vision2020
Enron and the Democrats by Time Magazine
Enron's Democrat Pals
Documents obtained by TIME show the energy giant enjoyed much closer ties
with Clinton Administration regulators than was generally known
By MICHAEL WEISSKOPF
Time Online Edition
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,338580,00.html
Saturday, Aug. 17, 2002
Before its messy decline and fall, Enron had plenty of clout in George
W. Bush's Washington, from the personal ties between chairman Ken
Lay and the President to the company's alleged influence on Vice
President Dick Cheney's energy task force. But Enron's cozy relationship
with Washington didn't start there. Documents obtained by TIME show
the energy giant enjoyed much closer ties with Clinton Administration
regulators than was generally known. Long before Cheney's task force met with
Enron officials and included their ideas in Bush's energy plan, Clinton's energy
team was doing much the same thing. Drafting a 1995 plan to help facilitate cash
flow and credit for energy producers, it asked for Enron's input—and listened.
The staff was directed to "rework the proposal to take into account the specific
comments and suggestions you made," Clinton Deputy Energy Secretary Bill
White wrote an Enron official.
Clinton officials also made efforts to help Enron get business overseas. Clinton
Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary included Enron officials on trade missions to
India, China, Pakistan and South Africa. White, returning from a 1994 trip to
Mexico, wrote chairman Lay that "much opportunity" existed there for natural
gas, and he sent a copy of Mexico's energy plans. To persuade an Enron senior
vice president to join a mission to Pakistan, White wrote, "I have strong personal
relationships with the existing government."
Enron showed its gratitude. At Christmas 1995, documents show, it donated an
unknown sum of cash in O'Leary's name to a charity called "I Have a Dream."
And when Clinton ran for re-election a year later, the company made its largest
single contribution ever—$100,000—to the President's party.
--- Ted Moffett <ted_moffett@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Carl et. al.
>
> I must agree with Carl that absent the fallout from 9/11, and assuming
> nothing similar happened before the election of Nov. 5 2002, it would be
> highly probable that we would have seen significant Democratic Party gains
> on Nov. 5. The Republican strategy laid out months ago by chief Republican
> strategist Carl Rove was to exploit the war issue to the max regarding the
> public perception that Republicans were more viewed as tough on terror than
> the Democrats.
>
> Remember Bush's approval ratings prior to 9/11?
>
> The current state of the economy (one of the largest devaluations of the
> stock market in history) coupled with the Bush administration's ties to
> corporate corruption and their continuing secrecy regarding this corruption
> (Cheney's refusal to provide info about the energy task force which included
> Enron) should have led to major Democratic Party gains.
>
> Imagine if Bill Clinton had had the same ties to Enron that George Bush had
> in Texas while governor, and that Gore as Vice President was hiding info
> about his meetings with Enron executives. Clinton and Gore would have been
> crucified in the media, whether or not they had anything to do with Enron's
> corruption.
>
> And they say we have a "liberal" media! Then why the apparent free pass for
> Bush in the media on the Enron connection?
>
> Ted
>
> >From: "Carl Westberg" <carlwestberg846@hotmail.com>
> >To: eevans@moscow.com, thansen@moscow.com, vision2020@moscow.com
> >Subject: Re: On losing the election
> >Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 07:49:41 -0800
> >
> >Do the voters really want one party rule? It may be insensitive to say
> >this, but George Bush had an unprecedented advantage in this mid-term
> >election that no incumbent has had before and hopefully will never have
> >again. September 11th. To his credit, he managed to persuade the voters
> >that only the Republicans really care about the events of that day, and
> >only the Republicans have the intestinal fortitude to deal with terrorists,
> >and by God, we'll start with Iraq. Not whining either, although I'm no
> >George W. fan, just my own amateur political analysis, perhaps somewhat
> >shaded by my darn liberal bent.
> >
> > Carl Westberg Jr.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>From: eevans@moscow.com
> >>To: thansen@moscow.com, eevans@moscow.com, vision2020@moscow.com
> >>Subject: Re: On losing the election
> >>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:50:59 GMT
> >>
> >> > Yes. It is the expressed (at the polls) will of the people.
> >>Good point. I should have qualified that it is was the will of the voters.
> >>
> >> >One neat thing
> >> > about Democracy is that you don't have to approve of final outcomes
> >>simply
> >> > because it is the choice of the people.
> >> >
> >> > And, before you go there, I am NOT whining about the Republican
> >>outcome. As
> >>I
> >> > had said in my earlier letter; total control by one party is WRONG. As
> >>the
> >> > saying goes, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
> >>
> >>How can you say it is wrong? America WANTS total control by a single
> >>party. One
> >>thing I've observed in this forum is that folks are of the opinion that
> >>the
> >>only concrete rules for right and wrong are written by the will of the
> >>people
> >>through the government. Do you disagree?
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>-Ed Evans
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Never have been a lemming, never will be one,
> >> >
> >> > Tom Hansen
> >> > Moscow
> >> >
> >> > > I'm going to play devil's (erm, or is that Republican's) advocate
> >>here.
> >> > >
> >> > > Did democracy suddenly fail to work in this election? Is the current
> >> > > government's configuration somehow _not_ the embodiment of the will
> >>of the
> >> > > people?
> >> > >
> >> > > Not a Republican,
> >> > > -Ed Evans
> >> > >
> >> > > > I have to agree with Tom Hansen on this one. It's like the federal
> >> > > > government is about to copy the Idaho model. We all know how well
> >>that's
> >> > > >
> >> > worked.
> >> > > >
> >>Carl
> >> > > > Westberg Jr.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >From: thansen@moscow.com
> >> > > > >To: njc@moscow.com, Priscilla Salant <psalant@moscow.com>,
> >> > > > >vision2020@moscow.com
> >> > > > >Subject: Re: On losing the election
> >> > > > >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:13:06 GMT
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >Greetings Visionaires -
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >This is the first time since Eisenhower that something like this
> >>has
> >> > > > >happened.
> >> > > > >And, to tell you the truth, it scares me.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >A political party has control over all three branches of
> >>government. The
> >> > > > >Republicans have a slim majority in the Senate, a sizable majority
> >>in the
> >> > > > >House, and a very conservative Supreme Court. This situation
> >>gives the
> >> > > > >leader
> >> > > > >of the Executive Branch (George W.) virtually absolute control of
> >>the
> >> > > > >government for the next two years.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >Being to the left of center, I would still feel this way even if
> >>the
> >> > > > >Democrats
> >> > > > >had such control. I feel that it is simply wrong.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >Hoping for a brighter tomorrow,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >Tom Hansen
> >> > > > >Moscow
> >> > > > >
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>---------------------------------------------
> >>This message was sent by First Step Internet.
> >> http://www.fsr.net/
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
Back to TOC