07/06/2002 Archived Entry: "Nader said Bush's 1990 stock sale was unethical:"

"He engaged in very late filings with the SEC," Nader said. "He sold the stock just before some very damaging news was disclosed." The White House this week blamed the late filings on a mix-up among corporate lawyers. Bush's representatives in the past had said the SEC lost the documents.

Talk about walking into a swinging door. Bush is supposed to come out Tuesday with a proposal to tighten the rules surrounding insider trading, specifically, to have it come out of the company's booked earnings. There's no way that the Big-business-owned-GOP-House is going to pass such a bill. In fact, the whole spectacle of Bush trying to take the high road by unleashing damage control initiatives now looks to have backfired strongly. As he takes the podium, it's his own actions which are those which he is condemning, and his focus on some sort of reform (which he won't be able to get passed anyway) just serves to prolong the focus on his own actions.

Bush is scheduled to deliver a speech Tuesday on Wall Street calling for tougher restrictions on corporate officers, including criminal penalties for those who file intentionally misleading SEC reports. But the increased scrutiny of Harken is forcing the White House to address Bush's own actions as a corporate executive, when he dealt with associates who would become part of his or his father's administrations.

Further, the Democrats have an opening here to talk about passing something stronger than Bush's initiatives to avoid the corporate wrongdoings of Bush, Enron, and WorldCom.

WASHINGTON (AP) - As a Texas oil man, President Bush engaged in some of the same kinds of business practices he's now promising to clean up in response to a wave of corporate scandals... "It's time this CEO, President Bush, took responsibility for his actions as a private businessman and as president of the United States," Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe said Wednesday.

Terry makes it look easy, like this is the link that sticks... the funny thing is that this appears to have been just a goof-up by Bush in his filings, thinking the Form 144 was all he had to file, forgetting about the Form 4 that is also required for insiders. The damage control knows that the sale of Harken stock for $848,000 two months before the company reported millions of dollars in losses is a loser for Bush, even if it was just a lapse of making the second filing. Read the overly defensive, non-soundbite kind of stuff that Bartlett is saying in Bush's defense:

"To compare a $12 million sale of a subsidiary company by Harken to a deliberate attempt to hide $3.8 billion in losses is ridiculous," said White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett. "The proof is in the results. Harken fully complied with the SEC and restated its loses and by 1991 the value of their stock doubled from its price a year before."

Bartlett is so out of touch, that he expects the public to make a distinction between millions and billions. And here's the ridiculous truth:

When Bush was a director of Harken, the energy company was involved in some of the same kind of bookkeeping activities that have caused trouble for corporations recently. In January 1991, the company announced that after "discussions" with the SEC, it would add more than $9 million to its net loss for the year, nearly quadrupling the loss. The company had counted as income gains from the sale of a subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum, that should have been deferred to future years -- thus inflating its short-term earnings.

Bush's blame others first tactic has backfired, and now he is forced to send out the flacks to defend another round of scrutiny at the most inopportune time. Ari Fleischer's admission seems to have set it all off. Why they changed stories is a mystery. This is obviously Bush's fault that the filing was not made. Why would they change the hit-man for the mix-up from the SEC to the corporate lawyers? It looks like someone got the cover story mixed-up while in relay to Ari:

Mr. Fleischer could not completely explain the inconsistency, and he said he did not know when or why Mr. Bush changed his explanation about the reason the sale was disclosed late.

Hughes is leaving the show just in time for Card to take the blame for Bush's approval downturn. Down the road, she'll be back. Hughes will play the this will fix it role in 2004, just as was Baker in 1992 for Bush I, though again, it won't work.

Replies: 6 comments

Nader can talk all the garbage he wants...he was responsible for the Bush victory...so I am not too sympathetic when that spoiler cries foul. It is like Perot crying foul over Clinton's Whitewater Dealings.

Bush was unethical, perhaps...but violation of law...may be not...the jury is still out. Regarding your last statement...if the economy recovers and the unemployment is below 5% with the stock market over 11,500, Bush wins regardless of Hughes or Card or even better that Bush apologist..Ms. Cohen of the Boston Herald. If we are exactly in the same position as now in January 2004...Bush may be looking at another Vermont problem...no, not Jeffords...Howard Dean.

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 07/06/2002 01:52 PM PST

More on W...this time from Eleanor Clift of Newsweek:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/776535.asp

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 07/06/2002 03:11 PM PST

Tit for Tat...Bush told the Palestinians to get rid of Arafat...on hindsight he should have kept quiet...now foreign investors are telling the Americans that it is time for a change:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/774788.asp

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 07/06/2002 03:13 PM PST

Recently, the GOP has been saying that it is on the side of the immigrants and Hispanics. It also said that it has dropped the idea of privatizing social security. However, Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas says just the opposite. Will the real GOP stand up? Is it the party of George Bush or the party of Lamar Smith? Read Lamar's rantings in the Washington Times below. Incidentally, he is in bed with Tom Tancredo, Bob Stump and others in the immigrant bashing wing of the GOP.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020705-26247217.htm

"Republicans believe Social Security reform must include a personal investment option."

Lamar Smith

Posted by G. C. Raj @ 07/06/2002 05:05 PM PST

Of all the politicans who are now decrying corporate corruption Ralph Nader has the greatest claim to being able to honestly say, "I told you so."

Both major parties have fed at the corporate trough, although the GOP has been the bigger hog. Nader and the Greens have consistently advocated reforms of corporate governance and the related issue of campaign finance. The GOP and the Dems talk a good game but never produce real reforms.

Nader didn't beat Gore in 2000. Gore beat Gore, or rather, the Supreme Court beat him.

Posted by Eric Karnes @ 07/06/2002 08:04 PM PST

Everyone keeps talking about this one late stock filing. But what was recently reported in the newspapers is that GW actually made SEVERAL late filings. What defense can the president possibly have for his oversites? This consistent behavior clearly shows CONTEMPT for the law. Remember, Clinton was burned at the stake by a Republican Witch Hunting Congress for signifigantly less. Hey Democrats, do you believe in Witches too? What about Vice Witches?

Posted by Kevin Schmidt @ 07/12/2002 08:32 PM PST