So, shamefully, I’ve contributed to this irrelevant question blog (“Mr. President, how many times have you been arrested?”), but I can’t begin to describe fully how depressing this presidential campaign has been.
Why do we waste attention on these ridiculous questions?
I’m sure Mr. Bush’s record was nothing to be proud of — his drinking problem is well documented, and these things go together. But I’m also sure he is no longer that man — and for anyone who has seen someone overcome that demon, you know the courage this requires. So I really don’t care how many times he was arrested, I don’t care if he used power to escape his obligations in the Reserve — whether he should be our President depends only upon whether the policies he will pursue are good for this nation.
Likewise, re Mr. Kerry: I am sure he demonstrated unimaginable courage in volunteering to serve his country in an unpopular war, and then mustering the courage to articulate brilliantly the reasons why that war was wrong. But we’re not electing a captain for a military unit — if shots are fired, he will follow orders, not give them — and while it would be great if he could find a way to articulate why this war was wrong, the presidency is not a reward for great Senate testimony. Whether he should be our President depends upon whether the policies he will pursue are good for the nation.
So why can’t we actually talk about the conflict in these policies? I’m confident about that choice, but I would love my view to be challenged by real arguments, and a focus on real issues. CBS almost seems proud of their idiotic story. Shame on CBS. Shame on us.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the reason the right and left cannot sit down and have a debate on the ‘facts’ is because they are working with two seperate sets of ‘facts’. It’s the curse of relativism/subjectivism. There’s always (at least) two ways to look at any piece of information, and the way Conservatives tend to interpret data seems almost antithetically hardwired to that of Liberals. It’s sad, because I’ve spent hours trying to think of ways to effectively discuss the relevant social issues of the day with friends who will be voting for the other candidate than myself this fall. I’ve come to the conclusion that the left and the right are ships passing in the night.
-kd
Unfortunately, honor is a luxury of those in power. Those out of power much achieve their goals by any means necessary.
Sad and regretable, but true.
I concur, the question (and answer) itself is pointless in my analysis of what’s important. When viewed in the context of continuing behavior of hypocracy, it becomes a bit more relevant. The election, for most people, is a matter of who do you trust. Someone who hides his past, hides the truth, hides prisoners, hides the operation of government, etc., etc., is not someone I trust. Unfortunately this election goes beyond policy. I don’t just have issues with Bush’s policies on environment, women’s rights, privacy, national security, etc., etc. The man is unfit to govern a democracy because his administration attempts to operate above and outside the law.
So when the question viewed as a political tool, it becomes useful. But it feels like making an arguement I don’t believe because it might persuade people who won’t be convinced by the arguements I believe. Now in debate, does the ends justify the means? The current Republican organization surely acts that way.
To some extent, I think Karl is right. The best book on this sort of thing is Thomas Sowell called �A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles� � Sowell points out how each camp�s basic world-view explains how one set of �objective facts� can lead to such different conclusions. It�s an older book � but it�s very very well thought out.
As for the �why aren�t we talking about issues� � that is easy to explain. The incumbent has based his campaign on one thing � his record and his intention to continue on the same course. Mr. Bush didn�t have to �problem� of having to actually run in a primary (to any great extent). Mr. Kerry, in the aftermath of 9/11 took a strong �nuke-em-til-the-glow� stance in the 2002-2003 time frame. To do otherwise, would not have made any political sense.
Then in the primary, Mr. Kerry had to defeat Mr. Dean in the primary opponent � who surged to the lead with a platform that was VERY �anti war� � so Mr. Kerry pulled out his credentials of Mr. Anti-Vietnam to bolster his argument that he too was �anti-war.� Defeating Mr. Dean with a combination of these new credentials and the �message� that Mr. Kerry was �better able to be elected because he was more �mainstream� than Mr. Dean� � Mr. Kerry won the primary battles. This was good for him � less �damage� in extended debate � but in the long run, much more dangerous because Mr. Kerry�s �future looking� ideas did not get much vetting.
After winning the nomination, Mr. Kerry must move back to the major issue facing the US (as most people see it) � �safety� � so it�s back to �I�ll be a strong CinC� � Fine � standard electoral politics for the challenger � secure your �base� in the primary � move to the �middle� in the general elections. Bob Dole had to attempt the same thing in 1996 for instance. At this point, some problems confront Mr. Kerry. He has a very contentious base � so he had to be very nebulous about his �vision� � and now that the general election looms, he needed a �message�. So � by his OWN HAND � HE CHOSE to make �biography� his message. In his convention speech, he correctly realized that in the end, this election is likely � because of the incumbent�s �message� and because of on-going external facts-of-life � to be about security.
To that end � he spend less than a minute talking about his 19 years in the senate � and even his �visions things� were couched in his Vietnam experience. Ending with that salute was a mistake (IMHO) on par with Michael Dukakis� Beetle-Baily tank picture. Mr. Bush, because he was 1) unopposed in the primaries and 2) because he�s the current CinC � has set the MAJOR terms of the debate � War On Terror. Mr. Kerry, the challenger responded with what HE THOUGHT would be valid bona fides in that arena � Vietnam. When you do that, those that carry the challenger�s message will then attempt to compare apples-to-apples � so THEY are making the debate �where were you 32 years ago�.
Here�s where The Internet comes in. Even in the last election cycle � 2000AD � the Internet�s �Distributed journalism� wasn�t as well developed. NOW, �the Blogosphere� has come into existence �and we have, effectively �Open-Source� news media. Look at the Swift Boat Veterans issue. They publish a book. They make some ads. They get them on a few stations �only having a few hundred thousand in donations at that time. The �mainstream press� � call it �old media� �ignores them. NYT, LAT, WP, AP, UPI, Reuters � all of them don�t utter a peep. But somehow, between The Blogosphere and it�s �broadcast outlet� talk-radio, 65% of people know about the �swifties� and their message.
Then like in the old Soviet Union � when Pravda or Isvestia would print �denials� of stories they never ever ran in the 1st place � the NYT starts printing Mr. Kerry�s campaign�s �clarifications.� People are smart � they were in the USSR, they are everywhere � if they want to know something � they will find it. From friends. From friends of friends. From reading denials of things that were never printed. In this case from the Internet and �alternative outlets�. They filter this information though their own lens of experience and world-view (again, see Sowell�s book) and come to a conclusion. All without �official sanction�
So, the �oh why can�t the debate be about �important stuff� is not a valid question. The �debate� IS about important stuff. The Internet is teaming with: Mr. Bush�s tax plans; Mr. Kerry�s health-care plans; Mr. Bush�s war on terror plans; Mr. Kerry�s Stance on military commitments etc. It�s ALL there. I believe the lament is more about �oh why can�t the major, old, �mainstream� media debate the vision stuff�- but THAT media is more and more irrelevant. That media does not have the depth of time or space to cover anything approaching complex questions. That media has even been revealed to be very very suspect in their claim of �objective� (clearly no such thing exists � as an aside, I like the French approach � all media is biased, you�re just �required� to make your biases known to be taken seriously.. but I digress).
The �mainstream� media is �debating� 30 years ago because one of the candidates WANTS them to do that � it�s a campaign strategy. The Internet has messed it up. Clearly OpenSource Journalism is upon us. It�s about time.
++Bill
[email protected]
It’s not fashionable to say it, but I will say it anyway: this is not a “pox on both their houses” situation. The explanation for the utter bankruptcy of this campaign — and for the horrific divisiveness of the last two decades — is that the modern Republican party is ruthless, amoral, and radical in a way that the modern Democrats simply aren’t. The combination of mendacity, ideological extremism, and incompetence in the modern Republican leadership (which you didn’t see much of at the convention) simply has no analogue on the left. We are living in fantasy land, and will never understand what’s going on, if we don’t face that basic truth.
I have no particular love for the Democratic party, but let’s not pretend that “both sides do it.” There are large differences of degree that have, in the past few years, become a difference in kind.
Like I said, not fashionable in the “above it all” world of political pundits, but the truth nonetheless.
I’d say that the answer is this: that’s the discussion they are having, and in that conversation Kerry comes out on top.
If you want to, you can go to their web pages and find out what they say their policies will be (although Bush promised many things he didn’t follow through with) and IMHO Kerry still comes out on top.
Yes, they are only talking about stupid things which don’t matter, but if that’s all you have to go on…
To say that you don’t care how many times Bush has been arrested, is very naive and ignorant. Do you really want to be uninformed citizen and not know the background of our President? On most job applications you have to state whether you have ever been arrested for a crime. So why shouldn’t we as citizens not know the full background or crimes committed by a privileged President. It seems to me that most Americans are losing their ability to think critically about important issues. Instead of thinking critically, many just decide to let themselves be dumbed down, and believe what they hear on media outlets like Fox News.
If you neighbor was convicted of murder, wouldn’t you want to know. Don’t let your party affiliation stop you from learning about what’s really happening to our country or about the real intentions of the people in power.
Margret Cho said something similar today on her blog. http://www.margaretcho.net/blog/yourdick.htm
although it does have a bit more prophanity.
shame on you for consuming mass media. it’s sole purpose is to distract from real issues and paralyze citizens with fear. the whole left vs. right is an illusion. it’s freedom vs. control and guess what? freedom isn’t running for office.
The validity of the CBS story is that it shows Bush lied about his past. The past is not as important — he grew up rich and pampered, so of course he got special treatment. That’s reality. But for a man who claimed he would restore honor to the White House, he hasn’t done a very good job of it. If he now lied about his past, how does that make it different than Clinton lying about his (much more recent) past?
But Prof. Lessig is correct, neither Clinton’s lie nor Bush’s lie is as important as how a politician will govern in the future. So in that sense what CBS broadcast is not nearly as important as the issues that both sides are mostly ignoring as they fling mud at each other.
Ok. We can complain all day long about how this campaigne has been drug into the mud, but what is it going to get us at this point? By the most recent poll numbers, the scientific evidence is in: Negative attacks work. Period.
Since this about winning at all costs, then those who employ the most negativity will win this election. Period.
Therefore if the Democrats hope to win, then they need to get off thier intellectual and gentlemanly high horse (me included) and fight fire with fire. There is no choice left, the evidence is in. There are now only 7 weeks to the election, I suggest the democrats use every nasty, dirty, fowl, disrespectable, false, lowly, disreputable, mud slinging thing they can possible throw at Bush at this point. Period.
Sad? Very, very sad. But what other choice do we have? I see none, not once other choice, not one single thing that could possibly bring the numbers around. A year ago maybe, seven weeks left, there is nothing to loose.
I hope one day politics becomes more enlightened and gentlemanly. But then again, I have been called too optimisitc by my peers.
The press cannot ask real questions because that would lead them down the path towards real answers, which would simply be unacceptable. So take what you can get.
As a college professor at respected schools, and as a lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court, I’m sure Lessig knows several of the reasons politics is as nasty as it is, and why the real issues aren’t debated.
Politics isn’t much about issues any more. It’s more about winning. This divisiveness reaches far enough back into history that one of the earliest changes to the Constitution, other than the Bill of Rights, was to re-work how the Vice President was chosen. The Framers originally expected people to propose themselves for office under a spirit of cooperation, so the runner-up in the Presidential election became the Vice President.
However a few people banded together to create political parties, and the runner-up no longer had the desire to help out in an enemy administration. So we have today’s system.
It would be incredibly nice to have more civilized discourse. However, I expect the debates, when they occur, to be riddled with sniping attacks and zingers (and attempted zingers) because, personally, I’ve only seen Presidential debates like that.
So, as I said in another thread, negative politics win elections, but they also lead to embarrasing voter turnout in the long run as more voters get permanently turned off to voting. But as long as it’s a short-term winning strategy (and it has been since The Beginning), expect to see some mudslinging.
It occurred to me that an extension of the idea of that blog (the question auction) might be an interesting way to collect good questions and get them asked of the candidates. Maybe that would help focus things on real issues.
I have to agree with Karl. Proof of his statement is clear in many of the comments after his. Some commenters have arrived at completely opposite conclusions to mine based on the same “facts”.
As a Canadian in the US, it is interesting to see candidates challenging the facts of each other’s background and what it means for the electorate classified as the scary “negative” campaigning. A political campaign is a competition. In any world that I have seen, competition involves attacking the opponent. To decry this is to hope for some utopian “non-competitive” world that only exists in fantasy.
Where campaigning does get negative is when assertions are made that are misleading, false, or slanderous. Most of what is termed “negative” campaigning in this election doesn’t fall into this category at all.
To go back to the first part of my posting, I believe that candidates for US political office should explain how and what they think about the following:
– who is man and what is man’s purpose
– what are the best ways for man to achieve that purpose
– how do my answers to the first two questions support the constitution of the United States of America
– how do my actions demonstrate my beliefs
That would tell us how the candidates would think about issues and whether we agree with them or not.
The reason the two different groups see different “facts” is because they would answer these three questions quite differently from the other group.
The scary thing….most people can’t answer these questions and therefore have no foundation for their beliefs.
Why don’t environmental stories get covered? Because the giant media conglomerates have abandoned any notion of civic responsibility.
I just wanted to mention one difference between the two. For both of these candidates you affirm: “whether he should be our President depends only upon whether the policies he will pursue are good for this nation.” I agree; however, with Bush we have the added benefit of seeing how utterly horrible his policies have been for the nation over the past four years, and due to his “unwavering resolve” I don’t see this headed for any sort of turnaround anytime soon, if we were unfortunate enough to have him become our president yet again. More debt, more unemployment, more conflicts of interest like Halliburton, more flat lies to the American people? No, thank you.
CK: You prove Karl’s point again because there are many people here who disagree with you on your conclusion that Bush’s policies have been “disasterous” based on the facts.
Just one example: Enron flourished in the stock boom of Clinton’s second term. Incredible ethical and moral lapses occured in huge parts of the investing and business community during this time. The “new” economy was a shell game played for the interests of a few. This all came crashing down and was uncovered during the early part of Bush’s term as the truth came to light. This combined with 9/11 led the the incredible recession. And you claim that Bush is to blame because the truth came to light on his watch? In my moral universe, those who bring truth to light are to be welcomed.
But then again, you claim Bush lied about WMD (like almost every other world leader). I ask you, who is more truthful – one who makes a claim and then acts according to his words (Bush) or one who makes a claim and then acts like his claim is false (Clinton).
This discussion probably won’t go anywhere given the limited nature of this medium (and its Lessig’s blog! not mine to hijack) but I enjoy your feedback
What’s relevant here, and to whom? each individual voter must decide — and they should be able to freely acquire any information they need to make that assessment.
Personally, it’s relevant to me if a person has a history of substance abuse; is this person prone to slipping back? Have they suffered permanent brain damage because of it? Were I a hiring manager choosing between two equally qualified individuals, one of which has a known substance problem, I might not choose the employee that I cannot trust to use full faculties in a mission critical situation that might cost the lives of fellow human beings.
Personally, it’s relevant to me whether someone I select to represent me will be there when I need him, whether he will represent my needs fully, whether he will do the right thing by me. Can I trust someone to protect me when they continue to deny or obscure past performance under orders?
These points are as relevant to me as more recent performance. It would be nice if this was all about current events, but we’re not able to compare two presidents side-by-side. We have to compare two individuals with very different work histories and only loosely similar credentials (both in public office, same college, both white males). It’s not just a referendum on this president’s administration. It’s about choosing a more competent person for the most important job in the world, based on their entire experience. Every detail counts when lives are in the balance.
Hell, an entire planet is in the balance. I say there can’t be enough information.
“I ask you, who is more truthful”
1. Last time I checked, Clinton wasn’t on the ballot this year, so whether he lied, humped his intern, or tap-danced with performing seals in the halls of the East Wing is irrelevant. Except to illustrate what’s become a syndrome among the Bushies and their apologists: almost without exception, the first words out of their mouths when caught doing something naughty are “Well, xxxx did it, too”.
2. Both Hitler and Jesus “made claims and acted according to their words”. The fact of the action tells you _nothing_ about how “truthful” the speaker is.
What _do_ tell us a lot about how “truthful” he was are the since-declassified documents. We know that there were qualifications and disagreements about the NIE’s _inferences_ about WMDs that he didn’t convey to us (nor, iirc, the Congress when loobying for authorization). We know that he presented conclusions about what was _probably_ happening inside Iraq as “facts”. We know that he continued to do that even as the data on which those conclusions were based were being shown by the inspections to be dicey, or even flat wrong. We also know that the NIE’s analysis was that Saddam was “contained” (just as the Administraion had repeatedly said before they decided they wanted a war), and was highly unlikely to use his WMDs unless he felt that he was near/at the end of his reign.
So, even as he told us he was acting to “protect” us, he doggedly pursued the course of action deemed most likely to get us attacked.
That pretty much limits your choices to “liar”, “lunatic”, and “both”.
Although I hate to be dragged into an unwinnable fight, I would like to ask which seems more like real-world intelligence gathering:
(1) A CIA agent enters a WMD facility in Iraq, alone, and proceeds to the door marked “Things Going on in Iraq that Violate the UN-Imposed Cease Fire” (in English, luckily). He enters (it’s unlocked), and grabs a folder from the filing cabinet. As soon as he does, an unarmed Iraqi security guard shines his light in through the smoky glass, sees something suspicious, chooses to not call for help, and enters the room. Our American spy kills the guard with a very loud machine gun, and dumps his bloody corpse in the bathroom where it will never be discovered. He then exits, killing another two guards in hand-to-hand combat. Saddam never realizes the folder is missing, and the disappearences of Omar, Abu, and Frank (the security guards) don’t raise any eyebrows.
(2) Saddam phones George W. Bush, telling him “we are, in fact, building several weapons of mass destruction.”
(3) Satellite photos reveal unusually large trucks at a powdered milk processing plant. Through the efforts of two dozen agents, the CIA is able to bribe some Iraqi construction workers into revealing limited information about an expansion they worked on at the plant in question. Some Kurds hand over a handful of documents they took from an unrelated area. A microbiologist looks at the photos, the stories from the construction workers, and the documents. She is able to find some common threads that lead her to believe the processing plant now has a microbiology lab, and the documents the Kurds found have clues implying that the lab (or maybe another lab) is developing a form of smallpox that could hold up well inside a conventional bomb. She writes a report, but since there is no telling if the documents or the construction workers have true information, or if the documents are frauds, or if any number of other things are 100% true (like the previous report suggesting Saddam could have a particular strain of smallpox). Therefore she writes the report with words like “assuming,” “if”, and “provided that.” She has to reveal what she found in case she’s right, but there is always a chance she’s wrong.
I don’t belong to the CIA, and I’ve never seen a report. Even so, I’m willing to go out on a limb and say all CIA reports probably contain a large number of qualifiers. So, please give up the notion that the CIA had it all wrong, and that Saddam was actually skywriting what he was doing illegal, and what he wasn’t.
Besides, the insepctions were turning up some things. They turned up enough that the UN Security Council passed a resolution finding Saddam in “material breach” of the cease fire. China, Russia, Germany and France could have — individually — vetoed that resolution. In fact, France chose to use its power to back out of NATO guarantees regarding Turkey so that Turkey wouldn’t send troops to the coalition. That’s got to be much harder than simply blocking a Security Council resolution.
The answer is real debates, as those proposed by the Citizens Debate Commission. The Commission on Presidential Debates is controlled by the two major parties to prevent them from talking about issues where they agree and their views are unpopular. In order for the major party candidates to be challenged and talk about real issues, they need to not be in control of what issues come up. Go to opendebates.org and sign the petition.
The Presidency involves an unfathomable amount of personal courage and conviction, while democracy requires that leaders take their commitment to tell the truth to the public seriously.
If you are so weak-kneed that you can’t stand up to a few embarassing questions about your past, there’s no way you’ve got the sand to be President, and if you’re such a habitual liar you can’t even tell the truth about that past then there’s no way you should be trusted to do the job in the first place.
Policies are important in Presidential elections. But 9/11 wasn’t on anyone’s short list of questions in the 2000 election. We don’t know what will happen during a leader’s term–so we have to make judgment calls about what kind of a person they are.
Had the press asked more of these low-brow, embarassing questions in 2000 then perhaps more people would have realized that Bush was a habitual liar who never took any responsibility seriously in his life, and so could be assumed to act exactly the same way as President.
In 2000 I saw a man who spent his whole life strung from his father’s bootstraps who couldn’t stick around a few months in the national guard, couldn’t strike oil in Texas, and couldn’t work up the self-control to hold back on the booze when he’s going to drive home. I figured he’d be an irresponsible President. He is. I wouldn’t have known that if we’d spend all day talking about tort reform or EITC.
Shame on anyone so naive as to believe character doesn’t count.
Wow, Max, until about half-way through your post I was convinced you were talking about Kerry. I don’t think there’s much room around the initial poster’s conclusion.
Er, alan, this isn’t an election between Bush and Clinton. It’s foolish to say “Well CLINTON was WORSE!”–Clinton’s not an option. The issue is Bush, Kerry or voting for a minor-party candidate. That’s all.
How anyone could think Max’s comments could be about Kerry must be drinking too much right-wing propaganda. While Bush floated through life screwing up one thing after another until family or friends could bail him out, Kerry at least showed courage under fire. We may never know what Bush would be like if bullets were whizzing past his head, but we do know how decisive Kerry was when that happened. That’s leadership. Kerry turned that boat around immediately. Bush just sat there looking dumb while the Pet Goat story continued for minute after minute after minute.
I actually disagree with the other Max. Our PBS Station recently listed the ten richest modern Presidents. LBJ came in first ($15 million), and George W. second ($13 million). His father was on the list, and while I can’t recall his ranking, he only had $2 million. Sorry, but W surpassed his father, so much for the idea that Bush I made Bush II.
so much for the idea that Bush I made Bush II.
thanks for all the effort and research it must have taken to draw that conclusion. let me add a few valuable tidbits that you may further draw upon. first, wealthy people who make money in shady ways generally hide their assets. (like don corleone, i don’t care what a man does for a living.) second, joe conason’s well researched harpers article of february 2000 “notes on a native son” will curtail any naivete one might have had about bush jr. and his amazing ability to climb the ladder of success in business and politics.
“I would like to ask which seems more like real-world intelligence gathering”
The crux of the “Iraq intelligence failure” brouhaha is that none of those scenarios bears even the remotest resemblance to what went into the NIE that was used to justify the invasion. I’m surprised you haven”t heard about that: it was in all the papers.
“They turned up enough that the UN Security Council passed a resolution”
No, Max, the inspections came _after_ that resolution. And the “material breach” consisted of not meeting his obligation to let the outside world verify his claim that he had stopped being a naughty WMD-building boy.
“That�s got to be much harder than simply blocking a Security Council resolution.”
Actually, it was much easier: they didn’t even have to show up for a vote.
Bush II, regardless of how people try to portray it, has been able to amass $13 million — nearly seven times the value of his father. Now, it is possible that his father, the former head of the CIA, actually has over $11 million hidden somewhere, and that he hid it without raising eyebrows, and without upsetting somebody who could blow the whistle, but I’m not buying it.
However, every conspiracy we’ve seen come to light has been exposed due to ridiculous mistakes. Think about Watergate (Secret Service agents vs. “rent a cop” security guards), “filegate” (Clinton secretly having over 800 records on political opponents in the White House — don’t you think the President would know enough to hide things somewhere other than the White House) and the current “memogate” (Dan Rather trying to portray (1) that a person who always wrote notes when possible, typed a memo to self, (2) that the same person told his wife lies about Bush, when he was completely honest to her about other people, and (3) that he had a typewriter in the early 1970s that had the ability to act like Microsoft Word today, but only used it on these four documents).
I doubt that Bush I could have hidden $11 million without making the kinds of mistakes every other conspiracy we know about has made.
The crux of the intelligence brouhaha was that incomplete data was misinterpreted. And how do you think that data was gathered? Not in a James Bond style “steal the single document that details your enemy’s entire plan for world domination” like all the papers seemed to impy.
Well, the crux is that Administration officials apparently bothered analysts enough that the analysts chose to interpret data in a way that supported the war. The smoking gun — that the reports admitted that no single agent had stolen the one document that detailed Saddam’s plan for world domination, James Bond style.
Of course, several investigations into the issue (including a British inquiry into MI5) haven’t found any proof of that. No memos or emails written by Rumsfeld or Tenet saying “please find something in here to support a war.”
As for the other points:
I understood the material breach was that (1) Saddam did not cease firing at American soldiers, (2) Iraqi military “threatened” two U2s that Blix was using, and (3) Blix turned up rockets that had a range longer than Iraq was allowed under hte cease fire. If I’m wrong about the document referring to those things, I am right that those three events were material breaches, and that the US had authorization to enforce the cease-fire. How woukld you stop Iraq from attacking US warplanes? Ask “pretty please”?
France may not have shown up for a vote, but it did set a precedent that the US could use to refuse to send troops to protect France, and encourage others to not send troops (and what’s France’s record on fighting off invasions?).
Why don’t candidates debate the real issues? Maybe one of our problems is that we are blinded by our own intelligence. We (bloggers) are smart and informed enough to understand the ins and outs of a policy debate; we are all “policy wonks” as it were. Most Americans are not. They are more interested in the impact of Eddie George and Vinny Testaverde on the Dallas Cowboys’ rebuilding process. That’s not to say that a decent percentage doesn’t know what the WTO is; but their understanding is very shallow (a bunch of foreign governments trying to rip us off). Accordingly, they tend to be very parochial. Reducing their taxes resonates better than providing services to people they never see. Appeals to personal emotion (we all hate liars, right? well, this guy’s a liar so don’t vote for him) win out over wonkish deconstructions of welfare reform initiatives. You hate paying taxes, right? Well this guy wants to raise your taxes while I want to cut them. Wouldn’t you rather be telling the world what to do instead of them telling us what to do? Why should you have to work hard all day while others just collect a check from the government, paid by your taxes? It’s a dangerous world and we must show we are the meanest S.O.B. in the valley so no one will mess with us. And so on.
Because the son’s personal wealth is, in nominal terms, greater than the father’s, thus the son received no assistance from the father?
Name one business venture George W. Bush came to through means other than connections stemming from his father, then name one business venture where he contributed anything of value other than political connections.
but I�m not buying it.
that’s why you should keep your day job and not be a scientist:
“Science is generated by and devoted to free inquiry; the idea that any hypothesis, no matter how strange, deserves to be considered on its merits. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science.” – Carl Sagan, Cosmos, p.74
$11 million is not “nominal.” I don’t have $500,000 in my checking account, and I doubt many people reading this discussion have anything near it. Also, how many MBAs do you have from Harvard?
Brentmeister, you may wish to take another look at Carl Sagan’s “impartial scientific mind”:
It appears Sagan had the need to sell sensational theories, well before the proof came in. Crichton continues with Sagan’s poor conclusions:
Interesting? Maybe it’s worth using common sense in science, too.
you win.
Max Lybbert:
The sheer idea that George H.W. Bush is worth $2 million is utterly preposterous. He probably makes more than that from Carlyle alone in a single year.
His Kennebunkport house is probably worth more than $5 million, easy.
On which planet are you living?
Bush I spent most of his life as a public servant (CIA), I would hope that he didn�t amass all that much wealth.
here’s the irony. all the information you’re basing your analysis of Bush I’s net worth comes from the same media whose relationship with the CIA was not permitted to be investigated by the church committee by Bush I himself! see, circle of life. i never watch much tv except when i’m stoned. like humans do.
None of the candidates are presidential timber. We could find a better candidate on E-bay.
Until America finds a person worthy of the office, I will outsource my patriotism.
Well, Brent, if disclosing the name of a CIA agent is illegal (look under “third double standard of the week”), but disclosing the name of a CIA secretary isn’t, then it doesn’t take too long to figure out who is an agent.
However, running an asset search isn’t illegal. In fact banks run them, as do collection agencies and attorneys who are considering filing suit against somebody. The Bank Secrecy Act (PDF) only guarantees secrecy of banking activity that involves small amounts of money. Anything larger than $10,000 in cash is recorded, and anything over $3,000 may be recorded.
Of course, Bush doesn’t have $11 million in cash. It would most likely be in real estate, businesses, or other hard assets. In the past, looking for the owner of real estate required looking for deeds in the county courthouses. Today that is automated.
The way around this would require falsified deeds (putting fake names on the deeds for instance). But that would require getting the help of attorneys and notary publics, putting them at risk of criminal fraud charges (especially if the assets in question were worth millions). Attempts to keep something secret usually fail when several people are involved (Look for November 14, 2002, but the site is down right now, so Google’s cached version is here).
It’s also important to note that Bush’s net worth is reported at $2 million. That is, he may own $75 million, and owe $73 million (though I doubt it).
So, no, I didn’t do the asset search involved. I don’t even know who did. If I cared enough, I would go looking. I think the number makes sense, and I don’t think that Bush’s CIA connection automatically makes him suspect (back to that “the third double-standard of the week” link).
BTW, finding out a dead person’s worth (eg., Lyndon B. Johnson) just involves looking at the will or probate records.
allow me to give you some pointers on how to think. you’re missing a rather large point and again it is one of scientific method. the point is that the nature of evidence dictates things. first, it says that you can never find out how much money someone has. i don’t care how resourceful you are. i can “find” a million dollars and i don’t have to tell anybody. second, it says when you state a hypothesis, for it to have any meaning, it has to be stated in the negative so that one data point can refute it. for instance, you are not guilty (until someone shows evidence that you are) or there is no lochness monster (until someone shows that there is). note that one data point in both cases refutes the hypothesis and that is the beauty. now, for you to see how easy it is for your argument to be refuted we construct a simple hypothesis: it is hard to hide your money or alternatively, it is easy to find how much someone has. well, if these were true, then why are there billions of dollars in the drug trade that can’t be tracked down? why was the investment community so out of touch with enron’s value? so, you see, you can say as many ridiculous things you like about real estate or whatever nonsense you’ve been going on about but you’ll never convince any intelligent person that you can use public information about the bushes finances to make your claim. finally, a word about the CIA. they can operate their own businesses and not have to report any of their income to the government. try to find that money.
OK, now you did it, I had to do a Google search (which is just as easy for you to do as it is for me …). Forbes has a list that somewhat backs up my numbers. Bush is not in the table shown in the article, but if you click on the picture labeled “Click here for Biographies of the Ten Richest US Presidents,” and follow the “Next” link until you get to George II, you will find:
There are some caveats to my original claim.
However, I did find your phrase “allow me to give you some pointers on how to think” interesting.
The last post about asset searches should be simple enough for most readers to understand. But for those who simply cannot follow it, please recognize that we live in a time that all substantial financial transactions generate a record. If you transfer money between accounts, there will be a computer record, unless you transfer by cash, in which case the Bank Secrecy Act will require a record. If you purchase land, there will be a record and the deed will be recorded at the county courthouse (and will include the sales price, for tax purposes). It is simply impossible to move money around for long without generating records.
It is possible to try and operate outside the law. However, I am pretty sure that most mafia Dons and drug lords in the US have valid land deeds. Their 1040s may not reflect their illegal income, but their assets are either recorded or are not legally theirs (at least, they couldn’t legally prove they own the assets).
Could the former head of the CIA do much better? I doubt it, since he would need the help of lots of people — many whom he couldn’t know — and only one would have to blow the whistle. Consider, the former governor of Arkansas couldn’t hide his wife’s amazing ability to trade cattle futures with almost perfect accuracy, even though he had the kinds of resources he would need to hide it.
Aaargh! After my last post, I realized that even better examples of the difficulty of keeping secrets are Abu Gharaib and Rumsfeld’s hand-picked attorneys and intelligence agents telling the press about torturous interrogations.
i’m pretty sure you’re not going to get it today. the cia operates in the dark. laws do not apply to them. a law is worth nothing by itself. as lessig explains in “free culture” and his other books, there is also the cost of enforcing that law. the cost of enforcing the “bank secrecy act” is too high to enforce on anyone in the cia. when was the last time you heard of someone in the cia being prosecuted for breaking the law? answer? never. the official governement stance is that national security depends on nothing being leaked. forbes magazine? are you kidding?
Abu Gharaib and Rumsfeld�s hand-picked attorneys and intelligence agents telling the press about torturous interrogations.
those are deliberate leaks to keep the populace from thinking about more important issues that are going on. it’s like an innoculation.
here’s another example that illustrates the issue of cost of law enforcement. on p. 21 in schneier’s book “secrets and lies”, he tells the story of how ayatollah khomeini was able to mint $100 bills with some of the u.s.’s intaglio printing presses that he acquired. the department of the treasury calculated that it wasn’t worth getting them back even though they could counterfeit millions of dollars. just because you and i don’t have clever enough ideas or access to untracked money doesn’t mean someone else doesn’t.
Ah! Now you’ve hit on it, Max. I’m glad you mentioned that Texas Rangers deal.
“George W., the first MBA president, was much wealthier than his father upon entering the White House–primarily on the strength of the roughly $15 million he cleared on the sale of his shares in the Texas Rangers (initial investment: $605,000).”
That deal stinks to high heaven. Are you even aware of its parameters? That land and homes owned by taxpaying citizens was TAKEN OVER BY THE STATE to make that mother of all sweetheart deals happen?
To imply that Bush is some kind of financial genius is absurd. He realized that gain off the backs of innocent citizens, who got royally screwed. This was a crooked crony capitalist deal to end all such deals.
Some republican values, there.
The man is an utter disgrace as a business person, unless you count the ability to cut corners, lie to the SEC, and rip innocent people off as positive traits. If you do, then Bush is all A’s.
I’m sorry, Brent, but you seem to have gone off the deep end (“those are deliberate leaks to keep the populace from thinking about more important issues that are going on”).
Travis, I don’t believe Bush II is a financial genius. It isn’t unheard of for a state to use emminent domain for sports arenas, shopping malls, and other questionable projects. I do believe it is unlikely for anybody to “ride my coattails” to six or seven times my wealth. It just doesn’t make sense.
Oh, for Pete’s sake, Max, why on earth doesn’t it make sense for “anybody to ‘ride my coattails’ to six or seven times my wealth”?
It makes PERFECT sense and it happens every day.
Even so, it’s irrelevant, because George W. is nowhere near as loaded as his father.
Here’s a newsflash for you:
George H.W. Bush, despite what you’ve managed to dig up from Forbes (give me a break!!!) is worth many, many tens of millions of dollars, at a minimum.
You don’t honestly believe that every single asset a person has leaves a paper trail, do you?
That’s ridiculous.
I�m sorry, Brent, but you seem to have gone off the deep end (�those are deliberate leaks to keep the populace from thinking about more important issues that are going on�).
maybe, but if you’re not completely close-minded, your first clue should be that they’re allowing cameras in a military prison. there’s nothing peculiar about that. you have an ideology because you are immersed in a group psychology whose character and behavior has been known at least since le bon described it in his works including psychologie des foules. you are not speaking objectively because you are speaking for the group. the same goes for the kerry group. in general, whatever the republican group or democratic group wants their supporters to say, the respective collective goes off into blogspace and echos the respective ideology. it doesn’t matter how airtight the logic and empirical evidence that is offered to members of both groups, each can easily dust it off their shoulders and simply ignore any evidence that doesn’t fit in with their imaginary reality. this is why you will never seek out the conason article mentioned previously because it has nothing to offer you to the extent that it will help you contribute to the group psychology. but scientific method requires that all the evidence be scrutinized. something has to be done with the anomalies. they either refute the hypothesis or you have to explain how observation error contributed to the anomaly. but evidence only matters in group psychology when it supports the leader of the group. evidence is ignored otherwise. you can see it in their perspective of the media. conservatives say there is a liberal bias. liberals say there is a conservative bias. well, they can’t both be right. either the conservatives are wrong, the liberals are wrong, or both are wrong. but neither will consider the idea that both are wrong. here’s politics in america as described by a stand-up comedian whose material has been re-appropriated but not credited by many: “i think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs. i think the puppet on the left is more to my liking. hey, wait a minute! there’s one guy holding up both puppets! shut up! go back to bed america, your government is in control…here’s love connection. watch this and get fat and stupid.” so, quit reading this and get back to that tv.
OK, I’ve been getting nasty. I need to appologize to Brent for two comments in particular (“The last post about asset searches should be simple enough for most readers to understand. But for those who simply cannot follow it, …” and “now you’ve gone off the deep end”). I appreciate the general civility here on Lessig’s blog, and I need to do my part to keep it civil.
In regards to Forbes’ ability to report facts, I have to admit that some of Forbes’ news reporting (especially its reporting about SCO vs. IBM) leaves much to be desired. Even so, Forbes publishes the “Forbes 400” — a list of the 400 richest Americans — just as Fortune publishes the Fortune 500. If anyone would like to attack the process Forbes uses to track individual wealth, you are free to do so. But, please, let me know where the process breaks down.
Also, if you are sure Bush I owns a house worth $5 million, why not ask a realtor friend for a property search? You will look much more believable.
In the interest of full disclosure, while ownership of land is public record, and cash on hand can be figured out through a credit check (or the government can look at reports generated by banks in compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act), ownership of businesses can get tricky. There are several kinds of businesses where ownership and value are public record (CEOs of NYSE or NASDAQ companies, for instance, must report their ownership of the company they work for, and their salary is generally available; and some partnerships are registered with the state, and their tax returns [and the tax returns of sole proprieterships] can usually be looked at). But, I do know that some corporations in Nevada do not have to register enough useful information with the state for anyone to determine who owns what in them.
If that paragraph doesn’t make much sense, you will need to go look somewhere else for detailed definitions. The differences between a sole proprietership, an LLP, and a closely-held corporation aren’t important to this conversation. The fact that some corporations in Nevada (and corporations in many foreign countries, for that matter) can be owned “anonymously” (i.e., there is no way for a random person to determine who owns what percentages of the company) is the important issue.
And, finally, to Travis: it is entirely reasonable that I can give somebody a start (fund their education, put them in charge of a family business, etc.), but if he later surpasses me in wealth it is difficult to say that he is riding my coattails.
And, yes, I do believe that most assets a person touches leave a paper trail. That paper trail may not be available to the general public (or be real paper, for that matter) but a record exists.
About ten years ago I toured a local Secret Service office (I don’t know if we could get away with that today). It surprised me that, officially, the main job of the Secret Service is to combat counterfeit money. However, counterfeit cash doesn’t have the affect (in the US) it did years ago, since people don’t use cash to buy things — they use credit cards and checks and loans, etc (which create “paper trails”). The Russian and Ecuadorian economies are more reliant on paper US cash than the US.
Sorry, citizens, we’re officially off topic so far we don’t have maps on how to get back
/* maybe, but if you�re not completely close-minded, your first clue should be that they�re allowing cameras in a military prison. there�s nothing peculiar about that.
*/
They don’t officially allow cameras in most gyms, but there are examples of people using small cellphone cameras to commit “invasion of privacy” in gym dressing rooms. Also, military personnel are definitely allowed to have cameras with them — although they may be limited in what they are allowed to photograph.
/* you have an ideology because you are immersed in a group psychology … you are not speaking objectively because you are speaking for the group. … in general, whatever the republican group or democratic group wants their supporters to say, the respective collective … echos the respective ideology.
*/
Well, I can’t speak for anybody else, but I personally come to my own conclusions. I actually don’t spout the party line. I disagree with my party on several issues, and I don’t necessarily agree with the Democrats on those issues either. In fact, the main concern of both parties is the recent rise of independent voters who don’t vote straight tickets, because they don’t always feel at home in either of the big parties, and regularly buck the party line.
/* it doesn�t matter how airtight the logic and empirical evidence that is offered to members of both groups, each can easily dust it off their shoulders and simply ignore any evidence that doesn�t fit in with their imaginary reality.
*/
I hate to get nasty again, but you haven’t shown me airtight logic or empirical evidence. You’ve told me that you don’t believe a list published by Forbes and a similar list published by PBS because money laundering exists and Bush I was CIA director in the ’70s. If it’s a possibility, I truly recommend taking a class in Argument-based writing (or persuasive writing) at a local community college.
/* this is why you will never seek out the conason article mentioned previously because it has nothing to offer you to the extent that it will help you contribute to the group psychology.
*/
Which Conason article?
/* but scientific method requires that all the evidence be scrutinized.
*/
Scrutinizing “all evidence” is an impossibility. It is true that the scientific community requires peer reviews, and regularly throws out theories when new evidence refutes them, but saying “all evidence must be scrutinized” is like saying “all numbers must be counted before we know there is no end to numbers.”
But, more importantly, social “sciences” aren’t sciences in the same way physics or chemistry are. Political science, economics, etc. are attempts to make sense of large numbers of humans, in environments that aren’t repeatable (and even if they were, there is no reason to believe that the humans will react the same way)
/* conservatives say there is a liberal bias. liberals say there is a conservative bias. well, they can�t both be right.
*/
Actually they can. Some media outlets are definitely conservative (Fox News comes to mind), and some media outlets are liberal (Slate comes to mind, especially Kos). I enjoy my local PBS station (and my local NPR station, btw) because, with few exceptions, they make an effort to present the news fairly. In fact, I enjoy getting my US news via the BBC (which is how my NPR station does things).
/* �i think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs. i think the puppet on the left is more to my liking. hey, wait a minute! there�s one guy holding up both puppets! …� so, quit reading this and get back to that tv.
*/
You definitely have a right to feel that way. I find that most TV is mind-numbingly boring, but there actually are programs worth watching, and even a few which present the news in a decent manner. I’ve lived a happy life without a TV before, and I got my news from The AP, although today I would probably look for a couple of other views as well.
However, after living in Brazil for a few years (where it seems there are more political parties than there are citizens), I have to say that I’m glad some political ideas aren’t represented. Several of my Brazilian friends voted for Communist senators because “they were left wing” (wanting to overthrow the Brazilian Constitution didn’t bother them), and others voted for a party wanting to place Brazil under a monarch again. I met a city councilman who belonged to a party with a platform of two planks: Education and Technology (PFL). That’s fine and dandy, but what should Brazil do about the crisis in Sudan? Education or Technology?
errata:
this last time i mentioned the article i accidentally used the word “fortunate” instead of “native”.
Although I don’t expect to continue this for too much longer, since it isn’t going anywhere, I would like to clarify:
/* the evidence presented in the conason article … show why your original assertion that Bush II�s success was not significantly influenced by any help from his father cannot be true
*/
I know that Bush II’s success was significantly influenced by his father. I don’t believe that Bush II rode his father’s coattails forever.
As a hypothetical example, consider the line “he rode the mayor’s coattails into the White House.” It doesn’t sound reasonable.
In our hypothetical, however, it could be possible that the local mayor had some political friends and knew some campaign donors who could start me out on the path. Doing the footwork and talking with them, and then their friends, and so on into the White House couldn’t be characterized as “riding the mayor’s coattails” any more than it could be characterized as “getting no significant influence from the mayor.”
Bush II, in my opinion, is in a similar boat. I’m pretty sure he didn’t pay for his own Yale and Harvard educations. I wouldn’t be shocked to see his father’s influence in Bush II’s career — especially early on — but that isn’t proof that Bush II can’t put on his own shoes without help. The man amassed $13 million, and I think that deserves some credit. Kerry, according to Forbes, is worth over half a Billion dollars (mainly from marriage), and that also deserves credit.
But, isn’t Kerry’s money from ketchup and the Bush’s from oil? How can there be such a large difference? It’s all in the legal form of the business in question. I haven’t looked into it, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Bush oil companies set up as corporations with lots of stockholders — meaning that the Bush duo would own very little of the large amount of money from that.
My main point for this, as I already stated, is that the Left sees Bush II as a big threat that doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously. I’ve never seen a situation where overestimating the opponent hurt, but I know of several situations where underestimating the opponent did.
Somehow my previous post got posted anonymously. That is me up there (just to keep things clear).
For the record, I dismissed the Conason article out of hand because of my BS detector. Now that I’m reading it, I think I made a good judgement to dismiss it as more of the same old same old.
And instead of “Conason, come on!”, this man spouts the party line all the time (even Bill O’Reilly disagrees with the party line on the drug war); he even relies on the same “unreliable and incomplete” public data to make his case that Forbes used to determine Bush’s value (in other words, it is hard for somebody to dispute the Forbes list on principle and accept this article as gospel), I’ll tell you exactly where he’s wrong.
Unfortunately, Conason doesn’t label what is a hard fact here, and what is his interpretation of the data. This section appears to be something of provable facts, so I’ll take it at face value (although his commentary about particular investors — in the area I snipped out — looks like his interpretation of data, meant to create enough smoke that people will assume there was a fire somewhere).
However, Conason neglects to bring up important history that puts this in context. First, Arbusto was formed when OPEC was learning to flex its muscle through oil embargoes. At the time oil fields in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana appeared to be the US’s most likely energy savior. $3 million in investments in Arbusto isn’t out of line. In fact, seven of the ten largest banks in Texas put so much money into companies like Arbusto that they went under when those oil exploration companies went bust in the ’80s, (and two merged with larger banks) (PDF, see page 4). In other words, several other companies had similar financial success (and later failure) without Bush on board.
But continuing:
Since I don’t know where Conason is simply adding his own commentary, or where he’s drawing on established sources, I could very well rewrite the above paragraph as:
Hardly a smoking gun. In fact, I wouldn’t characterize it as a waterlogged cap-gun.
I am a hockey fan, so I don’t already have much information about Bush’s connection to the Rangers, aside from the information Conason presents. What is presented doesn’t look fishy, though.
I’ll continue reading the article, but I don’t see airtight reasoning there either. And, no, you haven’t changed my mind on your three assertions either — because all three are backed up with “because I say so — you can’t trust the media anyway.”
The Conason article could be improved to second-rate journalism by including information such as “at year end, 1980, Arbusto was worth $X million, although $Y million was invested during the year” (Y > X). It could be improved to first-rate journalism by including information about the oil boom and bust that happened at the same time.
As it is, it sounds quite a bit like trying to talk about a high-tech, VC-funded company in the late 1990s without talking about the tech bubble. A lot of fraud occured during the tech bubble (just as a lot of fraud occured during the oil bubble in the ’70s), but history about companies during that time must talk about the business environment they operated in to not paint everything with the wrong brush.
In other words, I could make 1990s Amazon and Ebay sound like pretty fraudulent companues if I don’t point out that several other VC companies were doing the same thing. If I point out the other VC companies, Amazon and Ebay get put in perspective, but fraudulent firms still look fraudulent. I can’t help but wonder if Conason knew that putting Arbusto in perspective would scuttle his fraud case.
Oh, btw, the quote, “Even the company’s CEO admitted that its financial statements were ‘a mess,'” only refers to the financial statements, not the finances.
max,
as you, i’ve been extremely disappointed with conason’s writing since this article. it seems he got popular and clearly became another pundit on the so-called left. but i feel the same way about paul krugman. after writing several good books, he became a NYT op writer and started writing partisan trash that would appeal to the so-called left. so, perhaps once you get popular, your editors tell you that you have to emphasize a partisan alignment with one side or the other. but, whatever, i agree with you that conason’s stuff stinks, but nonetheless the harpers article does reveal a lot and for our purposes, the deal between bahrain and harkin has Bush I’s fingerprints all over them. and why wouldn’t it? if i was president, i would do the same thing for my son.
Actually, I’ve just finished the part about Harken and Bahrain (I can only read the article in short snippets). While some of it looks a little strange, I don’t consider it all that damaging. I’ll cover it, but I don’t want to argue each point in this article.
But Conason never actually showed that Harken was on unstable ground. He simply said it was so. Why didn’t he back that up with a quote or numbers?
And, as the Bahrainis said, going for a smaller company brought certain advantages — that to the Bahrainis may have offset the inexperience disadvantages.
Not necessarily. Conason could have explained why he drew this conclusion, especially since earlier in the article he implied the Bahrainis wanted to be their partner’s “only Valentine” (in the words of Linus Torvalds — who used them to describe something else entirely, btw), and Harken was the right size for that.
After creating more smoke to imply there was a fire, Conason continues:
Sorry, but there is a glaring error, mistatement, or typo here. Saddam invaded Kuwait on Aug 2, 1990 — a year before Bush’s stock sale of July 1991 (the UN’s security council resolutions back this up).
LOL. How about “although there is no evidence that Conason has is really a drug lord, …”? Better yet, insider trading isn’t an open and shut case. The article later says that the trade was run by corporate attorneys who approved it.
Yet another “I’ll make some smoke so you think there’s fire” section (especially with the “no wrongdoing was proved” part, which implies “I, Conason, know much more about this case than anyone around, just ask me”). However, the SEC’s president doesn’t get directly involved in the thousands of cases it handles a year.
Oh, and did you catch that drive-by accusation — “something was rotten about a savings and loan that I won’t identify, but believe me, Bush II is bad.”
Hardly Pulitzer quality.
Oh, for the record, I don’t like local government making concessions or giving tax credits to attract business (the numbers never add up) — even though I have personally benefitted from businesses brought to my community that way — so I don’t personally like the Rangers stadium deal, but it isn’t a smoking gun.
local government making concessions
“concessions” with other people’s property. if the local government is going to force people out of their homes to give Bush II a sweet deal, they should get a significant stake in that investment to those that were forced out.
stock sale of July 1991
what is the reference for this claim?
“Concessions” in the very generic sense of “we won’t charge you property tax on your manufacturing plant, and we’ll make it back on sales tax from your 300 workers.” That never adds up, in my mind. Concessions is also a simple way to group several actions that I don’t like with abuse of emminent domain (which I also don’t like). Bush got the abuse of emminent domain, and a very lopsided contract for concessions.
Regarding emminent domain (the ability government has to seize property for various purposes), I don’t like seeing it used to seize property in order to build shopping malls or sports complexes. The government does have to pay “fair market value” for any seized property (Constitutional requirement), but I still don’t like it. However, Bush using it isn’t any worse than what normally happens. I still think it’s an abuse — emminent domain is meant for things like acquiring houses standing in the way of a new road — but it isn’t an unusual abuse.
The July 1991 reference was a mistake. I was referring to the June 1991 stock sale where Bush sold 2/3 of his stock. The date was still a year after Saddam invaded Kuwait (although the date could be a typo; since it’s publicly-traded stock, there’s a record of that transaction, and the record could be looked at).
In my previous post, I forgot to mention that “the agency�s general counsel was the same Texas attorney who had handled the sale of the Rangers baseball team for George W.” is also a non-starter, since “general counsel” only means main attorney, not only attorney. In this case, another attorney would have to represent the SEC because of conflict of interest issues.
OK, Brent, this will probably be my last post about the Conason article (I’m almost done).
First, the 1991 stock sale is clearly a typo. The article later says that the first news story about it ran in October 1990. Things look a little fishy — and failure to file with the SEC until eight months after the deadline is wrong, although not on the same order of wrong as breaking into the Democratic convention headquarters at the Watergate hotel.
Second, the UTIMCO investment problem (that is, the junk investments made by the regents of the University of Texas, while similar investments were being made by other universities all over the country) is a result of poor planning, considering that Orange County, CA went bankrupt in December of 1994 — well before UTIMCO was formed — due to similar investment practices.
That isn’t to say that there aren’t any redeeming qualities to the investment strategy UTIMCO followed — VCs follow the same strategy. Basically 75% to 80% of the investments are expected to bust, 15% may get break even, and the last 5% to 10% are expected be so succesful that they make up for all the others. This requires incredibly risky investments in small start-up companies.
The article, however, spends several paragraphs simply trying to create smoke and only links Bush very tenuously to UTIMCO. Here’s a summary: lots of states reformed their university investment strategy, Bush did not cancel the appointment of a certain businessman that the us governor submitted, the businessman reformed the University of Texas’s investment strategy. The article implies Bush’s guilt, even though (1) the legislature had to approve the changes — not the governor — and (2) the article repeatedly says “although no laws were broken. …” It appears Bush was supposed to fire the businessman, but the article doesn’t say if the governor could do that. The Texas Governor is limited in what he can do — even the article refers to it as a “weak governor.”
OK, this is my last post on Conason (I’m done). Conason tries to retroactively tie the VC businessman to Bush, a move that is clearly logically flawed.
Part of that link is that in 1998 the businessman spent three times what Bush & Co. spent in 1989 on the Texas Rangers. Well, investments are supposed to grow, and ten years is a long time for an investment to grow. And didn’t Conason just tell us about the Rangers’ new stadium?
In addition he complains about the businessman’s use of IRR as a measure of growth. Conason then says “In March 1998 Forbes magazine pointed out that ‘there is no standard way of calculating IRR, so returns are easily manipulated'” and then compares IRRs, which he just finished sayibg were invalid. Hmmm. One of these things is not like the other.
and now we have clear evidence of a major mainstream network trying to bring down a president with forgeries
I agree wholeheartedly. This campaign sounds more like the meaningless rantings of a British tabloid rather than the meaningless rantings of corporate-driven U.S. politics. I’m almost beginning to miss the latter.