SJ Editorial: A New Type Of Scandal Fatigue, Enron
Scandal Boring
Fri Mar 29 2002 10:51:24 ET

We'd like to lodge a protest against the Bush
Administration: It is dragging down scandal standards in
Washington. Not too long ago, we journalists could write
about affairs with interns, Arkansas land deals, Lincoln
Bedroom sleepovers and Presidential pardons for sale.
Now, that was fun.

But what do the Bushies give us? Meetings between Energy
Secretary Spence Abraham and . . . energy companies!
This is the shocking news contained in the 11,000 pages
of documents released this week on the drafting of the
Bush energy plan. "Investigative" reporters combed
through the documents to expose such five-bell scoops as
"energy companies met more than 30 times with top
officials." All of America is abuzzzzzzz. 

There's more, if you can stand the suspense. Mr. Abraham
gave more face time to people who backed Mr. Bush for
President than he did to environmentalists who supported
Al Gore. In drafting a bill to increase oil and coal
production, in other words, the Bushies consulted people
who know something about oil and coal. Even more
amazing, they often took the advice of those very same
people!

It goes without saying that these proposals weren't
covered up but were presented to the public and
Congress. The ideas have all since been debated in the
light of day. And nearly all of the most controversial
have passed the House or the Senate, or both.

Having to read about all this has given us a whole new
appreciation for what James Carville and Lanny Davis
called "scandal fatigue." And we empathize with our
peers who actually have to report it. The lack of
scandal has been so disorienting that the poor souls
have begun to quote Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch, who
was dismissed during the Clinton years as a right-wing
crank. For Beltway journalism, it's going to be a long
four years.

END

69 responses total.

And the Bush apologists continue to push to the party line.

When Clinton  was in the White House the Republicans INVENTED
scandals, like Whitewater, Lincoln bedrooms, pardons, etc. Now
that they are in office the create REAL scandals by bypassing
the democratic processes with secret consultations over policy
with their financial supporters. 

Weren't people convicted fo Whitewater-related crimes?

Yes, but nothing to do with the Clintons. I should add the sexual
scandals attributed to Clinton. They  had nothing to do with
government. The recent Bush scandals have everything to do with
government. ANWR for the rich, energy policy for the rich, reversal
of roadless policy for the rich.....all rewards for his cronies.

        Unlike his father, whose first act of kickback benefitted members of
his "Team 100" to the tune of 187 million through real-estate capital gains
tax subclauses.

Thank goodness Clinton had not cronies.

        pick one:


a) your president uses a cigar as a dildo.
b) your president wipes his ass with the constitution.

nincompoop - Does b mean giving perjured testimony to a federal court?

leeron - not really - as the constitution is covered in shit.

referring to me as nincompoop is mean.

Re 3:  True, some Clinton people got convicted.  Not as many as Reagan had,
however.  If Clinton was so sleazy, how come it was Reagan who had so many
staffers & appointees convicted?

  Probably the Republican opposition just weren't trying hard enough..

        Clinton did a number of very corrupt things.

        Clinton, however, is not currently in office.

        Therefore Clinton's corruptions are, though germane to a discussion
of Bush's corruptions, not a good excuse them.

What did Clinton do that was "corrupt"? He did some things that many
consider immoral, but "corrupt"? " Clinton has been cleared on Whitewater,
Filegate, Travelgate, Troopergate, Vince Foster's death, cocaine smuggling
at Mena airport and dozens of other baseless accusations. The only thing
they could get him on was the cover-up of an entirely legal and consensual
affair."  (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintoncorrupt.html). So, what
did he do that was "corrupt"? 

  I'm not a right-wing Clinton-phobe but I find his dealings with the 
  Riady family and connection to illegal overseas fundraising to be
  moderately well-proven instances of corruption.

Re #7:
    What president *didn"t* do both of these?

        Clinton's handling of the investigation about the affair he had with
Lewinsky was certainly corrupt.  Backing the DMCA was a pretty far cry from
the moderate values he espoused, too.

i think clinton was a bit sleazy, but not because of the lewinsky fiasco.

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'corrupt' is...

Re #14: the DNC returned the illegal donations. So, nothing and no one
was corrupted. Why raise a dead issue?

The bell can in fact be unrung...

  re #19:  that's like saying that if I break into your house and steal
  your television set but you catch me and force me to give it back that
  I haven't committed a crime.

  Giving the proceeds back when you get caught in the act doesn't make you
  innocent..

re; " What did Clinton do that was "corrupt"? He did some things that many
 consider immoral, but "corrupt"?"
curlie-  The definition of "corrupt" is "morally unsound."  Thanks for
proving our point!

#22> Rane's point may be that "corrupt" in the context of politicians usually
implies something involving inappropriate tit-for-tat: Donation money for
legal considerations, for instance. I'm not sure I'd consider having sex
outside of marriate "corrupt" because it has nothing to do with his job *as
a politician*: It makes him a corrupt person, if that's your morality, but
it doesn't make him a corrupt politician.
 
Lying under oath, though, does.

Political corruption is the only matter at issue. I do not know of any
politically corrupt actions by Clinton, even if some of the things he
did were unwise, or stupid, or unjudicious. 

Re #21: the money was *given* to the DNC, it was NOT *taken* by the DNC.
The only person "caught in the act" were the foreign donors. If any
crime was committed the foreign donors committed the crime. 

#24> So you're saying that lying under oath, even at a trial that had nothing
to do with his political capacity, doesn't make him corrupt? How about using
his political position to get sex (would Lewinsky really have sucked his cock
if he wasn't President?)?

That is correct. He was trying to cover himself on a very personal matter
that concerned only himself and family. There was no violation of his
oath of office. It wasn't "corrupt", it was just stupid. 

I do not know Ms. Lewinsky and she has not confided in me about her
actions. I doubt, though, that he "used his political position" to
seduce Lewinsky. I would suspect it was quite the reverse, and he was
used by her.  But, EITHER WAY, it was a personal matter. 

I might buy that argument if Lewinsky had been the only incident. Lewinsky
was just the only one they could prove. Clinton had quite a few women claiming
he tried to leverage sex out of them with his political power.
what's-her-name's case wasn't thrown out because of lack of evidence, for
instance, it was thrown out because she was claiming harassment and the judge
ruled that what she described (being taken to a hotel room and propositioned
for sex) didn't qualify as harassment.
 
Perhaps "using his position for sex" is a mild form of corruption compared
to, say, giving deferential treatment to an energy company in exchange for
campaign dollars, but it *is* corrupt.
 
(What's her name = Paula Jones, I think)

Clinton wasn;t the only "incident" for Lewinsky, either.

        Wouldn't you consider using the political power of his position to
attempt to cover up (x), even if (x) wound up being a matter of purely
personal significance, corrupt?

He did not use the "political power of his position" to try to cover
up anything. How did he use  "power"? He just lied, like anyone else.

Re #0:
> There's more, if you can stand the suspense. Mr. Abraham
> gave more face time to people who backed Mr. Bush for
> President than he did to environmentalists who supported
> Al Gore. In drafting a bill to increase oil and coal
> production, in other words, the Bushies consulted people
> who know something about oil and coal.

This is flawed logic; it implies that only people who are in favor of 
more usage of oil and coal know anything about oil and coal.  By that 
argument, the American Lung Association does not know anything about 
cigarettes, for example.

#30 I agree with. I'm not aware of any evidence that Clinton tried to obstruct
the investigation any more than anyone else in his position may have done.
 
Of course, I think the whole thing was silly. Bush wants to make war, and
that's ok. Clinton wants to make love, and that's not ok.

1.  BC dispatched his taxpayer-paid cabinet secretaries to go around
the country and lie for him.

2.  gull, I hate to burst your bubble on the evil Bush energy plan, but
here's what the WSJ reported on 3/27:
"As he helped the Bush administration write its national energy report last
year, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham heard from more than 100 energy
industry executives, trade association leaders and lobbyists, according to
documents released by the Energy Department," today's New York Times reports
(link requires registration). "Mr. Abraham did not meet with any
representatives of environmental organizations or consumer groups, the
documents show."

To find out why Abraham didn't meet with the environmental groups, though,
you have to read today's Washington Times: The Bush administration sought the
advice of environmental groups in drafting its energy plan, but several
declined to participate or suggested that Bush officials check their Web sites
for information, just-released documents show.

A month and a half before President Bush's energy plan was announced, the
Energy Department contacted Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Environmental
Defense, the World Resources Institute, Resources for the Future and four
other groups to discuss conservation and energy efficiency.

However, an unstated number of other environmental groups rebuffed
administration overtures."

        
        You don't find it even the slightest bit hard to believe that every
energy company contacted cared enough to send a represantative, but none of
the environmental groups contacted cared that much, given the kind of
emotional zaniness that environmental groups are famous for?  What did they
do, call the public hotlines for those groups and ask right off the bat for
the group's affiliations from some minimum-wage front line phone answerer?

Apparently waht klg says in #33 is a lie.

"Thursday, March 28, 2002

 By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press

 WASHINGTON Q Environmentalists said they had requested a
 meeting with Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in the months prior to
 release of the administration's energy report but were rebuffed by an
 aide who cited Abraham's busy schedule. 

 John Adams, president of the Natural Resources Defense
 Council, said Wednesday that the refusal to meet with the
 environmentalists stands in sharp contrast to the eight meetings Abraham
 had with energy and business groups in early 2001 to discuss the energy
 plan. "

(http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/03/03282002/ap_46802.asp)

curlie!  I am shocked!
I said nothing of the sort.  I, like you was quoting from another
source.
Your's must be more accurate, of course, because we all know
that "environmentalists" NEVER lie.  (Ignoring those folks who
planted lynx hair and those others who used "misleading" information
to turn off the water to farmers in Oregon.)

        So, in general, you'd characterize environmentalists as passionate
enough to lie to other people about what they have and haven't done, but not
passionate enough to take the time to explain their views to a presidential
comittee?

That's not even close to what I said, mealey.

        Sigh.

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