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.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (446541)8/22/2003 11:23:54 AM
From: CYBERKEN  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
The excuses are coming already. So now the deficit myth really DOESN'T drive down employment and the markets (since it is proving, once again, that Rubinism is bullshit). So now it's a "temporary" recovery.

ROFLMAO!!!

There will be, I guarantee, another bear market some day. There will be another recession some day. What you are doing, of course, is SPINNING those facts of nature, like any dedicated Leninist would.

You'd better start spinning reasons for the coming wipe-out of the Marxist/Leninist anti-American Democrats in 2004. Maybe you should call ZOGBY. See if he can get a count on cigarette purchases by the DNC...



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (446541)8/22/2003 11:36:19 AM
From: jlallen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
We've had a wide trade deficit and low savings rate as long as I can remember....Bush will have an opportunity to address the debt level in his second term....



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (446541)8/22/2003 11:59:46 AM
From: steve dietrich  Respond to of 769670
 
Kenneth, I enjoy reading your posts, they are always so Fair and Balanced, oops did I just infringe on a copyright?LOL



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (446541)8/22/2003 1:06:59 PM
From: JakeStraw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Enron and Davis
Charles R. Smith
Friday, Aug. 22, 2003
California Governor Blacks Out the Truth

On Aug. 20, 2003, California Gov. Gray Davis stated that Enron and the Bush administration were to blame for the Golden State's electricity crisis.

"I inherited the energy deregulation scheme which put all of us at the mercy of the big energy producers. We got no help from the federal government. In fact, when I was fighting Enron and the other energy companies, these same companies were sitting down with Vice President [Dick] Cheney to draft a national energy strategy," stated Davis.

However, Davis is playing fast and loose with the real facts of his relationship with Enron. For example, according to the Sacramento Bee, Davis has received $119,500 in campaign donations from Enron, including $42,500 since becoming governor. Davis openly stated that he would not return the Enron money.

Davis has previously been quick to blame Enron for California's lack of power. In May 2002, Davis called Enron executives "robber barons."

"This is more than greed. This is depravity," stated Davis.

"As far as I'm concerned, the persons responsible are a menace to society and should be facing serious jail time, not 9 a.m. tee times," said Davis.

In 1999, only months before the California energy crisis, Davis led a $200,000 trade trip to Europe for Enron. Davis traveled at California taxpayer expense with his wife for two weeks in Europe and finally in ancient Greece, lobbying on behalf of Enron for the Greek Wind Project.

Davis also took a close-knit group of heavy campaign donors along on his trip to Greece. The group included grocery store magnate Ron Burkle, who donated $350,000 to Davis, and workers' compensation insurance executive Stanley Zax, who donated $100,000 to Davis.

My Big Fat Greek Donor

The project in Greece was so important that Davis also took his good friend, major DNC donor and Sacramento developer Angelo K. Tsakopoulos.

Tsakopoulos and his family are million-dollar contributors to the Democratic National Committee and Democratic candidates including Davis, Al Gore, and Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Tsakopoulos also spent time as a guest in the White House Lincoln bedroom.

According to documents forced from the U.S. Commerce Department, Enron noted that Davis and Tsakopoulos were tripping to Greece with some very unusual comments.

"Best man at my Greek wedding," noted one handwritten comment next to a Los Angeles Times article on Tsakopoulos attached to documents from the U.S. Embassy in Athens.

"Major Clinton donor – may be on Clinton trip to Greece," states the handwritten comments.

Enron considered the trade trip so important that they also included a 22-page briefing paper addressed to Gov. Davis detailing the "Greek Wind Project Permitting Issue." Interestingly, the same briefing paper made its way into the U.S. commercial section of the American Embassy in Athens.

The 1999 documents are part of a long string of heavy lobbying efforts that the Clinton administration carried out to convince the Greeks to buy Enron wind products for Crete.

For example, a 1998 document prepared for the U.S. ambassador in Greece noted, "The company [Enron] was given an installation license last year, but construction was held up while an archeological study was performed. In the interim, the licenses lapsed and Enron's request for a renewal has not been answered."

"Enron should send more high-level visitors to Greece to underscore the importance of this market," states the 1998 memo to the U.S. ambassador to Greece.

Davis Stiffs Enron

More importantly, the facts surrounding the California energy crunch do not support Davis' claim that Enron executives committed crimes. According to a study done by the CATO institute, the California governor is not telling the truth about Enron.

"Records pried from the governor's office by legal action reveal that during last year's crisis Enron was charging less for electricity than the market average and significantly less than Davis's own L.A. Department of Water & Power, under the direction of the governor's 'electricity czar,' David Freeman," states an article by Jerry Taylor, director of natural resource studies and Peter VanDoren, editor of Regulation, at CATO.

"Enron was accepting IOUs from the power companies and the state of California rather than demanding cash upon delivery at the height of the crisis. But trusting the state to make good on its promises to pay was an example of the corporate heart ruling the head. According to energy economist Phil Verleger, the state of California ended up stiffing Enron for millions of dollars, a (dare we say 'ruthless'?) maneuver that certainly didn't help Enron stay out of bankruptcy," notes the CATO institute report.

The fact is that Enron supplied barely 4 percent of California's power. Davis' attempt to paint the power shortage in California as some sort of right-wing conspiracy is so false as to be ridiculous.

Clinton, Davis and Enron

The fact is that Enron became a large, corrupt corporation with the support and approval of Gray Davis and Bill Clinton.

I have written several stories on the 5,000 pages of Enron materials forced from the U.S. Commerce Department by the Freedom of Information Act. In 1994, Enron did a dirty deal with Indonesian dictator Suharto and paid millions to Suharto's son for an electric power plant that was never built. These facts are known because the Clinton administration documented and supported the deal.

The documented evidence shows that Clinton worked for Enron in China, Vietnam, South Africa, India, Brazil, Argentina, Mozambique, South Korea, Japan, Belgium, France, Russia, the Philippines, the West Bank and Uzbekistan.

Enron's chairman met with Clinton and Gore in the Oval Office. Enron gave $420,000 to the DNC. Enron donated $100,000 to Clinton's inauguration festivities. The taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million in just one transaction at the behest of President Clinton.


Many former Clinton administration officials eventually went to work for or lobbied on behalf of Enron, including former White House counsel Jack Quinn, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, former Assistant Treasury Secretary Linda Robertson, former Chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Elizabeth Moler, and the former media adviser to Vice President Al Gore, Greg Simon.

The scandal that became Enron corrupted nation after nation, spreading its wings as part of Bill Clinton's stained legacy. The Enron stain on California Gov. Gray Davis shows clearly in the light.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (446541)8/22/2003 1:18:32 PM
From: JakeStraw  Respond to of 769670
 
Democrats nominate dark horses, not front-runners
Monday, August 11, 2003 Posted: 1:05 PM EDT (1705 GMT)
cnn.com

WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- The race for the 2004 Democratic nomination remains, as Labor Day approaches, unsettled and without any front-runner.

No clear favorite has yet to emerge from the nine-pack of candidates. This deprives those of us in the political press of a campaign narrative we like to tell every four years: "The Front-Runner Stumbles" story.

That is because, with rare exceptions, Democratic primary and caucus voters reject the candidate who leads in the polls and nominate, instead, some semi-unknown underdog.

Let's look at the record. Only twice in the last 44 years has the Democratic nominee for president emerged in the year before the election as the clear front-runner in the Gallup Poll: Former Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984 and then-Vice President Al Gore in 2000.

By contrast, every other eventual Democratic presidential candidate since (with the obvious exception of uncontested incumbent President Bill Clinton in 1996) has trailed -- often badly -- in surveys the year before the election.

Consider the polling record of the only Democrat since FDR to win two White House terms -- Bill Clinton. In August 1991, the Arkansas governor was running fifth with 11 percent, badly trailing New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, U.S. Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas and former California Gov. Jerry Brown.

By that October, just 13 months before he would defeat President George Herbert Walker Bush, Clinton had slipped to a discouraging 6 percent in the Gallup.

Yes, John F. Kennedy was running second to two-time nominee Adlai Stevenson in polls conducted in January, April, May and November of 1959. But JFK looked like a world-beater compared to other eventual Democratic standard-bearers. Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, the 1968 nominee, was the first choice of just 6 percent of Democrats in September 1967.

Four years later, Sen. George McGovern went from 5 percent support in January all the way to 5 percent support in December, when he still trailed both senators Edmund Muskie and Ted Kennedy by more than 20 points.

Former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter, who won the presidency in 1976, did not register -- not even in single digits -- in any of the four 1975 polls. By August 1979, President Carter was again the underdog, trailing Sen. Kennedy by 63 percent to 25 percent before the Iranian hostage crisis rescued his political career.

Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis ended 1987 tied with Illinois Sen. Paul Simon with 10 percent each and behind Jesse Jackson and Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, who led with 31 percent.

Republicans are the polar opposite. As the respected Lydia Saad, senior editor at Gallup, has observed, "In almost all cases, the Republican presidential nominee led his opponents continuously from well in advance of the election year, right through the primary season."

Republicans Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and George W. Bush all held what would qualify as commanding leads the year before each man was nominated. The only exception to Republicans nominating the established front-runner was in 1964, when eventual nominee Sen. Barry Goldwater began 1963 behind New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller and ended it (after Rockefeller's divorce and remarriage) behind Richard Nixon.

Why the difference between the two parties? Republican voters are far more respectful of the choices and knowledge of their party leaders and office-holders than are Democrats, who are more unruly. I remember one Iowa GOP county chairman in 1995 who explained his endorsement of then-front-runner Bob Dole, "It's his turn."

Democrats pay almost no attention to any endorsement by a major Democratic Party figure or office-holder of presidential candidates other than to occasionally ask, "Who the hell does he think he is telling me who(m) to vote for?" Democrats seem to like the candidate who just wandered in the back of the room. What's your name? Carter? McGovern? Dukakis? Clinton? Dean? Edwards? It's an advantage to be a longshot, a previously unknown.

If history turns out to a reliable guide, Democratic voters in 2004 will not nominate the eventual front-runner, whoever he or she turns out to be, but will instead confound us by falling in love, once again, with an embattled underdog.