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.

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

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (17497)	7/15/2002 10:33:05 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Bush sold stock as an insider to buy a baseball team, and reported it late, but the SEC decided after a review (how do they know it was "perfunctory"?) not to pursue the matter. (This is the review we debated last week whether it constituted "exoneration"). Let's not forget to mention that the timing of the sale, relative to impending disclosures about the financial state of the company, was just a bit too fortuitous to write off as coincidence. Unless, of course, you're the helmsman of the good ship Denial. The fact that the SEC declined to pursue doesn't really mean much. We all know that people get away with this stuff all the time. If the information is communicated in private conversation, and the person who communicated it does not step forth and announce that fact, it is virtually impossible to prove that any impropriety took place. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (17497)	7/15/2002 10:37:15 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 21057

The article isn't even accurate as I recall the circumstances and timing. In fact, I think Bush had already bought into the team and the stock proceeds were used to repay a loan he got to put up his initial stake.....

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (17497)	7/15/2002 10:18:29 PM
From: E	Respond to of 21057

Mostly I agree with what you said, though I think it's a pretty good attempt at a hatchet job, not an artless one. It mentions a number of items, such as his failures in business, that don't in themselves mean he couldn't be a good president. On the other hand, they reflect on his resume, which the other side pretends is not distinctly unimpressive. That means it's fair comment to point out in what ways it is, I think. The article talks about unappetizing family history, which I agree isn't relevant. JFK's family history wasn't lovely, either. And neither is Gore's family hx lovely-- there was some sort of unsavory connection with Armand Hammer. And it has been mentioned in republican hatchet jobs many times. Don't get me wrong: if the choices are Bush and Gore, I expect to stay home from the polls for the first time in my life. Ridgeway got the stock sale thing wrong, btw: Bush borrowed 600k to buy the team, and 15 months later was when he sold his stock and paid back the loan. I think if he'd sold the stock to buy the team it would appear more innocent than if he just used the proceeds, 1.25 years later, to pay off a loan. Urgency to sell isn't implied in the second case. If Bush's people imply, as they have, that "he sold the stock to pay back the loan," I think it's fair comment to point out that although that's what he did with the money, there's no reason to think some urgent necessity to pay back the loan (as opposed to to getting out while the getting was good) necessitated the stock sale. They're relying on naivete to sell that story. I believe the SEC investigation was perfunctory: They never questioned Bush. They never questioned any member of the BOD, or any of the officers of Harken, or anyone who might have been the source of a tip off. The VP was Bush's Dad, the head of the SEC had been appointed by Dad, and the SEC General Counsel, the one who would in the normal course of things make decisions about legal action, was Dubya's personal attorney, the very one who later negotiated the Texas Rangers deal. I strongly suspect, on circumstantial evidence, that it was a "kid gloves" investigation... of course if the docs were released, one would know more.] [continued ---> ... I have too many posts in my inbox to reply to, so i'm mainly replying to you....]

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (17497)	7/15/2002 10:31:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Basically, though, imo, the situation is that for years the Republicans have behaved in a certain way toward and about Clinton. They've been rabid and vicious and obsessed, and also imo, unpatriotic. Such as he is, Clinton was the president, and had an important job to do, but they were undeterred and clearly didn't care an iota about what happened to the country as they preoccupied the leader of the free world with their multi-million dollar fishing expedition and sniping and undermining of the ability of the only president we had to function in the role in which he was needed. It was a shameful display of partisan politics (and incidentally made us the laughing stock of the world.) I think everyone should remember the attention paid to WW & Hillary's 100k commodities futures deal when they are shocked, shocked, at the attention paid to Bush's insider trading deal. And as for the hatchet job-mentality, I myself have been called a Clintonista on SI many times, in spite of the fact that I absolutely loathe the man, have never said a a single positive word about him, have said many negative ones, have no respect for him whatever (well, he seems to have a good memory and a high IQ, for all the good they did him). Almost two years into Bush's term, do you notice how often Clinton is raised as Pure Evil and Bush contrasted as Mr. Clean? [I should have put that in the past tense; he is no longer going to be proposed as the Refreshingly Ethical President, though much mileage will continue to be gotten out of his not getting BJ's in the Oval Office.] So when I read an article pointing out any disparity in the image the RWers have been trying to sell of Bush and the reality, even regarding irrelevancies like where his family's money came from, I can't resist giving them a bit of sauce for their gander. Hey, at least no one has insulted Bush's wife's physical appearance. If I had any influence in the world, and were talking to more than a half dozen cybercolleagues and pals on this thread, I, unlike the influential Republicans who pursued Clinton, wouldn't engage in sniping, because we need a functioning president. As it is, I'm free to enjoy teasing all who were sanctimonious about the great personal virtue and competence of GWB. As I wrote to Constant Reader, "What I'm making is a simple point, to a handful of people on on SI who are shocked, shocked, that what goes around comes around. I think that's a fair thing for me to do." Do you think it's unfair? If you do I'll stop. MAYBE I WON'T, THOUGH, I'M SO WEAK