Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (4224)	7/10/2002 1:36:53 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Looking Anew at Value of a Corporate Pedigree The New York Times July 3, 2002 By RICHARD W. STEVENSON WASHINGTON, July 2 - George W. Bush is the first president with an M.B.A., and his administration once proudly promoted its corporate experience as evidence of how it could bring boardroom smarts to governance and policy. But as the hard-charging, profit-producing, globe-conquering chief executive of the 1990's gives way in popular culture to the disgraced, book-cooking defendant of the post-boom era, the political appeal of a corporate pedigree is no longer so certain. It could hold particular peril for Mr. Bush and his team as they respond to the wave of corporate financial scandals by taking a hard line against executives found to have misled investors. In essentially saying there should be a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to corporate ethical breaches, the president has opened the door to a re-examination of his own business record, as well as the records of Vice President Dick Cheney, members of his cabinet and other administration officials who have logged time in the corner office. While Mr. Bush and other officials have always said they have nothing to hide, they are already finding their effort to position themselves as guardians of investor trust complicated by questions about their own handling of accounting issues, stock sales and the like. Just today, Mr. Bush was asked about his sale of stock 12 years ago in the Harken Energy Corporation, a company whose board he had joined after selling it another company he had run. Mr. Bush sold the stock as it was falling in value, and before the company publicly disclosed a loss that sent the stock down further. The transaction was examined at the time by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which took no action against him. The issue came up again today after Paul Krugman, a columnist for The New York Times, recounted the transaction and noted that the commission's decision not to pursue the case came while Mr. Bush's father was president. "Everything I do is fully disclosed, it's been fully vetted," Mr. Bush said when asked about the topic by reporters as he visited Milwaukee today. "Any other questions?" As the corporate scandals have unfolded, driving down stock prices as the economy struggles to recover from last year's recession, Mr. Bush has been increasingly outspoken about the duties and responsibilities of corporate executives - and about his belief that executives who defraud investors and cost employees their jobs should be prosecuted aggressively. He has proposed initiatives to tighten oversight of accounting, make better information available to investors and to hold executives more accountable for any wrongdoing. He is expected to lay out additional proposals next Tuesday in a speech in New York. "No violation of the public's trust will be tolerated," Mr. Bush said on Saturday in his weekly radio talk. But Democrats sense in the corporate scandals an issue that might finally dent Mr. Bush's approval ratings. They are making a case that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, during their time in the corporate world, would not have been able to live up to the policies they are advocating now. "Perhaps the reason the Bush administration took so long to take action on this issue is because they want to avoid having fingers pointed at the president and vice president who engaged in the behavior they are now attempting to reform," the Democratic National Committee said today in documents it distributed to reporters. As Democrats pointed out, the Securities and Exchange Commission found that Mr. Bush filed the required disclosure forms about his Harken stock sales weeks or even months late. Yet this spring he proposed that corporate officers be required to disclose sales of company stock within two days. There is also increased attention on Mr. Cheney's tenure as chief executive of Halliburton, the oil field services company. The securities commission disclosed in May that it had begun an inquiry into Halliburton's accounting practices during 1998, while Mr. Cheney was running the company. Mr. Cheney has declined to comment on the inquiry. Harvey Pitt, the commission chairman, said last weekend that his agency would follow the inquiry wherever it led. "We don't give anyone a pass," Mr. Pitt said on ABC's "This Week." Given that his cabinet includes former corporate executives like Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill, who ran Alcoa, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who headed G. D. Searle and General Instrument, Mr. Bush is sure to find the rest of his administration's corporate past scrutinized by journalists and his political opponents. Political analysts and pollsters also said the change in public opinion about business and its relations with politics and fund-raising might be only beginning, presenting a continuing challenge to Mr. Bush and his party - especially since more and more voters own stock directly or through retirement plans. "The transformation is clearly under way, and I don't see any signs that it's about to peak and go away," said Kevin Phillips, the political commentator and the author of "Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich." "The nature of the transgressions makes it likely that we're only seeing the one-tenth of two-tenths that are above the surface. This is a major problem for the administration." Republicans said that Democrats had failed to do any political damage to Mr. Bush on other issues and that they were unlikely to succeed in painting him as a tool of corporate interests now as long as the president continued to take a hard line against corporate wrongdoing. "Bush is using the word that matters more than anything else, and that's `accountability,' " said Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster. "That's exactly what Americans want to hear. The language the Democrats use is too angry, and it doesn't resonate because it's too political. No one thinks they're doing it for the average working man or woman. They're doing it for political reasons, and that's why they lose credibility." nytimes.com Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company

To: Mephisto who wrote (4224)	7/10/2002 12:31:59 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 15516

SALON COMES OUT SWINGING Mephisto, Here's what Salon has just started in response to Bush's malfeasance: Joe Conason Debuts Daily Journal at Salon.com Look out, George! In his new gloves-off daily journal, Joe Conason pounds President Bush for his evasive and ever-changing accounts of his own stock scam Salon Editor's note: Salon is proud to present the first installment of Joe Conason's daily Web journal. Salon's longtime political columnist will bring his gloves-off approach to the news -- and to the Bush administration -- every day, updating it as events demand. One day a week, it will be available exclusively to Salon Premium subscribers. Source: mediawhoresonline.com """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" SALON SITE: salon.com Lou Dobbs downgrades President Bush And so do I. Editor's note: This week, Salon is proud to present the debut of Joe Conason's daily Web journal. Salon's longtime political columnist will bring his gloves-off approach to the news -- and to the Bush administration -- every day, updating it as events demand. One day a week, it will be available exclusively to Salon Premium subscribers. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Joe Conason July 9, 2002 \| I'm with Lou If Lou Dobbs found the President's speech hollow and unimpressive, who am I to argue? The venerable CNN business anchor and commentator is a no-nonsense, flag-in-the-lapel kind of guy who doggedly defended Arthur Andersen against the "excesses" of the Justice Department. He's no left-winger. His instant reaction when Bush finished was that this represented yet another rhetorical exercise ("no capitalism without conscience") instead of a new reformist departure. He noted disapprovingly that the President had failed to mention the need to treat executive stock options as corporate expenses. I thought that amid all those sonorous fortune-cookie phrases ("no wealth without character") he offered a few decent proposals but I just don't find him credible on this topic. When George W. Bush talks about the importance of honest business practices and corporate integrity, it's like listening to Bill Clinton lecture about chastity. (Which Clinton would, thankfully, never do.) "Can you ever give Bush the benefit of the doubt?" asked someone whose first impression of today's speech was better than mine (or Lou's). I suppose I could, except for one problem that gnaws. Until Bush resolves the questions about his role at Harken Energy and the subsequent SEC probe, he will have little moral authority to urge reform on corporate leaders -- or send any of them to prison. He was not exonerated by the SEC, but he might be able to exonerate himself by disclosing the case file. He didn't help himself by dodging that question yesterday. Meanwhile his administration remains a haven for dubious corporate figures, from Army Secretary Thomas White to Vice President Dick Cheney, now under investigation himself by the SEC for his strange stewardship of Halliburton. Equally dim is the Bush record on "transparency," which in government means freedom of information and full disclosure of special interest influence. The attorney general issues new directives every month to shut off information from the public and the press. The vice president still resists the release of his Energy Task Force records, replete with visits from the minions of Enron and kindred companies. This is the opposite of transparency. [Posted: 4:30 p.m. PST, July 9, 2002] <Continues online.............>

To: Mephisto who wrote (4224)	7/10/2002 12:33:03 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

SALON COMES OUT SWINGING Mephisto, Here's what Salon has just started in response to Bush's malfeasance: Joe Conason Debuts Daily Journal at Salon.com Look out, George! In his new gloves-off daily journal, Joe Conason pounds President Bush for his evasive and ever-changing accounts of his own stock scam Salon Editor's note: Salon is proud to present the first installment of Joe Conason's daily Web journal. Salon's longtime political columnist will bring his gloves-off approach to the news -- and to the Bush administration -- every day, updating it as events demand. One day a week, it will be available exclusively to Salon Premium subscribers. Source: mediawhoresonline.com """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" SALON SITE: salon.com Lou Dobbs downgrades President Bush And so do I. Editor's note: This week, Salon is proud to present the debut of Joe Conason's daily Web journal. Salon's longtime political columnist will bring his gloves-off approach to the news -- and to the Bush administration -- every day, updating it as events demand. One day a week, it will be available exclusively to Salon Premium subscribers. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Joe Conason July 9, 2002 \| I'm with Lou If Lou Dobbs found the President's speech hollow and unimpressive, who am I to argue? The venerable CNN business anchor and commentator is a no-nonsense, flag-in-the-lapel kind of guy who doggedly defended Arthur Andersen against the "excesses" of the Justice Department. He's no left-winger. His instant reaction when Bush finished was that this represented yet another rhetorical exercise ("no capitalism without conscience") instead of a new reformist departure. He noted disapprovingly that the President had failed to mention the need to treat executive stock options as corporate expenses. I thought that amid all those sonorous fortune-cookie phrases ("no wealth without character") he offered a few decent proposals but I just don't find him credible on this topic. When George W. Bush talks about the importance of honest business practices and corporate integrity, it's like listening to Bill Clinton lecture about chastity. (Which Clinton would, thankfully, never do.) "Can you ever give Bush the benefit of the doubt?" asked someone whose first impression of today's speech was better than mine (or Lou's). I suppose I could, except for one problem that gnaws. Until Bush resolves the questions about his role at Harken Energy and the subsequent SEC probe, he will have little moral authority to urge reform on corporate leaders -- or send any of them to prison. He was not exonerated by the SEC, but he might be able to exonerate himself by disclosing the case file. He didn't help himself by dodging that question yesterday. Meanwhile his administration remains a haven for dubious corporate figures, from Army Secretary Thomas White to Vice President Dick Cheney, now under investigation himself by the SEC for his strange stewardship of Halliburton. Equally dim is the Bush record on "transparency," which in government means freedom of information and full disclosure of special interest influence. The attorney general issues new directives every month to shut off information from the public and the press. The vice president still resists the release of his Energy Task Force records, replete with visits from the minions of Enron and kindred companies. This is the opposite of transparency. [Posted: 4:30 p.m. PST, July 9, 2002] <Continues online.............>