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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (1719)	7/10/2002 1:12:37 PM
From: Mannie	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 89467

<why do stocks look to Bush for inspiration?> Especially after that lame speech yesterday. There was absolutely zip in that speech, other than bs fed to the general public. That speech wasn't aimed at the CEO or accounting firm that might be a bit astray. That will lead to exactly nothing. I loved when Bush defended himself when asked about his Harken Energy stack sales...he said "accounting isn't exactly black & white." Exactly, and what should it be? Black and white.....black ink on white paper. This guy doesn't want the smoke to be cleared. And while I'm ranting, Bush stated a couple of more times that we are in a war. Well, if we are why do we not declare a war? Again, he doesn't want the smoke to be cleared. OK, carry on. scott

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (1719)	7/10/2002 1:18:00 PM
From: SOROS	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Crazies everywhere. I've been harping on this for a while now -- actions speak louder than words -- both for the President and "religious" people and "Americans" and CEOs and foreigners, etc. etc. These two morons should be tied down and beaten until their kidneys fail. cnn.com

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (1719)	7/10/2002 1:20:11 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

The Corporate Scandals: Coming Clean The New York Times Editorial July 10, 2002 When George W. Bush speaks about corporate misbehavior and self-dealing by business insiders, he perches on a platform much weaker than the one from which he launched the war on terrorism. Instead of the sense of resolve and determination he showed after Sept. 11, the president is still struggling to prove that his past business dealings have not made him a product of the very system he now denounces. The president dismisses criticism of his record as political. But if he expects to restore confidence in corporate America, he needs to get his own house in order first. On Monday the president attempted to explain why the methods he employed as an oil company executive years ago are different from the insider trading and creative accounting now undermining the credibility of corporate America. He made the disastrous mistake of arguing that in his case, accounting rules were "not always black and white." For a president whose foreign policy, and entire political outlook, is based on the idea that the world can indeed be divided into good and bad, black and white, nothing could have sounded worse. The president needs to speak much more frankly about the money he made in selling his faltering oil company to Harken Energy of Texas — and later selling Harken shares shortly before the company's stock price collapsed. Harken also engaged in questionable bookkeeping practices while Mr. Bush served on its board. While the S.E.C. has found no illegalities, he would be a more persuasive advocate of reform if he found a way to acknowledge that this deal, the foundation of his personal fortune, is not a shining example of the stern code of responsibility he now demands that executives follow. The most sensitive spot in Mr. Bush's résumé has always been the strong suspicion that his success as a businessman was due in the main to his family connections. That becomes relevant if it means that the president places too much emphasis on personal loyalty and team spirit. It is not enough for Mr. Bush to declare that someone in his administration is a good man. He needs to show that he understands that good men sometimes do bad things when they are entrusted with power, and that it is the government's job to keep them accountable. Mr. Bush has repeatedly failed to make tough personnel decisions about people he regards as part of the team. It is inexcusable that Tom White, a former Enron executive, is still holding his job as Army secretary. And any clear-sighted administration would realize that Harvey Pitt, a former lawyer for the accounting industry, is not the right advocate as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission for tough new accounting standards long opposed by the industry. The administration was overly permissive when it came to demanding that cabinet members follow the rules for divesting themselves of their personal stock holdings. And Mr. Bush sees nothing wrong with the fact that Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force still refuses to release the names of the businessmen who advised the administration on its energy policy. Now Mr. Cheney's former company, Halliburton, is being investigated by the S.E.C. for practices carried out while he was in charge. The public needs some frank explanations, but Mr. Cheney has declined to comment. It's far too late for Mr. Bush to go back and demonstrate that he could have been a successful businessman even if his name were George Walker. What we need is a president who sets an example of the standards he wants corporate America to adopt. If he can't do that, his critics will have grounds to poke at that tender spot in his personal history again and again. nytimes.com