Foxy,
At your request, “I have yet to see anyone actually break down the points made by Blue one by one and prove Blue wrong.” I’ll give it a go. I realize that you won’t care what I have to offer but what the heck. Here goes.
Blue post number one centered around whether or not Ken Lay slept in the Whitehouse during the Clinton years. I could care less who slept where and there was nothing specifically concerning Enron in this post. Therefore it is moot to the discussion.
Blue post number two, point number one, Blue states that, “Enron got to significantly shape the administration’s energy policy. Lay had six secret meetings with Cheney (more than anyone else), which resulted in 17 major concessions to Enron, putting the company in a position to gain more from the new policy than any other company in America.” Reading his accompanying link number one to this point the author says, “The administration's energy program, developed by Vice President Dick Cheney in secret meetings -- six of them with Enron officials -- could have been written by lobbyists for the now failed company.” Note that the author said “could” not did. Big difference here. In link number two of point one CBS speculates at a connection but in my opinion falls short of having conclusive evidence that Enron created the energy policy.
Blue post number two, point number two, the first link indicates that it was the House that wrote in the tax break that helped Enron. Seems they were into a lot of peoples pockets that are supposed to do the bidding of the citizenry. Anyway the Senate refused to sign the bill and no gain was realized by Enron, or any of the other big companies this measure would have benefited.
Blue post number two, point number three, he says, “Lay got to interview candidates and ultimately handpick the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the watchdog agency overseeing and regulating his company’s industry.” This is simply ludicrous as the Commission is composed of five members who are appointed by the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate. So the only way that Lay could have handpicked the candidate is by also getting every Senator that voted for the commission in his pocket. I have yet to see any evidence of that.
Blue post two, point number four, The associated link from the Washington Post said, “That change is symbolic of the heightened government priority on aiding commercial interests overseas. The effort, which expanded in the first Bush administration and in the Clinton administration, is evolving to a more explicit link to national security as the Bush administration elevates ties between the NSC and economic and commercial considerations.” So it has become increasingly prevalent to do this you now see it as a problem. Even though no specific wrong doing was cited. The link from the consortiumnews.com while loaded with speculation again fails to provide specific evidence of wrong doing.
Blue post two, point number five, do you believe that GW is the first President to appoint people he has known and dealt with earlier in their careers. Of course not and more importantly have any of these appointees been charged with anything that would disqualify them. Not to date from what I have been able to find, so what is the problem here?
Blue post two, point number six, the link to St. Petersburg Times starts off saying, “For several years, allies of Enron Corp. helped orchestrate a campaign that eventually crippled an international crackdown on offshore tax havens.” So since it has been going on for several years Bush now gets sole blame for what Enron has been doing. What the Bush administration has said is that it would be wrong to interfere with the tax policies of sovereign nations. Unless of course we are freezing assets of terrorists. Explain what is wrong with that?
Blue post two, point seven, California’s energy issue was brought about by that states reluctance to adequately plan for their growth and development. Once demand outweighed supply the dynamics of economy set in and prices went up. As it was costing more to get energy to California prices escalated. While I am sure some companies gouged Californians it seems they asked for this themselves by balking at every plan to increase their production ability. Applying price caps would have made some energy producers reluctant to supply the needed energy and where would that have left California.
Blue post number three deals solely with Texas and their issues. While interesting reading is it relevant to the collapse of Enron? I would say no as this was when Enron was making money for people and under the control of the FERC of the Clinton administration. If this information was so damning one would have expected it to be played to the hilt by the Democrats prior to the election. I also would like to point out that I have not heard anyone blame Clinton for GW’s pretzel issue.
Blue post number four is a slam at VASlim, nothing substantial here.
Blue post number five is mostly just a list of several factual items of somewhat dubious relevance. Point one says there are 35 people with direct ties to Enron that are in the current administration. It says nothing of what the ties are or what impact these people have on the dealings of Enron. As Enron is a Texas company, the President is from Texas, it seems many from his administration would be from Texas. Well over a year ago everyone was being led to believe that Enron was a standup company, who was in charge then? Point two might be factual but how does it tie into a scandal other then defining the scope of the Enron debacle that was allowed to take place over many years? Point three was true at one time but at the time of the posting it was no longer accurate and even less relevant. Point four is also factual but again who was in charge as Enron got into the position where it swindled its investors, employees, and stockholders? Point five says the President had been investigated before but was he charged with anything? If so would he have been the candidate for the Republican Party? I doubt it. Point six is I feel shear fantasy as the administration obtained advice from many in the industry and while they came to a policy that supports big business does anyone see this as abnormal for a Republican? Point seven also lack relevance as many businesses donated a lot of money to the candidate that they wanted to win. For rebuttal I’ll ask if you have ever heard of the China/Clinton connection. Or don’t we talk about that? Finally, point eight which is totally idiotic as well as absurd. It was California that screwed this up and I would be willing to view any evidence you have that backs up your claim. Note a reporter’s speculation is not evidence.
Blue post number six, the pretzel, extremely relevant, don’t you think.
Blue post number seven, challenge to Otter and supporting of previous postings, nothing here.
Blue post number eight, you state that, “In neither of your posts, vrai and Larry, did you state a single rebuttal or counter-argument to the very serious charges I laid out showing how George W. Bush has sold the U.S. presidency to the energy industry. Why is that?” I have seen nothing that would indicate that this President sold anything to anyone. He has continued to support big business like he always has. Never once have we seen were he sold anything to anyone, again care to talk about Clinton and China?
Blue post number nine, now totally off Enron and running for cover. Face it, the best man that ran for office is in office and will be there for another seven years, unless an unknown surfaces that enthralls the electorate. BTW I am a registered Democrat, but like Christy a Libertarian at heart. My political affiliation is due to the Maryland election laws and my desire to participate in the primary.
(Edited by Ken King at 8:18 pm on Mar. 6, 2002)
Besides, I'm using Christy as my role model - she never gets overheated, just debates her position rationally.
Hardly! TT would probably tell you that I'm a venom spewing psychopath! 
Especially when it comes to religion or demonizing my boy Harry Potter. 
(How's everybody like my Mr. T impression?) 
:
