sell sell? There's nothing wrong with taking money and *not* doing anything in exchange. So far I haven't seen any accusations of the white house giving any favors to Enron for their donations. (I should say since GW has been in office - Clinton did do some dirty deeds for his Enron payoff [During the Clinton administration, Lay stayed in the $100,000/night Lincoln Bedroom, served as an advisor to the administration on energy issues, played golf with Clinton and donated a lot of money. ENRON *did* benefit from Clinton policies, most notably the gas pipeline in Mozambique and a power plant in India.]).

Is Bush clean? I hope we find out. It's strange that no Allegations of wrongdoing have been made yet. Remember, it's not illegal to take money (right senator Lieberman?). I say more power to him if he took it and didn't do anything in return. That's about as good as it gets. If someone came to me and gave me $50,000 and said it would be nice if I could give them some corporate secrets, yet said that it's only a suggestion and no harm will come if I decide not to... well I'd take the money and not say a word. Also, I don't think it's illegal or immoral for Lieberman to have taken any money, but for him to turn this into a political gambit is hippocritical.

That being said, there should be a fair investigation, but I think the focus should be on ENRON's books and Arthur A's auditing. I hope I don't have to eat too much crow after the investigation ;)
posted by stormy at 9:37 PM on January 15, 2002

Of course you can have an opinion. Who the heck said you couldn't? Wow. A smidgen defensive without reason, aren't you? It's the lack of an explanation for Lieberman's being on the downfall list that bothered me. It was presumed that we were all supposed to know what the poster meant - or something like that, mixed with contempt for anything other than opinions of his own sort, whatever they may be.
posted by raysmj at 9:45 PM on January 15, 2002

Not to dignify the rag that is the NYPost with a serious rebuttal

You're an idiot!
posted by HTuttle at 9:47 PM on January 15, 2002

I hope the GOP really is deluded enough to think this scandal doesn't have legs. It will make the coming weeks all the more entertaining, as more penniless grandparents are trotted before Congress, more ties to Bush administration members come to light, and more incriminating memos surface.

They should have a better idea of how the game is played after Whitewater and impeachment. The Enron scandal has something both of those lacked -- thousands of victims.
posted by rcade at 9:52 PM on January 15, 2002

So far I haven't seen any accusations of the white house giving any favors to Enron for their donations.

stormy: One more. You don't think there were any, ever? You don't think anyone should bother to find out, ever? (No one in Congress here is blameless, I'm sure - and what committee is supposed to investigate, then, y'know?) You don't think that any favors were granted in one of Cheney's closed meetings, or that Enron or Lay didn't have *any* influence within the administration at any time? I'd like to see a non-partisan look at what went on, but I'm quite sure not going to get it from you. The uncalled for defensiveness gives you away.

Also, Citigroup, which Enron owes millions, is Joe's biggest contributor? And this means . . . what, exactly?
posted by raysmj at 9:55 PM on January 15, 2002

Have you all forgotten about how Enron profited from the mess in California?

As long as president's PR hacks can keep people focused on the less consequential aspects of the latest problems with Enron, the less focus will be upon the financial profits made at the expense of consumers in California.
posted by Sqwerty at 10:11 PM on January 15, 2002

hey stormy, i'm pretty sure we have different political affiliations, but i'm not in the least troubled by your opinion. especially as you bothered to research some it, and used that to help your argument. mefi can always benefit from those sort of responses.

as for the article, i don't have any idea whether the investigations will turn up anything, and neither does the columnist. at this point, it's all spin. but it's obvious the gop really wants the enron mess to just go away.

my hope is that something serious does come out of this. and the subsequent investigations and trials end up ruining political careers and land the politicians who stepped over the line in the federal pen. all of them, regardless of party affiliation.

let the chips fall where they may.
posted by lescour at 10:24 PM on January 15, 2002

Fron the Guardian: Bush, the corporations' flag-carrier--
Enron's collapse exposes the folly of his cash-for-influence policy
posted by y2karl at 10:41 PM on January 15, 2002

And from the Public I - An Investigative Report from The Center For Public Integrity: Fourteen Top Bush Officials Owned Stock in Enron.
posted by y2karl at 10:57 PM on January 15, 2002

Yes, a great many people lost massive amounts of money -- some of whom couldn't afford to lose any. Yes, the Bush Administration cozied up to Ken Lay and made some policy decisions that, in some cases generally, and in others specifically, favored Enron -- just as the Clinton Administration did before them. Yes, Republicans received a much larger proportion of campaign donations from Enron than did Democrats -- but politicos from both parties are hip deep in Enron- (and other energy concern-) tainted money, and have been for years.

The question is, where's the smoking gun? Where's the proof that either Bush Administration officials, or officials in the Clinton Administration before them, did anything wrong on behalf of Enron?

It's not there. Not yet. And maybe it never will be. Showing the Bush-bashing present in the comments above to be based purely on conjecture, not fact -- rooted, apparently, in prejudice, the result of, presumably, nothing more than sour grapes.
posted by verdezza at 11:02 PM on January 15, 2002

Sour grapes?! How about "we learned our lesson", namely that if the lack of even a smoking gun wouldn't deter 8 years of Clinton-hounding investigations of thin air, why the FUCK should lefties and Dems give Georgie boy the benefit of the fucking doubt?

God damn you to hell. This is like in a movie, when the villian is knocked down and has a sword/gun at him, suddenly begs for mercy- which the hero, being the hero, always gives at first. Naturally, the villian pounces up and attacks the hero with his back turned. Bullshit, I say. Absolute bullshit. 8 years that won't be forgotten, not by this Mefite for starters- I for one will keep supporting every effort to demonize and destroy the Bush presidency, just like the VRWC was determined to do the same to Clinton or whichever Democrat was unlucky enough to end up in the White House. If Bush and his Korrupt Kronies (note the freerepublic style 'K'- I told you we're learning our lessons) hand us something on a silver platter, like Enron may in fact be, all the better- but no matter. Just like Nixon and his acolytes- the Bushes among them- it's time the left learned to fight really dirty, to sling mud with the best of them, to assault and destroy all opponents, to slander and defame and make up accusations, because in the holocaust of public opinion no one ever seems to care about 'fact' or 'truth', only who fought hardest and nastiest.

It is NOT the responsibility of the left to clean up other people's messes, it is NOT the responsibility of the left to be good or decent or honest or noble NOW, when it benefits Republicans, after the 8 year assault that we witnessed first hand. It is NOT the responsibility of the left to maintain integrity that BUSH claimed he would restore to Washington- a 'restoration' that implied with it a constant slander of Clinton and the 'left' as lacking integrity. Fair enough- then we'll act the part, at long last, we'll act the part. Mercy? Try 'fuck you'.
posted by hincandenza at 11:55 PM on January 15, 2002

I for one will keep supporting every effort to demonize and destroy the Bush presidency

Way to take the moral high ground. I think you've just become what you profess to despise.
posted by MrBaliHai at 1:30 AM on January 16, 2002

Exactly. EXACTLY. Was there any other choice? My very point is why is it MY responsibility NOT to become what I despise? Why am I required to take the moral high ground when those I oppose never did?

Already, we hear the rightwing drumbeat that Enron somehow was the fault of Clinton or the Democrats, and the press sits stupidly and cowardly by as Bush baldfaced lies about his relationship with Kenneth Lay, or when he lies in claiming that Lay supported Ann Richards and not him in his first gubernatorial election, which is demonstrably false. It's as clear and deceptive a lie as "I did not have sex with that woman", yet outside of Houston dailies, it's not getting remotely that kind of coverage.

THIS IS WAR. Moral high ground is for losers.

You see, just like the right-wing attacked those who questioned the war effort or eroding civil liberties after September 11th as "Blame America First" types, as people unwilling to get in the dirt and do what needs to be done against ruthless, evil people. Well, now I, too, believe we on the left need to get in the dirt and do what needs to be done against ruthles, evil right-wingers.

Once again, why should I handcuff myself, why should anyone on the left handcuff themselves with bullshit about fairness or rights when no such concern has been shown by the right? This is take no prisoners war against the right, down and dirty make Nixon and Atwater look like fucking choirboys WAR. It was a war declared by the right wing way back in 1993, declared as clearly and articulately as two planes exploding into a skyscraper. I'm no fucking messiah, and I'm not about to sit idly by and be crucified by my own passivity or forgiveness or "compassion".

I recommend reading this much calmer column by William Raspberry of the Washington Post from last week, in which he ponders whether he's been wrong to assume those who disagree with him do so with the same sincerity as he sees in himself. I honestly believe that the right-wing is all about Holy War, about "beating" the left even if they have to run the country into the rocks to do so. And when you're having a Holy War waged against your own country, you fight back.
posted by hincandenza at 2:13 AM on January 16, 2002

You right-wingers better watch out! Now the left has frothing at the mouth, insane-o zealots looking for blood too!

I mean, this lefty pinko would personally prefer to investigate the matter, perhaps raise indictments and accusations based on the available facts...but I guess making stuff up, slander and fighting dirty could also work.
posted by Doug at 2:38 AM on January 16, 2002

Count me as a lefty pinko more interested in investigation than muckraking, too. Because honestly, I don't get it. Of all the things Bush et al have done that would really merit frothing at the mouth, this isn't one of 'em (so far.) This is one time, when it seems they've done everything right. It's not illegal for Bush to accept campaign contributions in exchange for nothing. It's not illegal for the government to choose NOT to broker back-room corporate welfare deals. I'm pretty sure it IS illegal for people with insider trading information to actually use it (whether to warn a lot of people to sell, sell, sell and fast, or no.) It's ethical AND legal to recuse yourself from a case wherein someone contributed to you earlier, to avoid a conflict of interest.

Right now, the only hint of badness I can see here is that maybe, possibly, Dick Cheney tried to broker favors on Enron's behalf (but we dunno, we don't have the transcripts of those meetings.) And perhaps, possibly, maybe somebody in a position to do something about their illegal business practices, did nothing. But again, we don't know. It's all speculation at this point. No, I did not approve of the Clinton Witchhunt that the Republicans enjoyed, but I guess what it boils down to is me being unwilling to stoop to that level. If we can't "win" fair, then I don't want to win.
posted by headspace at 3:37 AM on January 16, 2002

Hincandenza...count me in your corner. The history of this president with his corporate butt kissing and tax breaks for the elite make me ill. I'm not saying that he is alone in this or that some Democrats aren't just as easily moved by big donations of cash. But what drives me crazy is the double standard among the press and the public. Why are we giving this guy such a pass? The evidence of Bush getting his palms greased for political favors is not in doubt, yet where is the outrage? We're on the verge of human rights violations with the Taliban prisoners we've taken (as newspapers around the world are reporting) yet where is the outrage at home? And let's not even start with the civil rights violations that the Bush administration is responsible for in the US. I'm just not getting it. The "war" is over. We can't forget 9-11 or stop hunting terrorists, but this country has some major issues that we're just not dealing with. It's about time someone starts screaming.
posted by willrich at 3:48 AM on January 16, 2002

It's not illegal for the government to choose NOT to broker back-room corporate welfare deals.

But is it illegal to broker back room corporate money-making deals with anyone who has a few oil wells or a pipeline (or in Enron's case, an idea)? Or perhaps even deals with the Taliban? Please you guys...tell me when the standard changed because Clinton would have been on his way out by now.
posted by willrich at 3:56 AM on January 16, 2002

I seem to be reading more analysis that strikes me as partisan PR. I don't mean the apologetics of elected or party officials. I'm talking about journalists, people who, while entitled to their political opinions, are expected to rise above partisan imperatives and tell us what, to their minds, is going on. And almost all of this naked partisanship seems to be coming from the right.

Raspberry's right, of course.

As for you, Hincandenza:

We are more anxious to speak than to be heard.
Henry David Thoreau

But Hincadenza has a point, as the Florida recount demonstrated: Republicans play for keeps, play dirty, will do anything necessary to win. Democrats are more worried about appearing unfair and immoral.

Paul Krugman was right when he pointed out that the Republican party has veered sharply to the right while the Democrats have stayed close to the center. There is no Left in this country, not like the rest of the industrialized post-industrialized world, not like in Europe.

This will be interesting--Bush's 'I didn't know Ken Lay, he supported Ann Richards,' little white lie at his photo op is his I... Did.... Not... Have... Sex... With... That... Corporate... Contributor... That little Caught On Tape photo op lie was probably unscripted and will come back to bite him on the ass over and over. Ken "Kenny Boy" Lay, who gave 3 times more money than he gave Richards in Bush's gubernatorial run, whose corporate jet ferried Bush around on his primary run, got the federal regulators he wanted bought, the federal energy policy he wanted bought. I doubt Bush will be tied to this scandal but... it will damage him just the same. Them chickens are coming home... As Paul Krugman here notes.

And to call John Podhoretz's farrago of spin and innuendo thought provoking is as over the top as anything Hincandeza here said. You guys are grasping at straws, as panicked as the White House is over this.
posted by y2karl at 4:26 AM on January 16, 2002

The Enron thing will end with some crimminal prosecutions because of lies that went out to the public about the stock worth and the creatice accounting and the shredding of documents. Who is at fault? Well clearly both parties took lots of money from lobby groups.
Finally, it will be the system that gets sharply questioned. Many Americans were screwed by this collapse but it remains to see what sorts of protection and regulations are put into place to prevent it from happening again.
Ps: vidicates what Nader had been saying right along, not that I believe he alone even as president could have prevented it by singlehandly changing the system.
It is time for congress to regulate these greedy people and their lobbies that have a choke hold on our nation.
posted by Postroad at 4:27 AM on January 16, 2002

That's the thing, willrich, we don't know what they brokered. I don't think we should stop looking at the matter, I just can't do a happy, vicious dance of victory on graves that are being dug just out of spite and thus far, wishful thinking. It pisses me off that in spite of this administration's attempts to fund their religion, dismantle constitutional protections to an attorney-client privilege, chip away at the civil rights of anyone who disagrees with them, revoke not only a woman's right to merely be informed about abortion but also revoke her insurance coverage for the most effective birth control on the market from a governmental health insurance plan that continues to cover Viagra, AND reshape the press and public's right to free speech, that in the end, it's all coming down to an ambiguous money scandal that may not even have happened. Why the hell are we pissing into the wind hoping that this Enron deal turns something up, when we've already got a damned novel on Bush's constitutional abuses?
posted by headspace at 4:30 AM on January 16, 2002

raysmj, did you read the opinion article, it clearly states the mistake the Lieberman might have made (last paragraph), crying wolf, hoping for a scandal that he can champion so he'll look good going into 2004.

Some of you need to wipe the froth from off your lips.
posted by Mick at 5:15 AM on January 16, 2002

This is one time, when it seems they've done everything right. It's not illegal for Bush to accept campaign contributions in exchange for nothing.

We don't know that at this point, and frankly, I think it's extremely unlikely that the GOP did nothing to help Enron. The relationships between the Houston oil company and the GOP politicians there run deep. Much deeper than the handful of Democrats -- a TV report this week indicated that 90 percent of Enron's political contributions went to GOP candidates.

One relationship that looks fishy: Phil Gramm's wife Wendy was on Enron's audit board and she stepped down right before her husband's unexpected announcement that he was leaving the Senate. Did she know something? Did Sen. Gramm decide to leave because he could see this coming?

There are a hundred questions for every answer at this point, which is why it's either intentionally disingenuous or woefully stupid for Podhoretz to declare this Enron scandal "over." My bet is that he knows it isn't anywhere close to being over.
posted by rcade at 5:33 AM on January 16, 2002

Who cares about Lieberman? He's been in the pocket of big business for years. I agree that the Senate shouldn't set the foxes to guard the henhouse--or, rather, to investigate the mysterious disappearances from the henhouse (as happens all too often)--but the idea that anybody in the Democratic Party will stop talking about this just because Lieberman's reputation might be damaged is pretty ridiculous.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:33 AM on January 16, 2002

ABC news (hardly a bastion of right-wing idealogy) seems to agree with he basics of the NY Post opinion piece...

The White House has showed discipline in another way over this past weekend and Monday, staying on message and refusing to succumb to the Great Scandal Machine's call for all-Enron-all-the-time. And now the mantra "it's a business scandal, not a political scandal," in the absence of new facts, is taking hold in most quarters.

Even the Boston Globe agrees... When Joe Lieberman and Carl Levin begin public airing of this astonishing tale of duplicity, it is Enron and its see-no-evil accountants who will be in the cross hairs, not President Bush or top members of his administration.
posted by revbrian at 5:41 AM on January 16, 2002

There are a hundred questions for every answer at this point, which is why it's either intentionally disingenuous or woefully stupid for Podhoretz to declare this Enron scandal "over." My bet is that he knows it isn't anywhere close to being over.

Agreed. The hallmark of spin and "damage control" (which Podhoretz ironically notes as a Bush strength! -- this after constantly accusing the Clintons of being addicted to spin) is to engage partisans to declare the debate over before its begun, toss some distracting counter-accusations, and ridicule the opposition for its hopeless pursuit of a non-existent issue.

Enron was in startlingly deep with the administration in terms of influence: energy policy is a big Cheney concern, and Enron has been at the table in the construction of his and Bush's strategy. If they are exposed as con artists with regard to their stockholders and employees, the very least the administration owes the public is some explanation of why such theives were trusted advisors in the first place. (Not that I suspect any such thing would happen -- but it'd be the right thing to do.)

IMO, that's warrant for plenty dispassionate and thorough investigation, and no attempts by Rupert Murdoch's media machine should be dissuading us. I don't understand why that isn't obvious to anyone within shouting distance of the political center.
posted by BT at 5:56 AM on January 16, 2002

Once again - - amen, hincandenza.
posted by mac at 6:06 AM on January 16, 2002

rcade: That's all I'm saying. We don't know what happened. I want the investigation to go forward, I think there are a lot of issues that merit examination. If Bush & Co. are knee-deep in Enron droppings, I want to know about it. I'm just not comfortable jumping up to declare all of them guilty of something just because I want them to be guilty. Everybody is entitled to due process (even guys who are going out of their way to thwart it for other people on a daily basis.)
posted by headspace at 6:09 AM on January 16, 2002

but the idea that anybody in the Democratic Party will stop talking about this just because Lieberman's reputation might be damaged is pretty ridiculous.

The Democratic party does not elect the president, the electoral college does. Joe took a gamble to try to put himself ina position to be elected president, it looks like he'll end up doing more damage to his chances then good.
posted by Mick at 6:28 AM on January 16, 2002

I think this whole Enron situation might do a lot to illustrate the dominance of big money in politics. I doubt we'll ever find a smoking gun, or hard proof that Enron received special treatment for specific contributions, politicians and big donors are way too smart for that. We need to look into, as Daniel Schorr put it, the "regulatory black hole that Enron bought for itself," which goes back to George W.'s days as governor, when Enron was essentially writing Texas energy policy.

slightly off topic:
I love (love!) the way Podhoretz begins the article with a dismissive reference to the "mainstream media," as if he isn't part of it.
posted by Ty Webb at 7:40 AM on January 16, 2002

hincandenza: if you're so willing to stoop to the methods and tactics of those that you hate, then I find it impossible to believe that whatever government you'd put in it's place would be any better. You'd just be another gang of lying, cheating, thieving rascals hellbent on hanging onto power at whatever cost. Count me out of your jihad.

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.
posted by MrBaliHai at 7:59 AM on January 16, 2002

Though I must confess that I find all of the foaming at the mouth and gnashing of the teeth to be very entertaining, I'm having a hard time picturing a plausible political scandal that is likely to be buried here.

Perhaps one of you foamers and gnashers would like to supply the rest of us with your idea of the most likely scandal scenario.

To kick things off, here's mine:

Enron required Arthur Anderson's collusion in order to cook its books and hides some of its debt (hiding the debt is, after all, the crux of the financial scandal). Lay spoke to someone in the administration, who then used his or her contacts to Athur Anderson to line up the collusion.

Aside from that remote and very unlikely possibility, I just don't see any smoking guns (or even an obvious place to look for a smoking gun).

If the politicos were trading policy for dollars, Enron must have been asking for the wrong policy decisions because (news flash) the company is now bankrupt.

Those of you searching for a scandal with which to crucify the Bush administration would most likely be wise to spend your efforts elsewhere. There's a good chance you'll find your scandal, but I highly doubt Enron will be involved...
posted by syzygy at 8:10 AM on January 16, 2002

I agree with Hincandenza on part of what he says. I do not think that the Democrats should in any way stoop to the same underhanded tactics and feral mudslinging that the Republicans have mastered over the last eight years. There is something to be said for not betraying your own ideals.

However, he is right in saying that the Dems need to develop the same kind of pitbull tenacity as the GOP; the ability to bury their teeth in a target and not let go until it's run itself into the ground. There is a certain moral aloofness in the left, which I think is a good thing, but as we've seen in the last few months, standing on principles does not win you the support of the American people. If anything, it earns you their contempt as an "ivory tower liberal". We as a nation tend to agree with whoever shouts the loudest. Democrats need to shout louder.
posted by Hildago at 8:23 AM on January 16, 2002

Mick: What are you asking me about, exactly? I don't get it. Lieberman's heading an Congressional investigation; ergo, his reputation will be shot? Even Podhoretz doesn't argue that line. He just states that he thinks the senator's investigation is turning out to be a dud. That's as far as it goes.
posted by raysmj at 8:25 AM on January 16, 2002

I'm shocked - SHOCKED! - to find that politicians will give consideration to contributors beyond those they give to their constituents!

Round up the usual suspects! Oh, wait, the usual suspects are already rounded up. Nevermind, then.

Here's a solution I like: Eliminate the House of Representatives, and make America a direct democracy, where every citizen may vote on every issue every day. The reason we have a representative democracy is because back in the day the citizenry was small and spread out. But today's tech (net, phones, PINs) invalidates that. No more bribery, no more scandals.

It's a total fallacy that these dildoes are more capable than an educated citizenry at making good governmental decisions. I disagree with nearly everything Hincandenza says, but I believe he'd make 10x better decisions than any Congressman now in office, if only for the simple fact that in general he knows wtf he's talking about and he cares about more than money and power.
posted by UncleFes at 8:56 AM on January 16, 2002

[It's a total fallacy that these dildoes are more capable than an educated citizenry...]

You don't honestly believe we have an educated citizenry do you?
posted by revbrian at 9:22 AM on January 16, 2002

No. But they can't do any worse than the aforementioned dildoes, can they? And having the responsibility of actually making law might prompt those who are purely apathetic to take a more active stance on being educated on the issues.
posted by UncleFes at 9:30 AM on January 16, 2002

Of course we're all educated, most of us receive unbiased and completely open learning from Rupert Murdoch and friends.
posted by niceness at 9:33 AM on January 16, 2002

Interesting to note, by the way, that Paul Krugman's Crony Capitalism op-editorial which I linked above mentions the Red Herring piece on the Carlye Group that D recently posted.

Krugman:

Another administration would have regarded the elder Bush's role at Carlyle as unseemly; this administration apparently does not. And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently gave his old college wrestling partner Frank Carlucci, head of Carlyle, a very nice gift: Mr. Rumsfeld decided to proceed with the much-criticized Crusader artillery system, which even the Pentagon wanted to cancel. The result was another turnaround for a Carlyle-owned company.

Sad to say, none of this is clearly illegal — it just stinks to high heaven. That's why the Bush administration will try to keep the Enron story narrowly focused on one company during its death throes. Just remember that the real story is much bigger.
posted by y2karl at 9:39 AM on January 16, 2002

---"Of course we're all educated, most of us receive unbiased and completely open learning from Rupert Murdoch and friends."

Great point, and it goes to the main weakness of direct democracy: people will tend to support items which are both better marketed, which tilts the playing field severely toward those with more money to trumpet their message. The referendum process in my home state of Washington illustrates this as well: aside from a medical marijuana intitiative, most of the issues up for vote are tax issues. If you ask them if they want to be taxed less, whaddaya think they're gonna say? You can't force people to educate themselves.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:57 AM on January 16, 2002

Perhaps one of you foamers and gnashers would like to supply the rest of us with your idea of the most likely scandal scenario.

One possibility, among many: Documents are found that show a Bush administration official kept the SEC from looking too closely at Enron's creative accounting practices.

I don't see where people are getting the idea that there's no way a scandal could ever possibly exist in the GOP/Enron relationship.
posted by rcade at 10:36 AM on January 16, 2002

main weakness of direct democracy: people will tend to support items which are both better marketed

As opposed to simply bribing - er, sorry, delivering a compaign contribution to - one of 435 easily locatable congresspersons? I'd rather force the people who want to influence law to market to the entire country, if only for the fact that there will be some who are immune and will speak to the other side of the equation.

If you're worried that direct democracy will result in some bad laws, I'd say those horses have already left the barn, in big giant herds.

You can't force people to educate themselves.

No. Some people will always refuse to be educated. But if people regained the opportunity to affect the political proecss directly, I believe they'd take a greater interest in political affairs. I believe apathy is in good part a result from the separate of the individual citizen from the political process.

And the situation you describe (the anti-tax sentiment) could be a reaction by educated people to unfair new taxes, or governmental propensity to waste already-levied tax money. It could be something other than ignorance. There are bad taxes.
posted by UncleFes at 11:15 AM on January 16, 2002

---"But if people regained the opportunity to affect the political proecss directly, I believe they'd take a greater interest in political affairs."

people can affect the political process directly now, through activism, through lobbying, through public education, not to mention running for office. i've never seen any support for the claim that direct democracy would inspire more people to educate themselves and take part in politics. some people simply aren't inclined toward the science of government, they save that enthusiasm for sports or music or what have you. some people just want to do a days work, go home and have a beer and watch tv and not worry about farm policy, and i don't begrudge them that at all. to claim that every voter could or should be informed about the intricacies of government policy is idealistic, but fanciful.

Any representative democracy need a system in place that selects for those most inclined for governance (a loaded phrase, i know), and selects out entitled rich kids like george w. bush. instead, what we have is that pedigrees candidates based upon how much money they can raise.

---"... the situation you describe (the anti-tax sentiment) could be a reaction by educated people to unfair new taxes, or governmental propensity to waste already-levied tax money. It could be something other than ignorance. There are bad taxes."

I don't dispute that, which is why I believe in the system wherein representatives are empowered to deeper research and distinguish between necessary and unecessary taxes, and to make the hard choices that people simply will not make for themselves.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:58 AM on January 16, 2002

Excuse me: What we have is a system that pedigrees candidates based upon how much money they can raise.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:02 PM on January 16, 2002

Without a doubt, Democrats need to learn to play the game as down-n-dirty as the Republicans can. More Carville, less Donna Brazille I say. The problem a lot of the Nader/way-left folks seem to be stuck on is that taking the high road is the right thing to do. Sure, you'll feel okay and be able to puff your chest out, the right and conservatives will do what is necessary to pass their agenda. Democrats, and the left in general, needs to realize it is way past time to get our hands dirty and get right in the slop with the opposition if there is any hope to right the ship.
posted by owillis at 12:05 PM on January 16, 2002

people can affect the political process directly now, through activism, through lobbying, through public education, not to mention running for office.

Only that last one is direct; the others are processes to influence the legislature - to influence the representatives to view one's opinion as the correct one. But the problem is that a vocal minority can be disportionately represented by virtue of their volume. Is that fair? It certainly doesn't sound like democracy.

i've never seen any support for the claim that direct democracy would inspire more people to educate themselves and take part in politics.

And I've never seen any support that the indirect democracy inspires people either. If anything, there's evidence that the opposite is true, since we currently have a high degree of apathy amongst the electorate.

Any representative democracy need a system in place that selects for those most inclined for governance (a loaded phrase, i know), and selects out entitled rich kids like george w. bush. instead, what we have is that pedigrees candidates based upon how much money they can raise.

Heh. If the popular choice for representative is "selected out" and a more inclined person is selected, I'm pretty sure that's not democracy, either.

I believe in the system wherein representatives are empowered to deeper research and distinguish between necessary and unecessary taxes, and to make the hard choices that people simply will not make for themselves.

I would, too, if we had one. The truth is that the representatives are all too willing to abrogate that responsibility in favor of doing the bidding of those organizations that can help them retain power and influence, to the detriment of the constituency. That's why the tax code runs over a 1000 pages.

Democrats need to learn to play the game as down-n-dirty as the Republicans can.

As I recall, the Democrats are just as capable of graft, corruption and influence peddling as the Republicans are. Kettle, this is Pot: you're black! Dirty politics is not a civic virtue. Nor is it even remotely the sole property of the right. If there's to be graft and corruption, should not the beneficiaries be the citizens, rather than a select group of pedigreed money-raisers?
posted by UncleFes at 12:45 PM on January 16, 2002

---"And I've never seen any support that the indirect democracy inspires people either. If anything, there's evidence that the opposite is true, since we currently have a high degree of apathy amongst the electorate."

If that were so, then states with referendum process would show markedly higher voter turnout. They don't.

---"The truth is that the representatives are all too willing to abrogate that responsibility in favor of doing the bidding of those organizations that can help them retain power and influence, to the detriment of the constituency."

That's a broad generalization, unsupported by facts. Sure there are bad apples, but direct democracy would do nothing to fix that problem.

---"If the popular choice for representative is "selected out" and a more inclined person is selected, I'm pretty sure that's not democracy, either."

It's a form of democracy, apparently not one of which you approve. Of course, this thread seems to assume that more democracy is necessarily better, which I don't think is true.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:15 PM on January 16, 2002

Of course, this thread seems to assume that more democracy is necessarily better, which I don't think is true.
Better, maybe not. More just, certainly.
posted by thirteen at 1:39 PM on January 16, 2002

---"More just, certainly."

Again, that assertion is unsupported by any evidence. The referendum process in WA has saddled us with some of the most regressive taxes in the country, which one may argue is just or unjust, but the opinion that 'more democracy necessarily means more justice' is simply that. Let's not forget that a mob is also a democracy.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:52 PM on January 16, 2002

If that were so, then states with referendum process would show markedly higher voter turnout. They don't.

If that's true, point conceeded. But I assumed that local elections were better attended than federal elections.

That's a broad generalization, unsupported by facts.

This is an Enron thread, Ty. This "generalization" is the underlying supposition behind term limits, campaign fundraising restriction, and and end to corporate subsidies and corporate influence.

It's a form of democracy, apparently not one of which you approve.

Well, it sounds like the kind of "democracy" practiced in places like Zimbabwe, of which I damn well do not approve. Who chooses the selectees? Not the citizenry.

Let's not forget that a mob is also a democracy.

But a mob action is also subject to the law. Living in the People's Republic of Washington, I can understand your dismay with democracy :) BUT I could say that, if you are dissatisfied with the way in which the region you live practices its democracy, you have several options, including more involvement, or leaving the region for one that is less tax-inclined.
posted by UncleFes at 1:58 PM on January 16, 2002

---"This "generalization" is the underlying supposition behind term limits, campaign fundraising restriction, and and end to corporate subsidies and corporate influence."

I don't deny that many pols are on the take. The Enron situation has done a lot to illustrate this, but I hold that dirty politicians are the exception, not the rule. And corporate subsidies and influence should and do have their place at the table, just not at the head of the table.

---"Well, it sounds like the kind of "democracy" practiced in places like Zimbabwe, of which I damn well do not approve. Who chooses the selectees? Not the citizenry."

I think I wasn't clear about the term "select out". Right now our system "selects out" anyone without enough money to run. i think there should be different criteria. I wouldn't support a system in which anyone was prohibited from running.

---"BUT I could say"

...and you do... : )

---" that if you are dissatisfied with the way in which the region you live practices its democracy, you have several options, including more involvement, or leaving the region for one that is less tax-inclined."

I can handle the taxes, and WA is too damn beautiful for me to leave. I'm just pointing out that the referendum process as practiced in WA has done much to discredit the idea of direct democracy for me.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:12 PM on January 16, 2002

I hold that dirty politicians are the exception, not the rule

Conceded, if you define dirty as actively seeking to break laws and breaking them. But imo their legislators have instead actively kept the laws vague and toothless so as to permit themselves to operate "...without any controlling legal authority."

I wouldn't support a system in which anyone was prohibited from running.

We already have that system. Try running for President at age 25 :) But I agree, being able to raise funds should not be the overriding factor in whether or not one may run for office.

I'm just pointing out that the referendum process as practiced in WA has done much to discredit the idea of direct democracy for me.

Understandable. I like the idea of direct democracy, because it puts the individual voter back in the driver's seat of the political process, and I dislike the aristocratic aura with which our congressmen seem so willing to cloak themselves in. I like it because every citizen - smart or stupid, black or white - has an equal vote. And I like it because I do truly believe that it would energize our apathetic electorate, despite your misgivings.
posted by UncleFes at 2:32 PM on January 16, 2002

Direct Democracy is a horrible, horrible idea. While majority vote is good for some things, it is an absolutely terrible way to make day-to-day decisions.

Standard analogy: Suppose Gary Kasparov challenged the entire United States to a game of chess. Would we be more likely to win if we had the populace vote on every move, or if we elected our best chess player (or players) to challenge him?
posted by jaek at 5:40 PM on January 16, 2002

Standard analogy: Suppose Gary Kasparov challenged the entire United States to a game of chess. Would we be more likely to win if we had the populace vote on every move, or if we elected our best chess player (or players) to challenge him?

We could vote and decide not to play him. We could vote and lose, and who cares. I do admire your faith in what I consider to be a failed system, but I would rather have the vote. Maybe it would not be perfect if we voted on everything, but it would be much improved if we voted on a hell of a lot more than we do now. Representative democracy has given us nothing that was not bitter and overpriced.
posted by thirteen at 6:33 PM on January 16, 2002