February 03, 2002

Michael Moore Loses It

Recycled LinkThe shrill, off-balance rantings of Michael Moore make Dan Burton look coolly, soothingly rational:

When it's all over in a couple months, and you're packing up your pretzels and Spot and heading back to Texas, what will be your biggest regret? Not getting out more often and seeing the sights around Rock Creek Park? Never once visiting the newly-renovated IKEA in Woodbridge, Virginia? Or buying your way to the White House with money from a company that committed the biggest corporate swindle in American history?

Moore demonstrates quite convincingly that President Bush knew former Enron head Kenneth Lay pretty well - no surprise to most Americans. Moore further demonstrates that the administration sought the input of Lay - head of one of the largest players in the energy industry - in formulating its energy policy. Again, no surprise - if I want advice about landscaping, I'm going to call someone who's familiar with the business end of a rake. Michael, if you're concerned that Enron usurped governmental powers for its own benefit, the surest way to prevent that is to abide by the Constitution and strip government of powers it shouldn't have.

Ultimately, the best Moore is able to do is complain that the administration "did nothing," and that the administration's inaction were the reason that "...[t]ens of thousands have lost their jobs. Thousands more have lost their savings and their retirement." In other words, Moore parrots Henry Waxman. Funny thing - when all those dot com firms went bankrupt over the last two years, I didn't hear Moore or Waxman complaining that the Clinton administration failed to protect their shareholders and employees.

In fact, something else Moore, Waxman, and other Democrats have failed to offer is a plan as to exactly what they think the administration should have done to prevent the collapse. Bailout? Criminal investigation? No one knows, and they won't say. They're content to rail against Bush for imagined breach of a duty he didn't have.

If the administration had known of potential lawbreaking at an early stage, then they might have intervened. Other than that - zip. There's nothing the administration could or should have done.

By October - the same month in which Enron chief Lay was begging the administration for help they refused to give - the public was already well aware of Enron's troubles, and the stock was already in the tank, due to Enron's failed dealings with outside partnerships.

In any event, no one - except one group - has derived any benefit from Enron's shady dealings. The company is bankrupt, Lay and others face potential criminal charges, and any money they may have spirited out of the company is already subject to a feeding frenzy of trial lawyers, eager to get their one-third share of the class action settlements. Does that sound like anyone has benefited from government influence at this point?

That one group that has hit the jackpot is the trail lawyers, who stand to gain millions, if not billions, out of the dozens of shareholder lawsuits already pending. Once they get their hooks into that jackpot, who do you think will benefit from their largesse in the next elections? Oh, maybe that's why every Congressional Democrats with a subcommittee has already scheduled hearings.

Link from Medley.

Posted by wasylik at February 3, 2002 12:51 PM | TrackBack
Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?