SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (17129)7/11/2002 7:13:06 AM
From: E  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21057
 
I thought that was funny.

But if you can't see the fallacies in it, you'll have to deal with having been a credulous person. Not my problem!

I dare say someone, not I, will go through it and show why it is so obviously merely the Case for the Defense. Which is: They don't have the smoking gun, so he's not indictable, and that's enough for his fans. Read it as though it was a defense of Clinton, Mr. or Ms., and see how funny it is.

I think I'll poke you with a stick and go back to bed. I can't stand Maureen, but it's worth it, poke poke!

July 10, 2002
Slouching Toward Populism
By MAUREEN DOWD

ASHINGTON — It must be frustrating for the George Bushes.

They go through all the motions of proclaiming that they're self-made Texas bidnessmen.

They become president by acting more red-blooded than blue-blooded.

They whup small, backward countries that brutalize their own people and get dizzying approval ratings.

And then, after everything they've done, after all the laurels and plaudits, that darn economy gets its knickers in a twist.

And they are hounded by the same old question they have designed their lives to avoid: Can a Bush — born on third base but thinking he hit a triple — ever really understand the problems of the guys in the bleachers?

Despite the efforts of W. and Karl Rove to use Poppy's one-term presidency as a reverse playbook, to instead aim for the populist two-term touch of Ronald Reagan, the junior Bush now finds himself combating the same accusations of elitism that cost his father re-election.

By November 1991, with the demise of the blue-collar bard Lee Atwater and the decline of the economy, the rich white guys running the first Bush administration were openly admitting they were in a fog of privilege.

"Bush's idea of solving a domestic problem is to fire the maid and yell at the butler," chortled the Democratic senator Tom Harkin of Iowa.

The Democrats are going to town again on Bush obliviousness. America is repulsed by corporate gluttony and accounting racketeering. And the younger Bush must prove that his connection to the common man goes deeper than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

The 180-degree turn from "Kenny Boy" to "Book Kenny" is going to be tricky.

How can Mr. Bush crack the whip on Big Business when he's a wholly owned subsidiary of it? His dynastic ties to business gave him his career in oil and baseball, provided the record-breaking $100 million that made him president, and spawned his C.E.O. administration.

How can Mr. Bush lecture companies on setting a moral tone, getting tough on accounting practices and ending "malfee-ance," as he calls it, when there are pesky questions about his own windfall at Harken Energy? (His $848,560 stock cash-in made Hillary, the Cattle Queen of commodities trading, look like a piker for only taking home $100,000.)

The president's speech on Wall Street yesterday was a Karl Rove production, making all the right noises, with the reassuring blue "Corporate Responsibility" backdrop. But TV viewers who looked lower on the screen could see the Dow arrow sliding down steadily, off 178 points for the day.

Mr. Rove pushed W. out to the White House press room on Monday so he would not seem to be evading corporate responsibility for himself while preaching it for others.

But the president was acting petulant. When a reporter asked why he did not attend the N.A.A.C.P. meeting in Houston this week, Mr. Bush impatiently brushed off the question, noting that Colin Powell and Condi Rice work for him. So, once you give the estimable Colin Powell a job, you don't need to reach out to the rest of the black community?

Like his father before him, the president resents being challenged — on his judgment or on his trustworthiness. He just wants the country to take it on faith that he and Dick Cheney, who got filthy rich at Halliburton, and Army Secretary Thomas White, who got filthy rich at Enron, are "good actors," as he puts it.

Poppy, at some level, always knew and subtly acknowledged that his Texas up-from-bootstraps story line was a pose. He never gave up the summers in Kennebunkport, the preppy threads, the patrician posture, the upward tilt of his chin.

Junior, with his pseudo-James-Dean-in-"Giant" lectern slouch, believes he's the real thing, coated in Midland dust. He sees himself as self-made and anti-elitist. But given his slacker start, he ended up relying even more on family connections for business and political success than his father did.

He bought a dusty ranch in Crawford to show he's not a New England preppy. But he got the money for the 1,600-acre spread by having the famous name of a New England preppy.

He talks the populist talk, while walking the elitist walk.

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy



To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (17129)7/11/2002 7:22:39 AM
From: E  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21057
 
Thursday, July 11, 2002

Bush Took Oil Firm's Loans as Director
Practice Would Be Banned in President's New Corporate Abuse Policy

As a Texas businessman, President Bush took two low-interest loans from an oil company where he was a member of the board of directors, engaging in a practice he condemned this week in his plan to stem corporate abuse and accounting fraud.

Bush accepted loans totaling $180,375 from Harken Energy Corp. in 1986 and 1988, according to Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Bush was a director of Harken from 1986 to 1993, after he sold his failed oil and gas exploration concern to the company. He used the loans to buy Harken stock.

Corporate loans to officers came under scrutiny after WorldCom Inc., the long-distance carrier that last month reported huge accounting irregularities, revealed it had lent nearly $400 million to Bernard J. Ebbers to buy the company's stock when he was chief executive. He resigned in April as the stock price tumbled.

Bush attacked corporate loans during his speech on Wall Street on Tuesday, when he offered proposals to tighten the accountability of corporate executives while stopping short of the tougher measures headed toward passage in the Senate. "I challenge compensation committees to put an end to all company loans to corporate officers," he said.

A senior administration official, briefing reporters on Bush's plan, said Tuesday that Bush wants public companies to ban loans to their officers, including directors. "Corporate officers should not be able to treat a public company like their own personal bank," the official said.

The contrast between Bush's record as a business executive and his rhetoric in the face of corporate scandals underscores the challenge his administration faces in trying to credibly foster what he calls "a new era of integrity in corporate America."

Bush was investigated by the SEC in 1991 for possible illegal insider trading, although the SEC did not take action against him, and he has admitted making several late disclosures to the agency, which regulates public companies.

Harken's loans to Bush -- at 5 percent interest, below the prime rate -- were reported several times in filings to the SEC in the years before the debt was retired in 1993 and were noted in news accounts at the time. The loans were for the purchase of Harken stock, which was then held as collateral.

Rajesh K. Aggarwal, a Dartmouth College professor who specializes in executive compensation and incentives, said such loans "are not unique, but are by no means widespread."

White House communications director Dan Bartlett said Harken offered the loans to directors to buy shares in the company as part of an incentive for board members "to have a long-term commitment with the company." Bartlett said the loans to Bush were "totally appropriate -- there was no wrongdoing there."

"This is a common practice in small, medium and large companies," Bartlett said. "These recent abuses of certain types of loans led the president to believe that the government should draw a bright line concerning loans going forward. This is one of the main things that undermined the confidence of investors and shareholders."

Bartlett said the loans were for $96,000 in 1986, for 80,000 shares, and $84,375 in 1988, for 25,000 shares. He said that in 1993, Harken changed its compensation policies and discontinued the loan program. He said Harken converted to a program giving directors stock options, allowing them to buy stock later at a fixed price.

Bartlett, asserting that Bush did not profit on the loans, said Bush traded the 105,000 shares being held as collateral for the loans, retiring his debt. Bush then received 42,503 options under the new compensation plan, Bartlett said. The options were never exercised and expired after Bush left the board, Bartlett said.

With administration officials privately expressing concern about the impact of so much fresh attention to old questions about Bush's career, the White House yesterday distributed talking points headlined "If you get asked about Harken" to Bush loyalists who might be contacted by reporters. Bartlett said the fact sheets were sent to members of Congress after they asked for them.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said aides to Bush have "talked to the private accountants and private counsels who are involved in the president's private transactions" while preparing answers to reporters' questions during the growing debate over corporate responsibility.

Vice President Cheney also is receiving unwanted attention to his corporate past. The SEC is investigating an accounting practice begun by Halliburton Co., the Dallas-based energy services company, when Cheney was chief executive before joining Bush's campaign ticket.

Also yesterday, the White House refused to release records of Bush's service on Harken's board. Bush had pointed to those records during a news conference on Monday when asked about his role in the sale of a subsidiary. The transaction later was used by Harken to mask losses.

"You need to look back on the director's minutes," Bush said.

Bartlett said the administration does not have the minutes and does not plan to ask Harken for them. "He personally would not have access to them," Bartlett said. "These are company documents. I can't release something I don't have."

Harken has declined to release board records ever since questions about Bush's record on the board were raised during his first campaign for Texas governor, in 1994.

Bartlett also said the White House would not accept a challenge by Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) on Sunday to ask the SEC to make public the records of its investigation into whether Bush had engaged in illegal insider trading of Harken stock.

Daschle said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that Bush would do well to ask the SEC to release the file. "We've had different explanations as to what actually occurred," Daschle said. "I think that would clarify the matter a good deal."

Bartlett said Bush will not do that. "Those are documents in the possession of an independent regulatory agency," Bartlett said. "I'm not in a position to call on them to do that. We've made available every relevant document we have in our possession."

Administration officials said they would take the same position about an SEC investigation that resulted in Harken's restating its earnings to show a $12.6 million loss for a quarter instead of an earlier reported loss of $3.3 million. Bush was a member of the board's audit committee.

Staff writer Dan Balz contributed to this report.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company



To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (17129)7/11/2002 7:55:49 AM
From: E  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 21057
 
Who was it that was ridiculing the Dems for being poll-driven? Now, I know the source is one of the L words, but the figures aren't.

Maybe I'll put my poking-stick down now. It's almost too late to go back to bed. This has been fun, though.

George W., Poll Junkie

Back when president Bush was still candidate Bush, harping on the need to restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office, one of his most reliable applause lines was his pledge to govern "not by polls and focus groups, but by principle" -- an obvious shot at the poll-driven presidency of Bill Clinton. During one stump speech, Bush challenged voters to "ask my Texans whether I stand on principle or on polls and focus groups."

So it was no small embarrassment when the April issue of The Washington Monthly revealed that, contrary to his public assurances, Bush was spending an awful lot of money on polling. It turned out that the Republican National Committee (RNC), which pays the White House polling bill, had forked over nearly $350,000 to Bush's principal pollsters -- Matthew Dowd, Fred Steeper, and Jan van Lohuizen -- and had spent close to $1 million overall on polls and focus groups in 2001. True to current form, the Bushies couldn't seem to get their message straight, alternately claiming that the actual number spent on polling was $731,000, or $336,000, or even ... nothing. (In an April 18 Roll Call article, then-presidential adviser Karen Hughes suggested that Republican pollsters such as Frank Luntz submitted polling voluntarily. "He's doing it for himself," Hughes said.)

But a recent Washington Post headline ("Bush Turns More Partisan With Coming of Elections") got us thinking: If Bush spent so much money in an off year like 2001, what's his polling bill for a midterm election year? A trip to the Federal Elections Commission to examine RNC disbursement filings confirms that Bush is well ahead of last year's pace. In the first three months of 2002, Bush's three principal pollsters collected more than $236,000. Extrapolate that figure across the rest of the year and they can expect to collect more than $944,000.

And that's not all. As one Republican pollster told us, the Bush White House prefers to spread its polling work across multiple firms. So far this year, the RNC has spent $317,100 on polling, which would project to about $1.3 million -- and because polling will only intensify as the November elections heat up, the actual numbers are certain to be much higher.

A couple of years ago, on Meet the Press, Bush confessed to Tim Russert, "I've been, frankly, amazed at the amount of polling that goes on to determine the behavior in the White House." To which we can now reply: So are we.

Copyright © 2002 by The American Prospect, Inc.



To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (17129)7/11/2002 1:05:00 PM
From: E  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 21057
 
Laz, I don't want you to miss this one from OMD.

Message 17722965

Should the people, or Bush's lawyers and PR people, get to decide whether Bush is hiding unethical behavior or not?