The Clinton Boogie Man Lives On

The sheep are easily led.

-----------------------------------

Press Falls for Lie About Clinton, Enron
by Joe Conason

In a democratic society, successful propaganda generally relies on two elements: the fabrication of a useful, plausible, specific lie, and the deployment of visible professionals who are willing to repeat it until it’s believed. Like any other salesman, the resourceful propagandist must also be prepared to get lucky.

Fearful about the potential political impact of Enron, members of the Republican propaganda corps quickly realized they should argue that both parties were equally corrupted by the energy firm’s money. Simple mathematics belied this assertion, but simple minds might be persuaded anyway. (There is reportedly a videotape from the autumn of 2000 that shows Kenneth Lay dispelling such illusions, explaining patiently to his employees that Republicans deserve bigger contributions because they’re more compliant with his agenda of deregulating markets and reducing corporate taxes.)

What the G.O.P. really needed was a potent symbol of Democratic complicity with Enron; a familiar face to replace the images of the President and the Vice President and all the other administration figures compromised by Kenny Boy; a sturdy scapegoat to carry the weight of their own sins.

It wasn’t too difficult to guess who that might be.

The search for a scapegoat became a revealing exercise in experimental psychology and media manipulation. On Jan. 11, the Drudge Report ran an item purporting to demonstrate that the Clintons, not the Bushes, were the true tools of Enron. Among the highlights was a replay of past infamy: "[Ken] Lay also played golf with President Bill Clinton and slept in the Clinton White House." (Proprietor Matt Drudge refuses to say where he came upon this allegation, replying only that "Lay’s direct ties to Clinton are well documented.")

But the Drudge Report couldn’t make this canard fly without a boost from the mainstream. Two days later, the Chicago Tribune’s Washington bureau produced a story about Enron’s history of bipartisan favor-shopping in the capital. Seeking balance, the Tribune reporters wrote: "Lay was no stranger to the Clinton White House, playing golf with the president and staying overnight in the Lincoln Bedroom." All the usual suspects quickly appropriated the Trib’s credibility to promote these familiar tropes and themes.

The very next day, Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes promoted this bogus claim on the Fox News Channel’s prime-time broadcast, without contradiction from any of his fellow pundits. Enron wasn’t really a Republican scandal, declared Mr. Barnes, because "Ken Lay not only played golf with Clinton, he spent a night in the Lincoln Bedroom." Almost simultaneously that evening, Bush campaign consultant Alex Castellanos told viewers of CNN’s Crossfire that "Ken Lay slept in the Lincoln bedroom" with Mr. Clinton as his host.

Heeding their unofficial motto–"monkey see, monkey do"–other journalists quoted the same tale, which reached the pages of The Washington Times, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the Newhouse News Service and other papers.
The tale traveled overseas to Korea, Australia and Britain –where the once-august Times of London virtually reprinted the Moonie paper’s version. Apparently this is what their Washington correspondents are paid to do.

On Feb. 17, Mr. Castellanos repeated the claim on ABC’s This Week (where former Clinton aide Paul Begala had the presence of mind to contradict him). David Bossie, the G.O.P. operative who did so much to promote the phony Whitewater scandal, popped up on Greta van Susteren’s Fox News broadcast to reiterate that "Ken Lay spent the night in Clinton’s Lincoln bedroom."

By then it had become a durable myth, showing up in letters sent by gullible citizens to newspapers around the nation.

The first reporter to expose this outpouring of deception was Gene Lyons, the Democrat-Gazette columnist (and my co-author). Unfortunately, few outside Little Rock had an opportunity to read his Feb. 13 column. Salon.com, DailyHowler.com and Mediawhoresonline.com all have posted excellent analyses since then. Eventually, thanks to pressure from their astute readers, the Chicago Tribune, The Washington Times and Ms. Van Susteren issued corrections or retractions. (Others, according to Nexis, have not.)

So now might be the time for healthy introspection among those who fostered this falsehood. They might learn something about themselves from the remarkably candid explanation offered by Frank James, the Chicago Tribune reporter who put his paper’s imprimatur on it.

Mr. James denies that he picked anything up from the Drudge Report. Instead, he told me that on a tight deadline he had mentally "transposed" Bill Clinton’s name into his memory of an article he’d read about another President who hosted Mr. Lay in the White House. That President was, of course, the father of the current President.

No psychiatric degree is necessary to identify the process by which an embarrassment to the Bushes is turned into an attack on the Clintons, without so much as a phone call to check the facts by any of the perpetrators. It’s called projection, and it is certain to persist until Enron is only an unpleasant memory.

All those words just to say that Lay had not slept in the Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton administration?? http://www.hostboard.com/forums/

I guess this single fact overshadows the favor-shopping Enron was involved in? Overshadows the relationship between Lay and key Clinton executives??

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">All those words just to say that Lay had not slept in the Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton administration??</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point was this:

"In a democratic society, successful propaganda generally relies on two elements: the fabrication of a useful, plausible, specific lie, and the deployment of visible professionals who are willing to repeat it until it’s believed."

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I guess this single fact overshadows the favor-shopping Enron was involved in?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "single fact" being that Republicans and the media used a lie to smear Clinton and point the finger away from Bush.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Overshadows the relationship between Lay and key Clinton executives??</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

What relationship was that? Prove that Lay bought favors from Clinton.

I hate everything

The author of this story is biased to the left? Not a chance in hell.

http://www.salon.com/directory/topics/joe_conason/

This exemplifies my general beef with the GOP -- their habit of spinning everything in such a way as to claim credit for all things positive and to discredit all things Democratic. Yeah, yeah, I know that both sides do it, but it is a central strategy of the right. An exception to this is House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who appears to be as reasonable a Republican as there is on the scene right now. He comes across as an independent thinker who doesn't go into knee-jerk blame the Dems mode when confronted with difficult questions. At the other end of the spectrum is Majority Leader Dick Armey, whose first name absolutely fits. I saw him interviewed yesterday morning on CNN, and he appears to have genuine personal dislike toward Democrats as opposed to simply political differences. In his puny mind, everything breaks down with such elegant simplicity that it's frightening: GOP = good, Dems = bad. He was asked if, in hindsight, he would retract the statements he made in '93 when Clinton was proposing his economic package (which Armey vehemently opposed, predicting economic collapse), which after being passed led to the nation's longest sustained period of growth and prosperity. Armey of course didn't retract, claiming instead that it is Reagan whom we should be thanking for creating an economy strong enough to withstand even the misguided policies of Clinton, stating that Bubba was only able to pass half of what he had proposed and that had he been allowed to pass everything his (Armey's) predictions would've proven true. http://www.hostboard.com/forums/ According to Armey, it was early '80s Reagonomics that led to the mid-late 90s prosperity. In my eyes, I'd have a helluva lot more respect for Republicans if they were able to accept responsibility when appropriate and give credit where it's due. On the whole, their brand of politics just seems a lot dirtier. I said politics, not non-political activity.

This is fucking beautiful....

Fester: The "single fact" being that Republicans and the media used a lie to smear Clinton and point the finger away from Bush.

Yeah, all Republicans did?? http://www.hostboard.com/forums/

As well, this is politics, right? And is "politics" not usually fraught with misinformation and highly spun "lies??" I am not saying it's right, however, the author gives the impression that this lie somehow overshadows Lay's relationship with the Clinton White House.

What relationship was that? Prove that Lay bought favors from Clinton.

Prove that Lay bought favors from Clinton, dipshit....you see, the appearance is there, but no smoking gun. It's the same argument that you liberal dipshits used to defend your lying President against charges of corruption in pardoning convicts for money, accepting Chinese money, and permitting the sale of guidance technology to the Chinese.

Now you wanna spin that against the GOP, http://www.hostboard.com/forums/ ....

Smackie: This exemplifies my general beef with the GOP -- their habit of spinning everything in such a way as to claim credit for all things positive and to discredit all things Democratic. Yeah, yeah, I know that both sides do it, but it is a central strategy of the right.

?Central strategy of the right???? LMAO! Get over yourself?.remove the blinders, Smackie..err?walk out of the haze.

An exception to this is House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who appears to be as reasonable a Republican as there is on the scene right now. He comes across as an independent thinker who doesn't go into knee-jerk blame the Dems mode when confronted with difficult questions. At the other end of the spectrum is Majority Leader Dick Armey, whose first name absolutely fits. I saw him interviewed yesterday morning on CNN, and he appears to have genuine personal dislike toward Democrats as opposed to simply political differences.


Funny, if you had simply cut the names and replaced them with Democrats, you?d have the same story, http://www.hostboard.com/forums/

In his puny mind, everything breaks down with such elegant simplicity that it's frightening: GOP = good, Dems = bad.[/b]

Gee, did you just not do that same thing in your very first statement??

He was asked if, in hindsight, he would retract the statements he made in '93 when Clinton was proposing his economic package (which Armey vehemently opposed, predicting economic collapse), which after being passed led to the nation's longest sustained period of growth and prosperity. Armey of course didn't retract, claiming instead that it is Reagan whom we should be thanking for creating an economy strong enough to withstand even the misguided policies of Clinton, stating that Bubba was only able to pass half of what he had proposed and that had he been allowed to pass everything his (Armey's) predictions would've proven true.

Armey?s on the ball and the Cato Institute, Brookings Institute, and a host of others agree with him. My God, are you just trolling for responses here or are you serious?

According to Armey, it was early '80s Reagonomics that led to the mid-late 90s prosperity. In my eyes, I'd have a helluva lot more respect for Republicans if they were able to accept responsibility when appropriate and give credit where it's due. On the whole, their brand of politics just seems a lot dirtier. I said politics, not non-political activity.

Democrats equals good, GOP equals bad, geez, didn?t you just criticize this above?? LMAO!!!

Fester, here you go:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> On Feb. 20, 1998, during a meeting with Energy Secretary Federico Pena, Lay "encouraged the Clinton administration to seek electricity legislation favored by Enron," outlining for the secretary what the company believed were the "important" pending legislative concerns.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Seper recalls, for example that, the Washington-based Export-Import Bank approved a $302 million loan toward a $3 billion Enron-controlled power plant in India in 1994.

Wrote Seper: "Mr. Clinton took an interest in the deal, asking the U.S. ambassador to that country and his former chief of staff, Thomas F. 'Mack' McLarty, then a presidential adviser, to monitor the proposal.

"Mr. McLarty - who later became a paid Enron director - spoke with Mr. Lay on several occasions about the plant. In 1996, four days before India granted approval for Enron's project, the Houston-based firm contributed $100,000 to the Democratic Party."</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...6/135018.shtml

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Later that year, Clinton administration officials helped Enron during the company's negotiations over a natural gas project in Mozambique.

The top negotiator on the gas project for Mozambique was Minister of Mineral Resources John Kachamila, who complained of "outright threats to withhold development funds if we didn't sign," with Enron.

Kachamila said U.S. diplomats, "especially [U.S. Embassy Deputy Chief of Mission] Mike McKinley, pressured me to sign a deal that was not good for Mozambique. He was not a neutral diplomat," according to the Houston Chronicle.

The Clinton administration's U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was also reportedly involved in pressuring Mozambique to sign the deal with Enron.

USAID is an especially powerful agency because of the volume of money it pumps into the developing world. Mozambique was receiving over $40 million dollars during this time from USAID.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...18/83918.shtml

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Six days later, Enron executives were on a trade mission with Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor to Bosnia and Croatia. With Kantor's support, Enron signed a $100 million contract to build a 150-megawatt power plant. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, who egregiously linked political donations to government assistance, accompanied Enron chairman Ken Lay on a mission to India. Enron president Joseph Sutton was on the trip to Bosnia during which Brown lost his life in a plane crash (Sutton was not on Brown's plane at the time). After Brown's death, Enron's Terence Thorn, a $1,000 donor to the Clinton-Gore campaign, traveled with Commerce Secretary William Daley to South Africa. Ken Lay also traveled with Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary on her trade trips.

There were other contacts between Enron and the Clinton administration. Ken Lay was a close friend of Mack McLarty, Clinton's first chief of staff. In his 1993 disclosure statement, Robert Rubin listed Enron as one of the firms with which he had had "significant contact" while at Goldman Sachs.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...0/769wnrjo.asp

Yeah, no relationship between the Clinton administration and Enron, http://www.hostboard.com/forums/

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Smackie Chan:
This exemplifies my general beef with the GOP -- their habit of spinning everything in such a way as to claim credit for all things positive and to discredit all things Democratic. Yeah, yeah, I know that both sides do it, but it is a central strategy of the right. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, come on Smokie!

Like your' beloved President didn't "spin" the meaning of the word "is?"

Like your' beloved President didn't spin the fact that lying under oath was ok because it was about sex?

Like the Daschle is out there handing out accolades to the Repub's and admitting mistakes.

Like they wouldn't even allow Bush's judicial appointee to get a vote on the Senate floor, even though they had approved the same man for an earlier appointment.

Shove your pathetically hypocritical pink head in the sand commie.

I call total bullshit on you and that moron Uncle Mansexter, Enron executives had just as much, if not more, access to the Clit-on Whitehouse as they did to the Bush. So don't get on your bullshit high horse and act like the "right" is the only party that spins. For Pete's sakes that's the most moronic take of the day, my gosh man, you are the people that enlist that alien hybrid Carville.


Smokie says: "It's a central strategy of the right." LMAO!!

Don't you have some Steve Miller to spin and some hydro to blow?

Unbelievable.

RACK WARREN!

Smokie's got more chemicals in him than the local public pool! His credibility is about as favorable as Darrell Strawupmynoseberry.
In other words, who gives a flying bag of weed what he thinks!

Hey Dr. D, don't expect a valid response from Uncle NoPecker, he has no idea that the only policy changes that benefitted Enron came during the Clinton Whorehouse.

No quid pro quo, you whiney little commies, please insert another quarter and try again.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, all Republicans did??</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said "all," Dr. Distorter. What do you want, a census figure? An actual headcount? You're funny when you play the literal card.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Prove that Lay bought favors from Clinton, dipshit....you see, the appearance is there, but no smoking gun. It's the same argument that you liberal dipshits used to defend your lying President against charges of corruption in pardoning convicts for money, accepting Chinese money, bla bla bla...</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure what the hell you are talking about. You said that Enron shopped favors from Clinton. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just asking what evidence you have to back it up.

And maybe you could do a little comparative study of the literature to see if Clinton's past associations with Lay and Enron are even in the same political stratosphere as they are with the Family Bush.

--------------------------

George W. Bush is trying to rewrite the history of his and his family’s relationship with Enron Corp.’s disgraced former Chairman Kenneth Lay. So far, Bush has enjoyed fairly good success as the U.S. news media has largely accepted the White House spin.

But the reality, as established by a wealth of historical record and recent disclosures, is that Lay and Enron were instrumental in Bush’s rise to power – and Bush played an important behind-the-scenes role in advancing Enron’s aggressive deregulation agenda, which helped the energy trader ascend to its lofty perch as the seventh-biggest U.S. company.

The Bush-Lay coziness earned the Enron chief a nickname from Bush as "Kenny Boy." But more importantly for Enron, Bush pitched in as governor and president whenever the energy trader wanted easier regulations within the U.S. or to have U.S. taxpayers foot the bill for loan guarantees or risk insurance for Enron's overseas ventures.

The Bush-Lay relationship helped Enron extend its reach across the globe, with the appearance of a successful company, as it pulled in billions of dollars in investment money from tens of thousands of unwary investors.

Now, in trying to insulate Bush from the spreading Enron scandal, White House aides have emphasized that administration officials rebuffed Lay and other Enron executives who sought a federal bailout to save their corporate skin. But the documentary record paints a different picture, showing that the administration did what it could last year to help Enron, until the Houston energy trader's collapse was so far advanced that its deceptive bookkeeping could no longer be kept out of public view.

Last year, Vice President Dick Cheney and his energy task force held six secret meetings with Lay and other Enron officials while developing an administration program that contained special favors for Enron. Bush named Lay’s allies to key regulatory positions, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which pushed for other pet Enron projects.

Under the direction of Bush’s National Security Council staff, the U.S. government also strong-armed India to acquiesce to Enron’s demands over its troubled Dabhol power plant, which Enron was hoping to sell for $2.3 billion. The NSC’s extraordinary pressure on India continued even after Sept. 11 when Washington needed New Delhi’s support in the war on terrorism and wanted the Indians to quiet their border dispute with neighboring Pakistan.

Internal administration documents suggest that Bush and his NSC staff put Enron's interests on par with or ahead of U.S. national security interests. The extraordinary NSC-led campaign around the Dabhol plant ended only on Nov. 8, the day the Securities and Exchange Commission delivered subpoenas to Enron about its questionable accounting. The same day, the company admitted that it had overstated its profits by $586 million since 1997, by improperly shifting debt into affiliated partnerships. [Washington Post, Jan. 19 & 25, 2002; Bloomberg News, Jan. 18, 2002]

Kenny Boy Who?

With Enron’s ignominious collapse over deceptive accounting, Bush began to act as if he barely knew Lay. On Jan. 11, Bush told reporters that Lay "was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994." Bush implied that he had gotten to know Lay as a Richards holdover appointee to a Texas business council. The impression Bush sought to create was untrue.

The Bush-Lay relationship can be traced back at least a half decade before the 1994 race. It grew out of the Houston social circle where oil tycoons have long rubbed shoulders with political players – and where Ken and Linda Lay had grown close to George H.W. and Barbara Bush in the 1980s. Since 1988, when Lay backed the elder George Bush in his run for the White House, Enron and its executives have written big checks for one Bush initiative after another.

Besides the political financing, Lay has supported private and charitable activities of the Bush family. Lay joined one of Barbara Bush's charities to promote literacy as he served as the honorary chairman of the Celebration of Reading at Houston Wortham Theatre Center. [The Guardian, Jan. 30, 2002]

A trustee of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation, Lay has donated $50,000 as a patron as well, the New York Daily News reported. In 1999, the Lays chipped in $100,000 for the Andersen Cancer Center at Texas A&M University in a fundraising drive led by then-Gov. George W. Bush and his wife, Laura.

During the Republican presidential primaries in 2000, Enron corporate jets were made available eight times to Bush's campaign staff and his parents, with the future president sometimes personally arranging the flights. [New York Daily News, Feb. 3, 2002]

Yet, when Enron collapsed, George W. Bush distanced himself from Lay. As Enron slid toward bankruptcy, its stock lost $26 billion in market value, devastating retirement plans for Enron employees and other Americans. About 5,000 people lost their jobs, including about 4,000 at Enron's Houston headquarters.

The once-high-flying Enron became synonymous with corporate corruption.

Oil-Field Alliance

The origins of the Bush-Lay relationship can be found in the intertwining connections among oil companies, Texas politicians and international commerce. [More on the Bush family 'Oiligarchy']

In 1985, Lay created Enron by merging his company, Houston Natural Gas, with one of the largest pipeline companies in the world, Nebraska-based InterNorth. Lay named the new company, Enron, and set its sights high. Political allies would be critical to Enron’s growth.

In his first major venture into politics, Lay went to work raising money and organizing support for then-Vice President George H.W. Bush’s campaign for the Presidency. Bush, who built his own fortune in the Texas oil fields, was appreciative as he battled through a tough Republican primary and then defeated Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis.

In the weeks after the 1988 election, Lay may have gotten his first dividend on his investment in the Bush family. Enron had joined the bidding for a contract to build a $300 million pipeline in Argentina. The government appeared close to choosing between two other companies -- one from Italy, Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi, and the other a partnership between Argentine firm P?rez and America’s Dow Chemical.

Argentina’s Minister of Public Works, Rodolfo Terragno, later told Mother Jones that he considered Enron’s one-page project outline "laughable." He also noted that Enron "wasn't well established in Argentina." [Mother Jones, March/April 2000]

But Enron apparently was getting well established in the power corridors of the U.S. A few weeks after the 1988 elections, Terragno said the president-elect’s eldest son, George W. Bush, called to check up on "the slow pace of the Enron project."

Terragno recalled that the younger George Bush said that giving Enron the project "would be very favorable for Argentina and its relations with the United States." Terragno didn’t know whether this message was from the White House or whether Bush was working a business deal on his own.

But the public works minister, who was forced to flee Argentina after the 1976 military coup, didn’t succumb to what he viewed as political pressure. He said he told Bush that the deal would be awarded based on Argentine law.

Terragno, however, would not have the chance to make the decision. National elections in Argentina tossed his left-of-center party out of office and ushered in the administration of right-wing Peronist Carlos Menem.

Bush has denied the conversation took place. While Terragno says he still believes it was the younger George Bush who called, he has acknowledged the possibility that the call could have come from another Bush brother. Still, other news accounts have traced Lay's ties to George W. Bush back to about that time. An investigation by the New York Daily News concluded that "Lay began to cultivate their friendship in 1989." [Feb. 3, 2002]

Presidential Help

Falling gas prices caused Enron to back away from the pipeline contract in Argentina. But in 1990, President George H.W. Bush traveled to the South American country to plant seeds for U.S. business interests. One of those seeds was for Enron.

According to Mother Jones, several days after Bush’s visit, the U.S. Ambassador to Argentina, Terence Todman, wrote Menem a letter saying Enron and seven other U.S. companies were prepared to pull the plug on investments in Argentina if the Menem administration didn’t stop favoring Argentine businesses in awarding contracts.

Todman’s letter said Enron was "poised to invest $250 million" if Argentina would lower tariffs and value-added taxes that punished U.S. businesses. Menem accepted the Bush administration’s entreaties and signed a presidential decree that waived these duties on Enron investments. [Mother Jones, March/April 2000]

Menem’s decision caused a political furor in Argentina, but the deal was done. In the years since, Enron has emerged as a fixture in the Argentine business landscape.

Back in the United States, Lay was one of 273 people invited by Bush to spend a night at the White House during his four-year term. [Houston Chronicle, Feb. 27, 1997]

In 1990, Bush picked Lay to co-chair the Houston Economic Summit of the G-8 Industrial Nations, a prestigious forum that gave the Enron chairman access to the leaders of the world’s wealthiest countries. Lay also enjoyed Bush’s backing to deregulate the nation’s energy market to open public utilities to private competition, Enron’s core business.

In 1992, Lay served as chairman of the host committee for the Republican National Convention in Houston. That year, however, Bush lost the White House to Bill Clinton. Cushioning the fall for some of Bush's top aides, Enron hired as consultants Bush's Secretary of State James Baker and Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher. [Business Week, Feb. 12, 2001]

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/020602a1.html

RACK Warren & Dr. D. This is almost as entertaining as Homoha Native trying to spin for the Catholic Church at TNW.

Hey Uncle Nosexter!

Here's one for ya' pinko, and I've got plenty more where this came from.

Oh, and by the way, "secret meetings" don't amount to shit, you simple dropout. Show me where actual policy was altered to benefit Enron under Bush's watch. Because, I will show you plenty of benefits that Enron gained under that thief you called Clinton's watch.

Oh, and by the way commie's, where's the outcry for Terry Mcaullife's earnings under Global Crossing?

You people are laughable.

Clinton helped Enron finance projects abroad
By Patrice Hill
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


The Clinton administration provided more than $1 billion in subsidized loans to Enron Corp. projects overseas at a time when Enron was contributing nearly $2 million to Democratic causes. Top Stories
• Daschle hits execution of war
• Georgia diplomat freed years early
• Women's panel to get new orders
• U.S. wants U.N. tribunals closed
• Tyson to get private audience
• Serbs fascinated with Milosevic trial
• Airlines count on summer deals


Clinton officials refused to finance only one out of 20 projects proposed by the energy company between 1993 and 2000 to build power plants, natural-gas pipelines and other big-ticket energy facilities around the world, according to the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp., the agencies that provided the subsidies.
In addition, the administration, which lauded Chairman Kenneth L. Lay as an exemplary "corporate citizen," granted about $200 million worth of insurance against political risks for nine Enron projects in such politically volatile areas as Argentina, Venezuela and the Gaza Strip, according to documents the agencies provided to the Senate Finance Committee.
"These projects obviously were a tremendous benefit to Enron's operations," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and ranking minority member of the committee. He noted that the Reagan and Bush administrations approved no loans for Enron between 1985 and 1992 and provided insurance for only one Enron power project in Guatemala in 1992.
The Clinton administration provided three loans between 1994 and 1998 to the now-defunct Dabhol power project in India. Mr. Clinton's commerce secretary, Ron Brown, trumpeted the approval of the Dabhol loans on a trade mission to India in 1995, with Mr. Lay by his side.
The trip was one of 11 Clinton trade missions provided at taxpayer expense for corporate executives from Enron and other companies. The U.S. Trade and Development Agency, which sponsored the trips, also provided $1 million in funding to study Enron energy projects in Russia, Eastern Europe and former Soviet states.
As congressional committees dig for evidence to tie Enron and Mr. Lay to the Bush administration, evidence of Mr. Lay's links to the Clinton administration are ample and well-documented.
Mr. Lay at times was Mr. Clinton's golf partner and slept in the Lincoln Bedroom. Other top Enron officials attended the White House's infamous "coffee klatches" with Mr. Clinton, according to published reports.
Mr. Lay offered a seat on Enron's board of directors to Robert E. Rubin, Mr. Clinton's Treasury secretary, in 1999 just before he left government, the Associated Press reported yesterday. Mr. Rubin tried to get Treasury to intervene on behalf of Enron last fall when the company credit rating was threatened.
In May 1996, Mr. Clinton lauded Mr. Lay as a good "corporate citizen" at a White House event because of Enron's enlightened personnel policies, including profit-sharing of Enron stock and generous health and pension benefits. Enron employees now are suing because those benefits are as worthless as the bankrupt company's stock.
During the Clinton years, Enron contributed more than $1 million to the Democratic Party, including $600,000 to the Democatic National Committee, according to Federal Election Commission records. Mr. Clinton and Vice President Al Gore received contributions of $11,000 and $13,750, respectively, for their presidential campaigns.
One $100,000 contribution to the DNC was provided before India gave final approval to Enron's Dabhol project in June 1996. The largest and most expensive capital project ever undertaken in India, Dabhol was of dubious economic value and never went on line.
The World Bank, on reviewing the project, said it was not economically viable and inordinately benefited Enron, which was a 65 percent owner. Enron still owes $203 million on an Export-Import Bank loan for the project, which the bank says is covered by guarantees provided by five Indian banks.
Congressional aides said it is not clear what the taxpayers' liability will be for that and other loans now that Enron is bankrupt. The Export-Import Bank said its loans were extended to overseas subsidiaries of Enron and not the bankrupt corporation. The overseas investment agency said its exposure is limited to paying any missed premiums on Enron's political risk insurance.
Top Clinton officials lobbied personally to obtain Indian state guarantees for the Dabhol project after it encountered early problems in 1995. Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty, the White House chief of staff, made it a top administration priority to keep the project from failing. The Bush administration has continued efforts to salvage the project.
Clinton Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary led a succession of missions to India, and Mr. Clinton's ambassador to India, Frank Wisner, was charged with keeping the project afloat. After Mr. Wisner left government in 1997, he took a seat on the board of directors of a company then controlled by Enron. Mr. McLarty also performed work for Enron after leaving the

I see now Fester. You ask about the relationship between Enron and the Clinton White House and then when confronted with facts, decide to ignore them and smear Dubya...props for plungering yourself.

BTW, you didn't have to use the word "all" to include all Republicans, dipshit, because when you post, "The "single fact" being that Republicans," you're inherently including all of them. Less you'd have been more specific in your charcaterization. Sucks when someone beats you about your head with your own words, eh?? LMAO!!!

Rack Smackie and Fester, even though the board's right wing is attempting a pile-on (go figure). And I just thought I'd address this particular gem from Warren:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by warrenton:
Like they wouldn't even allow Bush's judicial appointee to get a vote on the Senate floor, even though they had approved the same man for an earlier appointment.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

The earlier appointment they had approved the same man (Charles Pickering) for was twelve years ago (or thereabouts). Many on the judiciary committee believed that Pickering had piled up a singularly unimpressive record (reminds me of Clarence Thomas) over the course of those twelve years. Actually, W nominated Pickering as a favor to Trent Lott, a personal friend of Pickering's, and rumor was that even the W administration wasn't real thrilled about the nomination.

Btw, if memory serves, Pickering was nominated for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. How many of Clinton's nominees for that Court were rejected by the GOP-controlled Senate without even a vote?

Awright it's my fault------Jimmy Carter

Terry, there?s no pile-on happening here. Though you?d like to characterize it as such to help your fellow Democrat out? http://www.hostboard.com/forums/

Fester attempts to suggest that the article was just a demonstration of, ?In a democratic society, successful propaganda generally relies on two elements: the fabrication of a useful, plausible, specific lie, and the deployment of visible professionals who are willing to repeat it until it?s believed.?

But the tone and content of the article belie that very narrow characterization of the article. More to the point, the article served one purpose and one purpose only, to use a single example of inaccurate information to undermine an entire argument, ala, Lay didn?t stay the night at the Clinton White House, therefore, there was no relationship between Enron and Clinton. And we all know that to be false as a few of us have posted substantiatated evidence to the contrary.

Also, Fester makes the attempt to suggest that, ?Republicans and the media used a lie to smear Clinton and point the finger away from Bush.?

That may be, however, just as no quid pro quo relationship was ever proven between Clinton and the Chinese, no such relationship has been demonstrated here. In fact, if such a relationship had existed between Dubya and Enron, it wold necessarily have resulted in a government bailout of that firm, would it not? Thereby demonstrating that no such relationship existed.

It?s hilarious seeing Fester feversihlsy demanding that I prove that Lay bought favors from Dubya, LMAO! Not only did I not claim that nor suggest it, he has yet to demonstrate the same with Dubya, of which this article he uses to suggest as much?.. http://www.hostboard.com/forums/

Aaaaah yes, Dr.WarrenPeehole. I see the right wing circle jerk is in full affect this morning The log cabin republicans are representing this morning.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DrDetroit:

BTW, you didn't have to use the word "all" to include all Republicans, dipshit, because when you post, "The "single fact" being that Republicans," you're inherently including all of them. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read some stupid shit on this board, and I'm sure I've posted some pearls of idiocy myself. But I don't recall EVER allowing my eyes to be exposed to the retardation that characterizes the above quote. So is there an implied "all" before every unmodified noun, Doctor Dickhead? If I make the statement "Arabs hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings," am I really saying that all Arabs do it? Am I also excluding all other ethnic groups by singling out one group? What school of logic did you attend that misled you so grievously as to believe that there is a silent all before Fester's use of the word "Republicans"? Explain how it's "inherent" that he's including them all?

Good God, you're a dumbfuck!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Terry in Crapchester:
The earlier appointment they had approved the same man (Charles Pickering) for was twelve years ago. Many on the judiciary committee believed that Pickering had piled up a singularly unimpressive record (reminds me of Clarence Thomas) over the course of those twelve years. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that's why the ABA rated Pickering as 'well qualified'.

If your saying anything other than this was a straight up partisan hatchet job, you're full of shit.

whats this--a good ol obscenity riddled political flamewar w/out index? no wonder antarctica is breaking up

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Also, Fester makes the attempt to suggest that, “Republicans and the media used a lie to smear Clinton and point the finger away from Bush.”

That may be, however...bla bla bla</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amazing. You admit the point I was trying to make with my original post. Congratulations, a first. It must be snowing down in Hell.

As for the rest, well, it's simply a case of dueling articles. Lay pretended to be an alternative energy champ for a while, hence the dealings with Clinton. But to suggest the relationships are the same is pretty funny.

Lay was simply an opportunist.

Smokie, are you banging your head that hard to come up with some retort here??

So is there an implied "all" before every unmodified noun, Doctor Dickhead?

Dipshit, read my post. The answer is there. He said ?Republicans? and chose not to qualify which Republicans he was characterizing. Did you know which Republicans he was characterizing as such?? Republicans are a large group and simply using the noun as such, without a qualifier certainly lends itself to being read as I did.

So tell, me, Smokie, did you know just which Republicans Fester was talking about.

If I make the statement "Arabs hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings," am I really saying that all Arabs do it?

Are you not? Exactly what would you be saying with that statement other than that all Arabs do this?? Why not take the half second of thought required and be a little more precise by qualifying about who you are referring to?.

Am I also excluding all other ethnic groups by singling out one group?

You certainly did not include them now did you. And that you qualified only one ethnic group as such, I?d only have to assume you were referring to the Arabs?.please show me the unreasonable nature of my reading.

What school of logic did you attend that misled you so grievously as to believe that there is a silent all before Fester's use of the word "Republicans"? Explain how it's "inherent" that he's including them all?

Um, that Fester did not qualify about which Republicans or about what segment of Republicans that he referred to. Please tell me what you read when you read his statement. Do you see him qualifying anything other than all Republicans? I thought not. Props for soiling yourself on this inconsequential point. Is that all you could come up with, besides the retarded ?Democrats = good, Republicans = bad? concept?? Again, props hypocrite.

Good God, you're a dumbfuck!

Then I suppose then that you?ll identify which ?Republicans Fester was referring to, if not all, LMAO!!!!! Go fuck yourself, tard.

Fester: Amazing. You admit the point I was trying to make with my original post. Congratulations, a first. It must be snowing down in Hell.

What did I admit to? I said, ?that may be.? Hardly the admission you so desperately seek here, Fester. Fester, I was only commenting upon YOUR OPINION that Republicans (LMAO, I guess you only meant a certain select few, right??) used a lie to smear Clinton.

However, it does stand to reason, does it not (well, I guess only to those who tear off the blinders) that it was merely/simply one piece of inaccurate information that was repeated over and over (much like the unsubstantiated abortion charges against Dubya, that was repeated over and over and gained foothold here). It sounds rather like another vast right wing conspiracy theory if you ask me, http://www.hostboard.com/forums/ , as though these media rags got together, drew up a plan and then ran with it. I saw Detroit News articles from the same time period that noted it was in the Bush White House that Lay stayed over and not the Clinton White House. Hardly the vast conspiracy your author portends it to be, Fester.

As for the rest, well, it's simply a case of dueling articles.

I didn?t post my excerpts in any sort of ?duel.? There were merely evidence that you requested, my friend, illustrating the cozy relationship between Lay and the Clinton White House. Your author is trying to use this single example of bad information to sever any tie between Clinton and Enron. It failed because I and others don?t buy into vast right-wing conspiracy theories.

Lay pretended to be an alternative energy champ for a while, hence the dealings with Clinton. But to suggest the relationships are the same is pretty funny.

No, what?s hilarious is your assertion that Lay?s favor-shopping in the Bush White House was different that in the Clinton White House, and to date, you have yet to offer evidence illustrating that difference.

Lay was simply an opportunist.

Gee, as though we all didn?t know already that he heavily lobbied both Democrats and Republicans, http://www.hostboard.com/forums/ You?ve just stubbed your own toe you dummy.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Your author is trying to use this single example of bad information to sever any tie between Clinton and Enron.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

He's doing nothing of the sort. Actually the reverse is true, which was the point of the article. I'm sorry if you still do not get it. You are really quite funny.

Study the concluding paragraph and try again.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No psychiatric degree is necessary to identify the process by which an embarrassment to the Bushes is turned into an attack on the Clintons, without so much as a phone call to check the facts by any of the perpetrators. It's called projection, and it is certain to persist until Enron is only an unpleasant memory.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

<font color="#330033" size="1">[ March 26, 2002 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Uncle Fester ]</font>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DrDetroit:

Dipshit, read my post. The answer is there. He said ?Republicans? and chose not to qualify which Republicans he was characterizing. Did you know which Republicans he was characterizing as such?? Republicans are a large group and simply using the noun as such, without a qualifier certainly lends itself to being read as I did.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Holy shit, DrDimbulb, I've never given you credit for being very smart, but it certainly now appears that what little I did give you was being overly generous. Really, a supposedly intelligent individual (at least according to you and the other pinheads who jock each other's conservative takes, regardless of how vapid they are) making statements such as those you've made here stretches belief to its limits. It makes me ashamed to be of the same nationality (American) as someone as completely lacking in anything
even remotely resembling intelligence as you. Let's see if I can make this simple enough for even you to understand:

Fish swim in the ocean.
Birds can fly.
Republicans are conservative.

In and of themselves, without further modification, the above three statements are true. All it takes to satisfy the truth test is for more than one fish to swim in the ocean, more than one bird to have the ability to fly, and more than one Republican to be conservative. However, using your anti-logic, an implied all precedes the three statements above, because I failed (or chose not) to identify every fish, bird, and Republican. By reading these sentences with the silent all, they become false statements. This is the basis on which you feebly attempt to defend your position?!?

Where did you come up with this implied "all" crap anyway? Rational people, (and you can assume an "all" before "rational" in this case) when modifying the above three statements to make them more clear, would use the word "some" rather than "all," since some is not an extreme modifier and is more often than not what is implied. Words such as "all," "none," "always," and "never" are extreme, in that it only takes one exception to invalidate them. But since your mission in your miserable excuse for a life is to invalidate all things Democratic, it's not surprising that you would resort to taking this most basic rule of logic and vainly try to spin, contort, and disfigure it in such a way that it appears to serve your argument's purpose. Pathetic, I tell ya.

Class dismissed, DrDeCorky...I have no more time for special ed students.

Jessus, Smackie, I think you've killed him. Doc, stay down already.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Uncle Fester:

Jessus, Smackie, I think you've killed him. Doc, stay down already.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

It'd be easier to rid the earth of cockroaches than to keep DrDickmunch down. I can't wait to see the gems he's waiting to bust out in response, however. I'm certain it'll be a logician's wet dream.

Smackie: Republicans are conservative.

I am with you on this, no need to qualify it as by nature, Republicans are conservatives. However, Fester's article implies that all Republicans used this particular lie to smear Clinton, which, obviously, is untrue.

Ooops, I see the problem here, you believe that, by definition, Republicans are liars. http://www.hostboard.com/forums/

I have no problem characterizing all Republicans as conservative as for the most part they are, however, once you move into characterizing Republicans as liars, that's a different issue altogether.

So, are you gonna answer my question or not? How was I supposed to read Fester's article then? All Republicans or just some Republicans? It was not qualified....

You may continue with your second grade lesson.....carry on.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DrDetroit:

So, are you gonna answer my question or not? How was I supposed to read Fester's article then? All Republicans or just some Republicans? It was not qualified....

You may continue with your second grade lesson.....carry on.</font></font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't flatter yourself...second grade is but a distant speck on the horizon before you.

Damn, I thought I answered your question as clearly as I could, but again it appears I overestimate your capabilities. Once again, in most cases where an unmodified plural noun does not specify quantity or individual members of the plural noun mentioned (e.g., Republicans), an implied adjective or modifying phrase such as "some," "a few," "many," "most," "a whole shitload," et al, is preferable to an extreme modifier such as "all," which because it is so extreme, we can safely assume the author would have included in order to drive his point home and not allow the reader to make the logical assumption that he does not mean all.

On your point about Republicans being conservative, not all are. Some are moderate, while a few might even be described as progressive, so to assume that all Republicans are conservative would be as incorrect as to assume that all birds can fly.

An example of how an argument using your "reasoning" would occur might look like this:

Smackie: Fish swim in the ocean.

DrDork: Smackie, you dipshit! Is a trout a fish? Does a trout swim in the ocean? NO? HA!! You're such an iodot, Smokie...get outta your haze and look around at reality, dude.

Smackie: Um, doc...did I say all fish?

DrDubya'sageniuscomparedtome: No, but what else could you have meant? You didn't say which fish, so obviously you meant all fish, which of course just goes to further prove what a lying Communist bastard you are! SCOREBOARD!!

...or something like that.

<font color="#330033" size="1">[ March 26, 2002 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Smackie Chan ]</font>

Im to drunk and high to read all that ^^^^
&#0124;&#0124;&#0124;&#0124;

Smakcie, like I said before, I see your point, however, all of your examples are not comparable to what Fester posted. Your fish example would be similar to talking about people, animals, etc., entire populations. Republicans is but one segment of a broader population. Hence, using "Republicans" without qualifying all, some, white, etc., completely leaves it open.

Fester's article doesn't qualify which Republicans it is referring to, hence, it leaves nothing other than all, the absence of the qualifier infers it.

Props for the second grade smack and the english lesson, too bad it was for naught....

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by mvscal:
I guess that's why the ABA rated Pickering as 'well qualified'.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't it W who said he wasn't going to use the ABA ratings in selecting judicial nominees?

More to the point, from http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20020322.html

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">[S]ome Senators considered Pickering's record on the bench to be mediocre at best.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If your saying anything other than this was a straight up partisan hatchet job, you're full of shit.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spin it anyway you want, but the bottom line is that the Senate played by the rules on the Pickering nomination, or at least as close to the rules as the GOP-controlled Senate did with respect to Clinton's nominations.

Deetroit:

It's funny how you try and steer arguments to your advantage with your straw men, diversions, spin, and irrelevent questions. Then you follow up with insults and rants about how everyone is "ducking your question."

It's always the same life and death game with you. I'm amazed at how patient Index was in bothering to even respond to you.

And today (I'm in a good mood), your posts just seem fucking hilarious to me. Props! http://www.hostboard.com/forums/

Fester, anytime you wanto to call me to the mat on ay of those things you posted, feel free to do so. I?ll sack up and do my best to post posts that make sense and are reasonable.

What I find most amusing is that when I disagree with one you guys and offer my alternative perspective, it?s called, ?spin.?

When I ask a question directly addressing a point made by a poster that the poster cannot respond to, it?s called ?irrelevant? and/or ?a diversion.?

Those two things crack me up the most on these boards.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Terry in Crapchester:
Rack Smackie and Fester, even though the board's right wing is attempting a pile-on (go figure). And I just thought I'd address this particular gem from Warren:



The earlier appointment they had approved the same man (Charles Pickering) for was twelve years ago (or thereabouts). Many on the judiciary committee believed that Pickering had piled up a singularly unimpressive record (reminds me of Clarence Thomas) over the course of those twelve years. Actually, W nominated Pickering as a favor to Trent Lott, a personal friend of Pickering's, and rumor was that even the W administration wasn't real thrilled about the nomination.

Btw, if memory serves, Pickering was nominated for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. How many of Clinton's nominees for that Court were rejected by the GOP-controlled Senate without even a vote?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

touche'.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by vitocorleone:
Aaaaah yes, Dr.WarrenPeehole. I see the right wing circle jerk is in full affect this morning The log cabin republicans are representing this morning.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaaaaah yes, I see that VitalColonostomy once again has nothing to bring to the table other than "Laker rule dude!"

The only Log Cabin around here I know of is your ass crack where you routinely treat plunger and penis to a warm safe environment.

Go ask your Daddy for a take and then get back to us.

Warrentard, I don't know what's sadder? Your comeback or the fact that it took you over a day to think it up.


Oh yeah, War 3Peat.