Why isn't Bustemante(sp?) and Davis screaming about the Enron

meeting with Arnold? Bustie was on with Wolfie and didn't mention the Enron/Arnold/Lawsuit connection. I just don't understand why they are harping on the perv Arnold and not the crooked Arnold! They should be screaming from the roof tops that Enron is hoping Arnold gets in so they won't have to pay Calf back the Billions they stole fromt them!!! AAAARRRRRRGGGGG!!!!!!!!

Maybe Enron has contacts with the other guys is all I can figure, although Bustmonte is the one who filed the suit.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=283&row=0

...It turns out that Schwarzenegger knowingly joined the hush-hush encounter as part of a campaign to sabotage a Davis-Bustamante plan to make Enron and other power pirates then ravaging California pay back the $9 billion in illicit profits they carried off.

...One month after Cruz brings suit, Enron's Lay calls an emergency secret meeting in L.A. of his political buck-buddies, including Arnold.

...the Bush commissioners cook up a terrific scheme: charge the companies with conspiracy but offer them, behind closed doors, deals in which they have to pay only two cents on each dollar they filched.

Problem: the slap-on-the-wrist refunds won't sail if the Governor of California won't play along. Solution: Re-call the Governor...


rocknation

I just don't get it. Why didn't Arianna or Bustemante, bring it up in the one debate Arnold was in? :shrug:

will people be more interested in, and pay attention to?

Which one will make their eyes glaze over in boredom?

That should get 'em interested. But, I fear you're right.

for the general public. Although it was approved by BOTH sides of the assembly, what happened was that public consumer protection agencies were ENROLLED in the energy program based on existing protections at the SEC and the other side of the aisle was enrolled in free market ideology.

Bustamante voted FOR degulation based on advice that at the time seemed to have protections built INTO the law ...

Since the news media deals in sound bites, all anyone need to say is blah blah blah..they voted for it too. It is TOO difficult an issue to tackle and defend one's yes vote with a soundbite.

This is probably their ace in the hole.

the campaign is all but over

While the lawsuit might be a little complicated for the average person to understand the fact that California was ripped off in the energy crisis is not.

but here it is again. Davis is a corporate Dem who accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Enron. *HE* specifically--not the rest of us--cannot talk about Enron because his campaign contributions will be thrown in his face. He simply cannot discuss this froma position of power, which is where one NEEDS to be about these kinds of improprieties.

For those of you who trust my veracity , I would direct you to this LA Times piece:http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-042902enron.story

"At their state convention in February, Republicans assailed Davis for accepting $119,500 in Enron contributions over the last five years. They demanded that he return it. Davis refused, saying that he took his last contribution of $10,000 from Enron in May 2000, a few months before the power crisis began."


and here is an excerpt from the SacBee, admittedly a more conservative newspaper. " Secretary of State Bill Jones reiterated his demand that Davis return Enron campaign donations. Since 1996, Davis has received $119,500 from Enron, including $42,500 since becoming governor. Davis has said he will not return any money, but adds he no longer accepts campaign contributions from energy brokers or generators."

For the record: I am voting NO on the recall, but this is an example of why Huffington's critique of corporately-financed poltical parties/candidates is right on.

So...how does that equate to a quid pro quo?

....sorry you want to misrepresent what I said, whic is simply that a corporate candidate is less strong when he argues with another corporate candidate. That's all.

because he accepted something like $50,000 for a speaking engagement from Enron back in the nineties, anything he says about Enron they believe is pure politics. That's the way they spin everything.

This is pure repuke politics and, as I've thought for so long, one of the jobs of Enron was to spread its money and tentacles into so many in order to silence any criticism.

Again, I don't think it really undermines Davis, but it makes it look like he is as culpable to the media and, hence, to the electorate.