Have I heard that question before?
@ Scylla.
Yes, those are two different things. I don’t want Congress to investigate anyone’s morality. Governmental ethics, certainly (a la Ohio Democrat James Traficant). Business ethics of members of government, certainly. “Morality”, nuh-uh.
As before, we’re in agreement that the Bush-Harken-Aloha situation is ambiguous. And while I’d hardly call the current attention being paid to Citizen Bush’s dealings ca. 1990 either “muckraking” or “potshots”, I’ll agree that any look-see taken by Congress into President Bush’s past must be limited in scope to direct questions of the legal and/or ethical considerations involved in this specific period of time with these specific business transactions. Any other issues which may come up concerning Citizen/Governor/President G. W. Bush and his ethics need to be taken separately.
And I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on our expectations of disclosure. It’s a different take on “national leadership”, I suppose.
xeno, Scylla, no need for special thanks since it is very clear that it’s to you–as well as to elucidator, that kudos are most owing.
That said…
**BARRY MANILOW!!! **
What would I have gotten if you hadn’t liked what I’d said? Julio Iglesias?
In any case.
elucidator: *"This is boiling down to one or the other: chump or crook. Is that an important distinction? Hell yes!
I want to know. How come you don’t want to know?"*
I actually think Scylla made a very strong case, pages and pages back, for why Bush might choose to conceal these documents even without hiding any smoking gun. I’m certainly willing to believe that there’s no smoking gun to hide–but a motive to prevent the media attention that would undoubtedly come in the wake of the documents’ release. And you may well be right that there would be a “chump” reading of those documents. But surely in the current climate, a chump reading could be almost as damaging as a crook reading since chump could translate into “failed watchdog.”
To be sure it would be lovely if Bush were more honest about this decision to maintain his privacy; as opposed to putting on a show of transparency. Yes, it’s tough to pull off, but then again Cheney did it with his energy policy meetings and may well get away with it.
Once you admit that what’s being hidden may not be “crook” but may be “chump” it seems a bit futile to ask partisans why they don’t join you in demanding public inquiry into “chump.” Chump isn’t a straightforward ethical violation that would require such inquiry on ethical grounds; it is, rather, an aspersion on Bush’s competence and/or diligence as business leader/watchdog. My guess is that most Bush supporters already have made up their minds on the matter of Bush’s brains and business record. For reasons of their own, have decided he wins their support. In effect, your asking them to urge on the opening of a can of worms that I’ve already decided to rationalize. Although there are many differences, to be sure, I do think that asking Republicans to demand deep inquiry into “chump” is a lot like asking Democrats to demand deep inquiry into Monica.
YIkes! That should be “In effect, you’re asking them to urge on the opening of a can of worms that they’ve already decided to rationalize.”
elucidator:
We’re looking at this thing from two different perspectives.
My perspective is: What do you do when people who are out to get you make allegations against you?
On the one hand, you can cooperate fully and try to clear your name
On the other hand you can simply state that you did nothing wrong, so go stuff it.
Depending on the situation, both may be appropriate at different times.
Bush has basically said that the allegations are full of shit, so go stuff it.
This is what I would do if I was in his shoes, and I was innocent.
I think he has good reasons behind this stance. I don’t think the press (or you particularly,) are interested in clearing him, or finding the truth. Let’s face it the primary interest is in what you can find against Bush against those documents to cast Bush in the worst possible light, isn’t it?
(I hope you don’t find that insulting, you make no bones about your feelings towards Dubya.)
And, I do feel that I know the answer to my satisfaction:
I feel 99.99% sure that Bush did not know about the coming earnings restatement during the period leading up to and inclusive of the time he sold his stock.
I just can’t create a scenario that contradicts this without it seeming absolutely ridiculous and far-fetched.
This is one of the reasons I keep asking for one. It’s something to work on and define our arguments.
I feel about 90% sure that he wanted the money for the Rangers purchase, and that he was not expecting or inclined to expect any bad things to befall the company in the near future, and that is what motivated his sale.
I strongly suspect (85%) that he didn’t know who owned IMR.
I suspect that the Aloha transaction appeared complex and arcane to him (as it would to anybody) and that in an environment where it was being presented as a good thing by the CEO and pronounced Kosher by the auditors, he had no reason to look at with untoward suspicion. I think he had little reason to suspect that there was something funny going on, so it never triggered or should have triggered a moral or ethical questioning of it by him.
I suspect that Bush was strongly motivated by the desire and pressure to do well, and make money, and that he also had a desire to perceive himself as an ethical person “Straight-shooter” is the word I keep hearing. With that kind of aspiration I think he would have said something if he saw something there that was wrong. He really had nothing to lose by doing so.
In other cases, such as the Rangers stadium thing his ethics/desires would have been in more direct competition with each other, and it’s not unreasonable to suggest that an examination of his ethics there might be worthwhile.
That’s the biggee, you know?
This Harken thing really doesn’t matter if we’re talking about the large national context.
The Rangers thing is where his ethics/values versus his desire to succeed will become apparent.
The thing that surprises me is that with all the dealings and interests of the Bush family, and the President’s past, why are focussing on this.
As I said in another thread, there’s a fertile field. Why cast your seeds on the rockiest possible ground?
You’ve congratulated on my rhetorical skills, but I think that’s false. This is easy. Bush really does look very innocent of having committed insider trading and almost all of the evidence points to that. It certainly won’t be so easy elsewhere.
So, I think I do know, and I think the Harken deal is a poor choice of platform from which to assualt Bush.
Xeno:
So do you think Congress should hold an ethics hearing on Bush’s Harken transaction, or launch a full fledged investigation?
I shudder at the thought of a congressionally funded investigation.
I really would specifically like to know what the scope of that would be?
What potential ethical violations do you thing warrant investigation of examination.
We seem to be pretty close to agreement on a couple of different possible scenarios. Why not play with one or two of those and show some ethical violations so we can look at the pros and cons.
Mostly what I’m picturing is a a 4 hour board meeting (and if you’ve ever been in one of these things you’ll know where I’m coming from) in which hundreds of items of business are discussed and the Aloha sale just sails on through without raising an eyebrow on anybody.
It just falls into the category of one of those impossible accounting things that the beancounters handle. If they say it’s ok, it must be fine. That’s what we’re paying them for.
Lawrence Welk? (Actually, it was the only “Mandy” song I knew…)
Well, the Monica thing at least raised some valid ethical concerns. (I’m not talking fidelity here, I mean sexual harrassment and influence peddling. And that perjury thing.) Incompetence isn’t indictable, so any investigation looking for that would be obviously driven by partisan politics.
If it’s chump you want, I say wait for the movie…
Deep Inside Monica (Penthouse Video)
The Chump Stops Here! (A&E Biography)
[sub]Sorry.[/sub]
That’s actually a difficult question for me. On the one hand (my crunchy, whole-wheat Joe-citizen side), I think it’s a stretch, and the only thing that indicates to me that my representatives should take an interest is the opacity being maintained by Mr. Bush. On the other hand (my frosty, partisan side), I think it’s certainly plausible that ethical violations occured, and if anyone deserves scrutiny it’s the guy making so much noise (and doing so little) about “corporate responsibility”.
Balancing those two sides (within the milk of human kindness that’s in my heart— OK, OK; I’ll stop stretching the metaphor), I think some public-record comments from Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle are called for, but unless documents are uncovered which tend to more strongly indicate bad juju, no official investigation. Yet. Until those documents turn up.
However, I greatly encourage active journalistic investigation, and would immediately call for Congressional involvement were such media inquiries unlawfully impeded.
And what would you do differently if you were guilty?
“Let’s face it”? Which is to say, if I’m willing to admit that I’m wrong, you’re willing to admit that I’m wrong as well? I hope you won’t think it churlish to spurn such non-partisan generosity.
I suspect that the documents in question may do that all by themselves, without any assistance from me. And what do *my * motives have to do with anything? Would I somehow be better entitled if I hoped only to see Our Leader revealed as a shrewd and sternly ethical man?
Do you seek to imply that my motives are suspect because I am partisan, while yours are pure because you are not?
As to the Rangers: yes and no, regretably. Sure it stinks that public money was manipulated to engineer a whopping profit for a bunch of cronies. *But that’s Texas. *
In Texas, government is a wholly owned whore of business. Always has been. In Texas, you can get away with calling in the major polluters to write laws governing pollution. You can get away with making compliance with those laws voluntary.
When reporters started digging into Arkansas politics. they were surprised to find the level of cozy corruption. If they apply the same rigor to Texas politics, they will swell up, turn purple and burst!
Sinclair Lewis once said “There are two things no civilized person should have to witness: one is what really goes into sausage at a meatpacking plant, and the other is what a Texas politician does to earn his daily bread.”
In Great Debates, we expect prompt answers to relevant questions, and that people back up their blatant generalities with something that resembles a fact.
elucidator: "Do you seek to imply that my motives are suspect because I am partisan, while yours are pure because you are not?
"
Actually, it’s my impression that Scylla recognizes that we are all partisans in this debate doing our best to argue the objective merits of the position that we favor. I think Scylla brought up your motives (to find fault rather than to exonerate) because he’s trying to explain why it is that from his view Bush has nothing to gain–whether he’s a crook, a chump, or neither–from disclosing all documents.
Personally, I’m not sure that full-scale journalistic investigation of all of Bush’s many ties (Harken, Rangers, Enron, etc.) in conjunction with Cheney/Halliburton, wouldn’t do more to inform the public on the matter of credibility than an official investigation into Harken itself (which might be inconclusive). Of course, these aren’t mutually exclusive options.
eris, FWIW, I think you’re being unfair to elucidator who’s been working his butt off for these last ten pages. It’s easy to judge from the sidelines (and yes, I’ve been doing it too). Your lecturing him on what “we” expect in GD is not very different from ad hominen.
btw, I’m ROTFL, xeno while I wait for those flicks.
My experience with elucidator has not been any more pleasant. I recall asking him to answer a question three times and was led around the same totem pole.
I think elucidator has brought up a few good points, no doubt about it. That doesn’t change the fact that he made some huge generalizations and refused to answer direct questions. I, and others, call people on that.
If I don’t speak for you in that regard, Mandelstam, then I will certainly take that into account.
I don’t doubt his accusations against Texas, really. I wouldn’t doubt them much of anywhere, as a matter of fact. I don’t find them to be common knowledge, even on this board.
But, if he can call an entire state’s government a tool of business in a degrading manner and be defended when someone calls him on it, then I suppose I have some reassessment to do of my own.
elucidator:
What would I do if I was him and I was guilty?
Good fucking question.
I guess what it would depend on what it was I was guilty of.
I mean if I deliberately defrauded investors and committed conspiracy with all kinds of other people to make money doing insider illegal trades…
Well, I guess I’d start rationalizing like hell. Any argument for me to come clean isn’t going to wash. If I was to do all that bad stuff, I can hardly start worrying about the moral implications of my actions now can I?
Then I would rationalize further, and decide that my position to do good as POTUS would be hampered in the extreme by the lesser good of my admitting my wrongs…
soooo.
Dammit, it would be downright selfish of me to admit that I did it, wouldn’t it?
For the good of my party, nay, for the good of the country, my duty as a patriot would be clear.
As much as it would pain me, I would have to lie my ass off. Probably I should also attack the people who are attacking me, and try to get them on the defensive.
Maybe call somebody up at the FBI, or one of Dad’s old cronies from the CIA and see how they like it when they get investigated.
Oh yeah, and sick the IRS on them, too.
If it was something like I was aware of the accounting issues and wasn’t sure if it was wrong, and made a mistake in not objecting to it, then I’d probably come clean and use it as an example of what needs to be fixed in Corporate America.
And, I’m not trying to insult you with the partisanism comment. I personally felt validated over the Lewsinsky thing because I thought Clinton was somewhat sleazy.
I imagine that you’re interest in learning things about George’s past is primarily so that you can use them against him.
If you feel that that is an unfair characterization, I’ll withdraw it.
And having recently returned from Houston…
Well, let’s just say I’m not inclined to argue with you about Texas.
The people were really nice though, I had great oysters on the half shell, and the best tenderloin with bernaise sauce I ever had, but it was hotter than hell, more humid and smelly than my armpit, and everything was dirty and ugly.
Didn’t do any real political wheeling or dealing though, so I don’t know about the rest.
You can buy beer in a gas station, and every other building was a strip mall. Every strip mall had a strip club, a porn outlet, a bar, and a Fudruckers.
Xeno:
I have no problem with a couple of congressional growls directed at Bush along the lines of “We’ll be watching you.”
And the media is always free to dig, and if anybody tries to stop them unlawfully, damn straight that’s a big deal.
In other words we agree.
Damn. Mandelstram’s good.
That would be fine if Scylla limited himself to relevant questions. But what he does instead is try and get opponants to respond to rhetorical traps.
Notice that when he asks someone to defend “their own” views, Scylla seldom quotes them back their own words, instead he attributes indefensible positions to others, then calls them liars when they refuse to defend them.
elucidator is quite right to refuse the trap. Shame on you for aiding and abetting Scylla dishonest tactics.
Oh, I see you’ve tried to use the same tactic with him as well. [Gilda Rather]Never mind[/Gilda Rather]
Oh, and you might want to actually read the first 3 pages before you go off posturing about what’s in them. In those pages Scylla manages to
[ul]
[li]Slander Krugman[/li][li]try to discount factual information because it’s on a partisan site[/li][li]Call the SEC documents forgeries[/li][li]Call them incomplete and misleading[/li][/ul]
Only to get forced to retract all of this. The only useful contribution from Scylla in the first 3 pages was his lecture on the rules for insider trading. (That, and giving us lots of juicy, low hanging fruit to shoot down).
It was only later that he began to mount a coherent defense. Even then, his defense absolutely depends on the nonsensical assertion that only possible insider knowledge was the (unknowable at the time) fact that the SEC was going to disallow the accounting on the Alhoa deal. That’s it.
Aparently, if you trade on the knowledge that your books are cooked it’s only insider information if you know the SEC is going to catch the book cooking. If you think you are going to get away with it, and you DO get away with it, then it isn’t insider information.
[bad Sammy Davis impersonation]
*Who can take a slug fest,
Sprinkle it with clues
Open up the topics and connect up all the views…
The Mandelstam can!
Oh, the Mandelstam can!*
[/bad Sammy Davis impersonation]
Well, that timing kinda sucked. 
I don’t aid Scylla in anything. He stands well on his own, I think. And I have debated him before. It was quite a crapfest.
I see a comment like “In Texas, government is a wholly owned whore of business” and have to wonder: is this guy even able to present an argument, or can he only sling mud? you’ve made some interesting points, xen has made a few, Mandlestam has had a thing or two to say, and so has elucidator (I’ll warrant, though I think I actually missed most of them; I’m actually just taking M, X, and Sc on their word on this).
Please, get mad at me for rejecting those kind of comments. [schoolmarm]You’re going on the list![/schoolmarm]
There, did that fit in the thread right? Or should I make a baseless comment about bashing the Adam Smith who wasn’t even a part of the thread to fit in? Should I make a wry remark that pertains only to those in my socio-economic status?
Even after ten pages, I just can’t get the hang of it.
Wait a tick! You mean that Erislover was talking about me? I assumed from the comments that (s)he was talking about…someone else.
I go now to perform the Ancient Tasmanian Ritual of Self-Abasement, accompanied by a Chorus of Bitter Virgins, intoning dirges of Woe and Humiliation!
Let’s see. Elucidator wrote…
A generalization, in other words. Followed by…
…two facts! (In fact, they are facts. Quite factual – Bush’s voluntary emissions reduction bill was written by industry lobbyists. http://www.txpeer.org/Bush/Dismantling_Regulations.html )
Anyway, kudos to the major players here on an interesting thread.
:: returns to sideline::
Further Harken documents posted by the CPI. None of them particularly damning, but they are corroborative of a fairly high level of involvement by Mr. Bush in Harken management.