hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Hand in the Cookie Jar

  • Subject: Hand in the Cookie Jar
  • From: ShayDguy@aol.com
  • Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:59:35 EDT


Chatterbox isn't surprised that the first Bush official to get caught
committing a financial impropriety would try to brazen it out. But Chatterbox
is surprised to see Karl Rove get away with it. Rove, senior adviser and
political Svengali to George W. Bush, was revealed last week by the
Associated Press' Pete Yost to have met at the White House with the chief
executive of Intel Corp., which wanted the Justice department to sign off on
a proposed merger, subsequently approved, between the Silicon Valley Group
(of which Intel is the principal customer) and ASML. The sole fact that Intel
met with a political hack like Rove over an antitrust matter should be enough
to raise eyebrows. Add in the fact that at the time of the meeting, Rove
owned more than $100,000 in Intel stock (he sold it two weeks ago) and you
have what looks like a textbook example of governmental conflict of interest.
But the story has raised scarcely a ripple. Why?

Well, for one thing, the press doesn't like to have to credit the AP. As
every reporter knows, it's standard practice to use information gleaned from
AP stories while providing little or no credit. Unlike just about every other
kind of news organization, a wire service has to tolerate this because the
plagiarizing entity is almost always a paying customer. If a reporter
includes the phrase, "as reported by the AP," in a story, his news editor is
likely to say something like, "Can't you do any better than that?"
Officially, this is a command to find a primary source. Unofficially, it is
understood to mean that the reporter may go back to his computer, drum his
fingers on the desk three or four times, erase the words "as reported by the
AP," and then resend the story to the news desk. The unspoken rationale is
that the AP, which grinds out news articles at a furious pace, specializes in
stories that any idiot could get if he had the time to consult the
appropriate official sources. The same can't be said for the rare
investigative AP story, which requires so much enterprise that the question,
"Who dug up this stuff" can't be swept under the carpet. Better not to follow
the story at all. This logic probably seemed especially compelling when
applied to a story about Rove, who is arguably the most interesting staffer
in the otherwise dull Bush White House, and one of the very few who will give
reporters the time of day. On the morning after the Rove story broke, the
editions of the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times that Chatterbox read
carried the AP story instead of stories of their own stories crediting the
AP. This sent a clear signal to readers that the matter was of minor

Another factor that muted the Rove story was the Democrats' decision to
politicize it--not by expressing outrage and calling for hearings, but by
ostentatiously proclaiming that expressing outrage and calling for hearings
was just what those partisan Republicans would do, and we Democrats are
better than that. When Juan Williams, on Fox News Sunday, asked Senate
majority leader Tom Daschle whether the Senate was going to investigate the
Rove affair, this is what Daschle said:

"Democrats want to legislate, not investigate. Again, I will say as many
times as I must say it that we're not going to engage in payback.  There's
plenty of temptation to do that, but we're not going to do that.  

Obviously there is a very important responsibility for oversight onto issues,
not personalities, not individuals.  I'm not going to go after witch hunts.  
I think it's really important for us to legislate.  Now, our function of
oversight responsibility is one we respect, but we're not going to get into
vendettas, we're not going to go after individuals and engage in some of the
practices of some of our colleagues."

Daschle was probably feeling jittery about the Rove story because the
previous day's Washington Post had carried a Page One story by Mike Allen
focused not on the substance of the ethical questions surrounding Rove, but
rather on the seemingly irresistible opportunity the Rove affair gave
Democrats to bash Clinton-bashing Republicans. (The headline was "Ethics of
Key Bush Officials Targeted.") Daschle, though hardly the nonpartisan saint
he's often portrayed to be, doesn't have much of a taste for the jugular, and
taking the high road was obviously smart politics.

Unfortunately, neither the journalistic nor the political imperatives shed
much light on whether Rove's actions were proper. On the face of it, they
were not. $100,000 is not a trivial amount of money to have invested in any
given stock, even for a wealthy man like Rove. Nor is the $250,000 in General
Electric stock that Rove held when, according to Yost's AP story, he met with
executives from the nuclear power industry "to listen to their ideas on the
Bush energy plan." (GE is heavily into nuclear power.) Nor was the $200,000
in Pfizer stock that Rove held when, according to Newsweek's Mike Isikoff,
one of the very few reporters to have followed up on what Rove actually did,
Rove was helping the Bush administration beat back a patient's rights bill
that the drug companies opposed. Nor was the more than $100,000 in Enron
stock that Rove held when he briefed the press about why the White House had
rejected California Gov. Gray Davis' plea to impose price caps on
electricity, which, among other things, would have been costly to Enron.

According to White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, in the Intel meeting Rove
"made it very clear that he was not in the decision-making process and
referred them to others in the administration who were." But George Scalise,
president of the Semiconductor Industry Association, and someone who actually
attended the meeting, told Isikoff, "I don't recall that having been said."
Isn't it worth finding out who's right? In a June 15 letter to Rove,
Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, ranking member of the House Government Reform
Committee, asks Rove precisely what was discussed in that Intel meeting, and
whether Rove has been involved in other meetings that might have had an
impact on his stock portfolio. Waxman's partisan relish in raising such
questions is obvious; he's also sent a letter to Republican Rep. Dan Burton,
chairman of the committee, asking whether, "[C]onsistent with your practices
during the Clinton administration...you intend to schedule a hearing on the
Rove/Intel matter." But it's worth remembering that participating in
governmental decisions that affect your stock portfolio is not only likely to
distort the outcome, but also, under most circumstances, against the law.
Indeed, in 1997, National Security Advisor Anthony Lake paid a $5,000 fine
merely for failing to sell off stocks in Exxon, Mobil, Duke Power and Teco
Energy, which might, theoretically, have affected his decisions on national
security issues. In Lake's case, he hadn't even met with representatives of
these companies! The controversy helped kill Lake's nomination for CIA
director. Rove, by contrast, hasn't even been asked to apologize.

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index