|President's ties to Enron!||Live Steam|
Jan 8, 2004 8:44 AM
|Some Interesting Information About the Presidents Ties to Enron:
This is an interesting bit of information that you don't hear much about in the media ---
a.. Enron's chairman did meet with the president and the vice president in the Oval Office.
b.. Enron gave $420,000 to the president's party over three years.
c.. It donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities.
d.. The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times.
e.. The corporation had access to the administration at its highest levels and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it.
f.. The taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million in just one transaction.
g.. BUT...the president under whom all this happened WASN'T George W. Bush.
h.. SURPRISE ......... It was Bill Clinton!
Someone sent this to me. I thought it was cute :O)
|Thank GOD. I was worried about you, man.||OldEdScott|
Jan 8, 2004 8:50 AM
|Hadn't flung up some reckless 'facts' about Clinton's perfidy in ages. I was thinking you'd lost your edge!
I can't BELIEVE the elite Eastern media don't put these 'facts' on the news EVERY NIGHT.
|I've been very busy :O)||Live Steam|
Jan 8, 2004 8:58 AM
|I am working on a few new projects after getting back from AZ and messing with some computer problems. I cam across this old email and thought it was appropriate based on the topic from CT. Quid pro quo! You know. Oh you can look them up I'm sure. I doubt they are misleading in any way. Happy New Year my fine, hopelessly liberal friend :O)|
|And you, my feudalist friend. nm||OldEdScott|
Jan 8, 2004 9:43 AM
|re: President Clinton's ties to Enron!||kilimanjaro|
Jan 8, 2004 10:16 AM
I remember reading, I think in Slate, an article that differentiated between Clinton and Bushe's pandering.
Clinton got money from everyone. Labor unions on the left and large companies more on the right. And since he proclaimed to be a more centrist democrat, he should try to get some money from businesses as well (This last bit is my own imagination).
Bush on the other hand is closely aligned with K streed and religeous/social conservatives.
The article argues out that Clinton supporters often have conflicting agendas that can act as buffer against one another, NAFTA comes to mind. Wheras Bush constituents usually do not have strong conflicting views in one area. This is why Bush's "pandering" is more dangerous. The article made some sence to me.
Another article, perhaps the same points out that this partially explains why the Democratic party have problem with a unifying single message. It tries to represent too many groups.
Also, while the stat you cite is impressive, how does it compare to the overall business contributions, secrete meetings from business or labor that both president have had? I would not be surprised if Bush turns out to receive much more contributions both in absolute number and in percentage of total contributions from large business.