I followed briefly the DScott "Bush is Unelectable because of Enron" thread.  I also caught a few talking heads a few days ago expounding on the same concept.

The talking heads included a liberal media pundit and a former Clinton Staffer.  The Media Pundit made several vague accusations on the Enron situation, and claimed that the Federal Regulators that should have caught the problem were hand picked because of Enron's ties to Bush and Cheney.  Interestingly enough, the Clinton Staffer said that until more information came out, it was best not to point fingers, and he was the first one to point out that the money spent on election campaigns bought Enron exactly NOTHING by way of assistance.


My question to the peanut gallery here is do you REALLY think that Enron entirely collapsed on Bush's watch?  He took office in January, and probably didn't get a chance to appoint the regulators mentioned earlier until at least March or later.  Did Enron really collapse between March and December (less than 9 months??), or was the damage already done more than a year ago on Clinton's watch, and just now was enough info coming out to cause the execs. to bail out as quickly as they could?

My opinion is that the bulk of the fault lies with the previous administration, and as more info comes out, it will show that it could have been stopped years ago without the problems they are having now.

PS--I should also mention that I think the Media has a lot to do with the Enron story being such a big deal.  Now that the Anthrax scare is over, or mostly so, and Afghanistan is properly pacified, the media morons have to do something to justify their seven figure salaries (other than sit around with their thumbs up their asses--which is what they should do if there is no real news, instead of making a media event out of what should be a one or two day story at most).

This pretty much sums it up...!