http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standar
d.xsl
?/base/news/1016792138477012.xml

"Around the same time that they were chasing a presidential
pardon for their Alabama bank fraud convictions, a well-connected
carnival owner and his wife paid the brother-in-law of then-President
Clinton more than $240,000 for consulting services, according to a new
congressional review. "


From Chicken pluckers to Carny owners,  the Clinton Clan sure associated
with and benefited from a fine bunch of characters.  Just another
episode in the series _The Arkansas Hillbillys_...

117 responses total.

bdh is a social autistic obsessed with clintons


*poops*

Uh, I'm not the author nor publisher of the media bit referenced
in #0.  Don't get bitchy with me for something that somebody else saw as
'news fit to print'.  On the other hand I merely offer the aphorism
'actions speak louder than words'. And 'where there is smoke there is
usually fire'. On the gripping hand, "Clinton makes Nixon look like
a street beggar."

bdh give it up, clinton isnt president anymore, he is a private citizen
who has no further relevance to your life

And there is no evidence that Clinton's pardon had any connection with
his brother-in-law's business deal, apart from an apparently a recommendation
from said brother-in-law. Many people submit recommendations for pardons,
for all sorts of personal or altruistic reasons. 

geee, i wnat rcurl on my jury, if i ever need one.

You'd be surprised. I demand solid evidence and act on it.

Funny how any business deal of Clinton is worth looking into, but 
dealings between Enron and the Bush Administration are none of our 
business.

Clinton is being brought up again *because* the senate is looking into
Enron. 

re #7, y9ur basis for criticism is that there are/were dealings
between bush/enron. sorry to disappoint but this administration
(in direct contrast to the last) did not abuse either its power
or its position - rare in politics, but an infinite improvement.

That's the blooper of the year. This administration is abusing its
power and position by favoring primarily the business and ultra-conservative
sides of the nation. They are also in power by a *minority* vote of
the electorate (albeit legally). They are enriching business interests
and catering to right-wing domagogues on social issues, thereby abusing
their power. 

Bush sometimes tells funny jokes. 

Re #9: We don't know that they didn't abuse their power...they won't 
let us find out.  It *is* clear that Enron was apparently consulted 
pretty closely when Cheney was drawing up his energy policy -- at very 
least they were buying access, and they may have written up large 
chunks of the final policy, but that we can't know yet.  If there were 
nothing to hide, though, why would they be trying so hard to cover it 
up?

Several people have also pointed out that the Bush administration has 
been standing on "principle" about revealing documents from their own 
administration and from the Reagan administration, while simultaneously 
releasing anything from the Clinton administration that might be 
embarassing when taken out of context.  The hypocrisy is not exactly 
hard to spot.

re 10:  Who let the Sore Loserman out?

Re #13: pretty dumb observation. How do you know whether I am a winner or
a loser, and in what, for that matter? You are just calling someone that
doesn't see things the way you see them a "loser". That's arguing by
insult. 

Q.E.D.

Wow, klg actually admitted it?

Re #10:  Okay, Rane.  Show us ONE example of anyone in the Bush
administration pulling strings to rescue Ken Lay or Enron.  Just one.

I won't hold my breath.  Compare to Clinton's campaign finances.
(Lippo Group, anyone?)

Your whining about the administration favoring business and the
ultra-conservatives is hypocritical.  I didn't notice any complaints
from you when the Clinton administration was favoring the interests
of left-radicals and deci-billionaire trial lawyers, both of which
are easily as destructive to the nation as social reactionaries and
robber barons.  And even robber barons have to *produce* something
or they go out of business; lots of the supporters of the left live
by what amounts to extortion.

Everyone:  Did Rane make a big deal about Hillary's socialized-
medicine program being developed without any input from *doctors*?
At least the Bush administration consults energy companies about
energy policy.

(No wonder Rane's whine is so bitter; it's made with sour grapes. ;-)

The Bush administration doesn't dare overtly "rescue" Lay or Enron.
But they were sure cosy with them before the fall. 

Who were the "left radicals" and "trial lawyers" that Clinton "favored",
and how. They actually gave them great employment investigating imagined
Clinton transgressions, like the Whitewater attempt at slander.

        Y'know I'd feel much more nervous about Hillary's medical plans if she
was flying around in a jet paid for by medical insurance companies, and
approved her staff by the same companies.  Think about it.

Exactly.  It's one thing to consult experts in a field.  It's another to let
the very industry you're supposed to be regulating write policy.

The fact that Bush was unable to rescue Enron from bankruptcy doesn't really
prove anything.

Russ wrote:
 Everyone:  Did Rane make a big deal about Hillary's socialized-
 medicine program being developed without any input from *doctors*?
 At least the Bush administration consults energy companies about
 energy policy.
  
And Russ criticizes me for *my* analogies. The proper analogy here is:
Health care : Insurance companies :: Energy policy : Energy companies
Health care : Doctors :: Energy policy : Environmentalists
 
The analogy holds, I think, because Hill *did* rely on the advice of insurance
companies, just as W is relying on the advice of energy companies. I fail to
understand the logic of the "Yeah, well, YOUR guy is corrupt TOO!" rhetoric.
 
The Clinton Adminstration was corrupt. How does that soften any improprieties
and hypocricies of the current adminsitration?

Apparently it's okay to be corrupt as long as you're also a 
conservative.  One of those "the ends justify the means" things.

why thank you brighn! i didn't even know where to begin .. 

Bush got his own money from the collapse of an earlier business venture.
I doubt he sees any big problems with the Enron collapse--to him, it's
how a business ought to be run.  The major issue and I think the reason
the republicans don't mind investigating Enron is most of them weren't
cut into the deal, and some of them (Cheney, if rumour has it right)
actually lost money.

Apparently it's okay to act like a child as long as you yell loud enough that
your side really is better than the other side.

Re #21:  But insurance companies have nothing to do with the SUPPLY
of medical services; they are middlemen only.  Energy companies work
in every part of the chain.  They may be glossing over their problems
of pollution, dependence on unreliable "allies" and more, but you
canNOT convincingly argue that they don't know their business.

Which is why I think that the criticisms of the Bush administration
are backwards.  Everything is Enron this, Enron that.  Dammit, Enron
was enormously important in the business at the time, and ought to
have been heard!  The problem wasn't in who was there, but who *wasn't*.
Same as HillaryCare.  Capisce?

        I don't think anyone is debating that Enron should have been heard;
however, hearing out an interest, and accepting a great deal of funding and
repeatedly bowing to that interest, are completely different things.

repeatedly bowing ?????  are you that much at home out there in left field?
  
just who adn how was that india energy plant 'bid out?' - and by whom?
  ....
 oh, wiat, #27 *must* have been referring to clinton - my bad - oops, sorry.

        Do you really need evidence of Bush's bowing to industry?  It's
practically a campaign promise.

Re #29:  Bush made the same promise to Detroit, remember.  He
pledged to insulate the auto industry from new mandates which
would upset everything and throw workers out of work, as well
as cutting off the SUV gravy train.  The campaign amounted to
"Laissez les bon temps roulez!".

I happen to disagree with a lot of this (I think that we should
insist that Detroit roll out the products of the PNGV program,
like Honda is doing already), but you can't say it's *dishonest*
as you are implying.  It is certainly not corrupt.  Clinton was
corrupt; Bush campaigned on these issues, got elected on them,
and is keeping his promises so far.  The problem is what the
public wants; it's just getting what it asked for.

Um, last I heard more people voted for Gore.  Bush wasn't
exactly the choice of "the public".

This response has been erased.

Gore was the choice of the people that were counted. It is a long standing
principle in a democracy that if you don't vote, you  don't count (literally
or figuratively). This can, of course, be painful, having to make a choice
between two poor candidates, but not voting is just letting others make
that poor choice, which is worse. 

This response has been erased.

        ... and those electoral votes are expected to be based - and do not
deviate from - what?

This response has been erased.

        Finish your sentences.  A correlation of one ... to ... ? 

This response has been erased.

Both #33 and #34 are true.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss