Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush's America

( 40 )

Overview

A simultaneously rollicking and sobering indictment of the policies of President George W. Bush, Bushwhacked chronicles the destructive impact of the Bush administration on the very people who put him in the White House in the first place. Here are the ties that connected Bush to Enron, yes, but here, too, is the story of the woman who walks six miles to the unemployment office daily, wondering what happened to the economic security Bush promised. Here are reports on failed nation-building missions in Kabul and ...

See more details below
Paperback (Reprint)
$11.85
BN.com price
(Save 8%)$13.00 List Price
Other sellers (Paperback)
  • All (111) from $1.99   
  • New (8) from $1.99   
  • Used (103) from $1.99   
Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush's America

Available on NOOK devices and apps  
  • NOOK Devices
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 7.0
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 10.1
  • NOOK HD Tablet
  • NOOK HD+ Tablet
  • NOOK eReaders
  • NOOK Color
  • NOOK Tablet
  • Tablet/Phone
  • NOOK for Windows 8 Tablet
  • NOOK for iOS
  • NOOK for Android
  • NOOK Kids for iPad
  • PC/Mac
  • NOOK for Windows 8
  • NOOK for PC
  • NOOK for Mac
  • NOOK for Web

Want a NOOK? Explore Now

NOOK Book (eBook)
$9.99
BN.com price

Overview

A simultaneously rollicking and sobering indictment of the policies of President George W. Bush, Bushwhacked chronicles the destructive impact of the Bush administration on the very people who put him in the White House in the first place. Here are the ties that connected Bush to Enron, yes, but here, too, is the story of the woman who walks six miles to the unemployment office daily, wondering what happened to the economic security Bush promised. Here are reports on failed nation-building missions in Kabul and Baghdad. Here, too, the story of a rancher who has fallen prey to a Bush-Cheney interior department that is perhaps a wee bit too cozy with the oil industry. Bushwhacked is highly original and entirely thought-provoking—essential reading for anyone living in George W. Bush's America.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

From Barnes & Noble
Molly Ivins's follow-up to the hilarious bestseller Shrub proves once again why the wry Texas humorist is not in line to head up George W. Bush's fan club; but what sets it apart from other anti-Dubya screeds is the author's incisive analysis of how Bush's crony-centered domestic policies are adversely affecting average Americans. Obviously, unquestioning Bush supporters are advised to steer clear, but this is a well-researched, well-reasoned, often painful-to-read indictment of the Bush administration
From the Publisher
“Ivins is surely one of the nation’s most adroit political commentators.” —People

“A sprightly catalogue of every destructive policy decision the Bushies have made in their first two-and-a-half years. . . . Sure to delight the president’s critics and madden his fans.” —The Washington Post Book World

“Ivins and Dubose are worthy heirs of the honorable tradition of muckraking.” —Paul Krugman, The New York Review of Books

“A thorough (and thoroughly researched) condemnation of our 43rd president's domestic policy. . . . The intensely individual stories make this much more than a tart tongue-lashing. . . . Illuminating reading.” —Austin American-Statesman U.S.

The Washington Post
At the heart of Bushwhacked's critique is a robust economic populism that frames Bush's policies, from his lopsided tax cuts to his profit-driven view of education, in terms of how they affect average and ailing citizens. The book overflows with anecdotes about hard-working Americans -- a low-wage catfish-gutter who fights for the right to a restroom break, a single mother who walks six miles to the unemployment center -- injured by Bush's policies. Bolstered by facts and figures, it skillfully summarizes the case against Bush. — David Grenberg
Publishers Weekly
"If y'all had've read the first book, we wouldn't've had to write this one," says Ivins, a columnist who, along with co-author Lou Dubose, wrote Shrub: The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush, which covered "Dubya's" short but sour reign as a Texas governor. This book picks up where Shrub left off, detailing Bush's first term as the not-quite-elected President of the United States. Ivins reads her own material and audibly enjoys discussing what she sees as tax breaks for the rich, environmental and safety deregulation, corporate toadyism and the loss of Americans' civil liberties, though it is also very apparent that behind the laughter lies genuine sadness and anger. In fact, it's hard to listen to this audiobook without simultaneously laughing and becoming incensed. Ivins is a joy to listen to. Her snappy quips, razor wit and downright damnation of the current administration are tempered by a lovely Texas drawl. She's mad as hell and is ready to do something about it, yet she never lets that fact interfere with her delightfully offbeat sense of humor, her engaging delivery or her well-researched argument. Simultaneous release with the Random hardcover (Forecasts, Aug. 4, 2003). (Oct.) Copyright 2004 Reed Business Information.
Kirkus Reviews
Dubya is taking the nation to hell in a handbasket with poisonous policies that here get shot like skeet. Not everyone gets fed from the same trough in this administration, says peerless rabble-rouser Ivins (You Got to Dance with Them What Brung You, 1998, etc.) with co-author Dubose. The wealthy, abetted by a courtier press corps and the acolytes of regulatory agencies, as well as by the executive branch, get served from a bottomless trough of monetary reward. When it comes down to it, suggest these genuinely populist authors, the whole question "is about who’s getting screwed, and about who’s doing the screwing." Now that Bush has brought a low-tax, low-service, no-regulation state to Washington, the screwer is the government and the screwee every citizen who can’t claim a six-figure income. No airy abstractionists, the wry and tart Ivins and Dubose are thorough enough to keep us enraged, and they put a human face on suffering to exemplify the effects of bad policy: there are insults and attacks on individuals, along with Hammurabian reminders that law was meant to protect the powerless from the powerful. The writers hold the feet of campaign financing to the fire, as they do with crony capitalism, and they cover the de-funding of superfund sites, the axing of EPA administrators who buck the agency’s sorry recent legacy, and the crushing of OSHA’s influence. "Would you like some shit to go with your quarter pounder?," they ask—and they’re not kidding. They cite the nasty underpinnings of faith-based initiatives but also mention people with a few units ("that’s Texan for a hundred mil") who do good with their bounty, like B. Rapaport, an 84-year-old Jewish socialist from Waco, who recognizes a societal debt when he sees one. A world without Ivins would be a much poorer, much less-informed place. Author tour
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780375713118
  • Publisher: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group
  • Publication date: 6/1/2004
  • Edition description: Reprint
  • Pages: 368
  • Sales rank: 570,954
  • Product dimensions: 5.18 (w) x 7.92 (h) x 0.80 (d)

Meet the Author

Molly Ivins’s column is syndicated to more than three hundred newspapers from Anchorage to Miami. A three-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, she is the former co-editor of The Texas Observer and the former Rocky Mountain bureau chief for The New York Times. Her freelance work has appeared in Esquire, The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times Magazine, The Nation, Harper’s Magazine, and other publications. She has a B.A. from Smith College and a master’s in journalism from Columbia University. Her first book, Molly Ivins Can’t Say That, Can She?, spent more than twelve months on the New York Times bestseller list.

Lou Dubose has worked as a journalist in Texas for twenty years. He has been editor of The Texas Observer and politics editor of The Austin Chronicle, and is the co-author of Boy Genius: Karl Rove, the Brains Behind the Remarkable Political Triumph of George W. Bush. His freelance work has appeared in The Nation, Texas Monthly, The Washington Post, the Toronto Globe and Mail, the Liberty, Texas, Vindicator, and other publications. He is currently working on a book about Tom Delay. He lives with his wife, Jeanne Goka, in Austin.

Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

1.

Aloha, Harken

In the long run, there is no capitalism without conscience; there is no wealth without character.

—George W. Bush on Wall Street, July 9, 2001

In the long run, we are all dead.

—John Maynard Keynes on the long run, 1924

There he was. On the Tuesday after a long Fourth of July weekend. In the ballroom of an ornate Wall Street hotel that once housed the New York Merchants Exchange. Standing in front of a blue-and-white backdrop with the words corporate responsibility printed over and over on it, in case you should miss the point. Promising us “a new ethic” for American business. Our president, Scourge of Corporate Misbehavior.

It was like watching a whore pretend to be dean of Southern Methodist University’s School of Theology. But as Luther said, hypocrisy has ample wages.

“Harken,” said the Bush camp over and over, “was nothing like Enron.” Interestingly enough, it was exactly like Enron in each and every feature of corporate misbehavior, except a lot smaller. A perfect miniature Enron.

By the summer of 2002, it had long been known that twelve years earlier Bush made a pile by selling his stock in Harken Energy Corporation just before it tanked. At the time, he was serving both on Harken’s board and on a special audit committee looking at the company’s financial health. As he spoke on Wall Street, stories were surfacing about Harken’s sham sale of a subsidiary to a group of company insiders. The acquisition was financed by an $11 million loan guaranteed by the seller, Harken Energy. In other words, a fake asset swap to punch up Harken’s annual profit-and-loss statement.

The “sale” of Aloha Petroleum, from Harken to Harken, was again Enron writ small and so outrageous that the SEC stepped in, declared the accounting unacceptable, and forced the company to restate its earnings. Bush unquestionably knew about the deal.

Even if he had convinced the public that earlier stories about his $848,560 insider trade, his failure to report it to the SEC, his low-interest loans from Harken to buy company stock (a practice he particularly denounced in his Wall Street speech, as though he had never heard of such an unseemly scam before), and the Enron-esque sale of Aloha Petroleum were all what he described as “recycled stuff,” he was still surrounded by bad stories about to break. Enron was ripe for federal prosecution; Bush and Enron’s CEO, Ken Lay, his single largest campaign contributor, had been tight for years. Halliburton was being investigated by the feds for fraudulent accounting practices put in place when Dick Cheney was CEO. Congress was investigating the secretary of the Army for his role in the collapse of Enron, in the fleecing of electricity customers in California, and for his failure to divest himself of Enron stock in a timely manner.

SEC chief Harvey Pitt had so many previous business connections with the firms he was now regulating, he had already had to recuse himself in twenty-nine cases being pursued by the SEC. Bush’s hard-nosed, hard-assed political adviser, Karl Rove, had owned $108,000 in Enron stock and, more important, knew the Enron CEO because he was Bush’s biggest funder. Two of Bush’s economic advisers had worked as consultants for Enron. And the newly disgraced Ken Lay had convinced Bush to dump the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Curtis Hebert, and to replace him with the candidate of Lay’s choice, a Port Arthur, Texas, homeboy. Before giving Bush the word to dump Hebert, Lay had a come-to-Jesus session with Hebert himself, telling him to embrace free markets and deregulation or, Lay said, things would end badly for Hebert. They did.

Considering the circumstances, heckfire and brimpebbles were the best GeeDubya could manage as he wagged his fingers at Wall Street’s corporate criminals. What could he say about Lay: “I never had sexual relations with that man”? What he actually said, as the cock crowed, was, “He was an Ann Richards supporter.” Kenny Boy, I hardly knew ye.

The stock markets responded to Bush in July as they had to bin Laden in September. Three days after Bush’s Sermon on Wall Street, the Dow Jones had lost 7.4 percent of its value and Standard & Poor’s 500 was down 6.8 percent. Three weeks after the speech, with more Harken stuff breaking, the market fell 390 points in one day. It took a corporate-responsibility bill—written entirely by Democratic senator Paul Sarbanes and vigorously opposed by Bush almost until the day it was passed unanimously by the House—to save the president and staunch the stock market’s hemorrhaging.

The Bushies naturally would have preferred to put all this “recycled stuff” behind them and return to their agenda—including shifting Social Security funds into the stock market. But before we leave the subject, consider some wisdom from Jerry Jeff Walker, the Texas singer-songwriter. Walker met the man who inspired his first hit, “Mr. Bojangles,” when they were both in jail in New Orleans. Years later, a reporter for National Public Radio asked Walker if he had worried about winding up in a drunk tank when he was in his early twenties. “No,” Walker said. “It was just one time. You start worryin’ when there’s a pattern.”

With GeeDubya Bush, M.B.A., there was a pattern. The pattern was: after he fouled up, a friend of Daddy’s always showed up to bail him out. Either because Bush managed to seduce the press corps in 2000 or because Al Gore failed to raise the issue, the press started to notice Bush’s business pattern only in the wake of the wrecks of Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Adelphia, etc. As the economy contracted and stock values plummeted in mid-2002, reporters began to focus on Bush’s M.O.

Bush walked away from the Texas “awl bidness” in 1990 with almost a million in cash—after a career during which he lost more than $3 million of other people’s money. Here he was advocating “a new ethic” on Wall Street despite his own business dealings, which couldn’t even pass the “old ethic” test. The earlier dealings had been the subject of a pro forma investigation directed by the man President Bush the Elder appointed head of the SEC, and the investigation itself was conducted by a man who had worked as GeeDubya’s personal lawyer before joining the SEC. A few of GeeDubya’s deals, particularly a series of critical bailouts of his ever-sinking oil-field ventures, are truly astonishing—not just because of the volume of dollars flowing out of Northeastern banks and disappearing in Texas but because the transactions made little or no economic sense.

A company balance sheet can be misleading. There was leaseholds, there was momentum.

—candidate george w. bush on philip uzielli’s $1 million bailout of arbusto

One of Bush’s white knights, a friend of the Bush family consigliere* James Baker III, is so interesting that to leave him out is the journalistic equivalent of a breach of fiduciary responsibility. Philip Uzielli’s $1 million cash-for-trash deal in 1982 allowed GeeDubya to keep his company alive long enough to sell it to Spectrum 7, then to sell the again-sinking Spectrum 7 to Harken and then to unload his sinking Harken stock—just before the bad news became public—for a large enough profit to buy 2 percent of the ownership of a baseball franchise that made him $15 million in less than nine years. Philip Uzielli (“Uzi” to GeeDubya) is a Panamanian businessman and Princeton classmate of James Baker. In 1982 he was listed as CEO of Panama’s Executive Resources and as a director of Harrow Corporation and Leigh Products. As we reported in Shrub, when GeeDubya’s company, Arbusto, was in a terminal cash crunch, Uzi showed up and paid $1 million for 10 percent of a failing company valued at $382,376, according to the company’s financial statements. In other words, Uzielli paid $1 million for $38,200 in equity. Bush had changed the name of Arbusto to Bush Exploration after his father became vice president. (GeeDubya says arbusto is the Spanish word for “bush,” although Cassell’s Spanish/English Dictionary translates it as “shrub,” the source of one of GeeDubya’s nicknames.) By the time of the corporate name change, Arbusto had drilled so many dry holes that West Texas oilmen called it “are-busted.” Mr. Uzielli lost his entire $1 million investment but later told reporters he didn’t regret it. He described his investment with Bush as “a losing wicket” but said “it was great fun.” What a sport.

Arbusto was not an oil company so much as it was a tax write-off company, taking advantage of the IRS tax-code provision that allowed investors to deduct up to 75 percent of their losses in the

*Maureen Dowd, columnist for The New York Times, was apparently the first journalist to use the word consigliere to describe Baker’s role in the Bush family.

oil business. Bush didn’t strike oil, he struck money from friends of his daddy. After the Uzielli bailout Bush Exploration was acquired by Spectrum 7. Spectrum 7 was owned by William DeWitt, Jr., son of the owner of the Cincinnati Reds. DeWitt couldn’t pay Bush for what remained of Bush Exploration, so he sort of took him in, made him CEO and a director, paid him $75,000 a year and $120,000 in consulting fees, and gave him 1.1 million shares of Spectrum 7 stock.

Two years later Spectrum 7 had lost $400,000 in six months and was $3 million in debt. So Harken stepped in. The Texas-based company bought Spectrum 7 for $2 million in Harken stock. Of the $2 million, $224,000 in shares went to Bush, along with options to purchase more.

There was no malfeeance [sic], nor attempt to hide anything. In the corporate world, sometimes things aren’t exactly black and white when it comes to accounting procedures.

—president george w. bush, july 8, 2002, on absence of “malfeeance” in the aloha sale

“His name was George Bush,” said Harken’s founder, Phil Kendrick. “That was worth the money they paid him.” Oil-field losses followed GeeDubya the way that cloud of dirt used to follow Pig Pen in “Peanuts.” By 1989 Harken was booking big losses but Daddy was president. In February 1990 the company’s CEO, Mikel Faulkner, warned board members that a failed deal the previous year left the company “with little cash flow flexibility.” In the months that followed, Harken’s memos and board minutes should have been written in red ink. So the management team devised a scheme to obscure these losses.

See if you can follow this bouncing ball. Harken masked its 1989 losses by selling 80 percent of a subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum, to a partnership of Harken insiders called International Marketing & Resources for $12 million. Of that sum, $11 million came from a note held by Harken. Aloha was a small chain of gas stations and convenience stores in Hawaii, originally started by J. Paul Getty and acquired by Harken in a package deal in 1986.

When Harken sold Aloha in 1989, here’s how it did the accounting. Since Harken carried an $11 million note on the $12 million sale, the only money it got up front was the first $1 million. But Harken booked $7.9 million, using the mark-to-market accounting that Enron made so fashionable in the late nineties. In January 1990, IMR in turn sold its stake in Aloha to a privately held company called Advance Petroleum Marketing, and the Harken loan was effectively transferred to Advance.

In brief, Harken insiders borrowed money from their own company to buy a subsidiary at an inflated price. Then they booked sales revenue that didn’t exist as profit. Then they got rid of the loan that had provided the revenue that never really existed. This is the kind of deal that made Enron famous. It allowed Harken to declare a modest loss of $3.3 million on its 1989 annual report, and as a result the company’s shareholders had no clue how bad things were. And we all thought the smart guys at Enron invented those clever transactions.

By 1990 Harken’s management realized that the accounting in their sale of Aloha wasn’t quite right. Their thinking on the subject had been clarified after what they described as “discussions” with the SEC. Actually, the SEC flatly declared the sale bogus. When Harken applied the standard “cost recovery” method of accounting required by the SEC, its 1988 losses suddenly became $12.57 million. It is remarkable what can be achieved by just a little attention from a federal regulatory agency. The same stan- dard accounting practices applied to 1989 showed the company had lost $3.3 million over the first three quarters, whereas the “aggressive accounting” originally applied by Harken gave them a $4.6 million profit for the period. Harken’s accounting firm was Arthur Andersen.

Any time an officer of a publicly held corporation sells stock, we ought to know within two days. We ought to know. We being shareholders and employees.

—george w. bush on wall street, july 9, 2002

Harken’s sham sale of Aloha was a shameful violation of shareholder trust, but it kept Harken’s share value up long enough to let Bush sell his stock before the corrected profit-and-loss statements were released in August. The press seemed to prefer the stock-sale story because it is easier to explain than the Aloha deal. As reporters began to press harder on the issue, even the un- flappable Ari Fleischer began to flap. “The SEC has been well aware of the issue and the SEC has concluded that this is not anything that’s actionable,” said Fleischer in early July. Bush too became testy, telling reporters that if they wanted more information they should get the minutes of Harken’s board of directors’ meetings. Harken refused to release the minutes. The story might have stalled there had it not been for the work of Charles Lewis and the Center for Public Integrity. The Washington, D.C.–based public-interest group obtained Harken board minutes and correspondence through a Freedom of Information Act request to the SEC. Then they did what both President Bush and his SEC chairman, Harvey Pitt, had refused to do: they made the documents public by putting them on the center’s website (www.publici.org).

You don’t need an accountant to interpret the Harken documents. The company was in desperate trouble. At a May 1990 meeting attended by Bush, board members discussed a stock offering they hoped would bring in enough money to keep the company solvent. Bush was named to the board’s “Fairness Committee,” which was to measure the effects of bankruptcy on small stockholders. Ever the populist, GeeDubya said at this meeting “that inherent in these principles must be the interests and preservation of value for the small shareholder of the company.” A month later Bush left the small shareholders holding the bag; he dumped $848,560 of the stock without disclosing the sale to the SEC. The purpose of the SEC’s disclosure rule is precisely to inform all shareholders that something may be wrong—by letting them know when someone with inside information sells a large block of stock.

The Harken memos show just how much Bush knew about the company’s dicey finances. By late May 1990, internal company memos warned that there was no other source of immediate financing, that a cash crunch was only days away, and that loans were slipping “out of compliance.” Banks were demanding guarantees of sufficient equity to cover the notes. As chairman of the audit committee actually working with the accounting consultants called in by the board, Bush knew exactly how grim their conclusions were. He was warned, along with other directors, in a May 25 memo that it would be illegal to dump his stock. He sold in June to a private purchaser who has never been identified.

The company was kept afloat by investments from a small liberal-arts college in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This news was revealed only after a group of dogged and enterprising Harvard students at the nonprofit HarvardWatch dug into records there and turned their findings over to The Wall Street Journal in 2002.

Harvard’s Harken bailout helped salvage Bush’s last shaky oil company, at one time setting up a Harvard-Harken venture that moved $20 million in liabilities off Harken’s books. It also cost the university’s endowment more money than the young Bush ever earned in West Texas. Hooking up with Harken contributed to a record $200 million write-down for Harvard Management in 1991. Why did Harvard do it? Let us count the ways. Harvard Management exec Michael Eisenson sat on Harken’s board with Dubya Bush. George Herbert Walker Bush was vice president of the United States—and a Skull and Bones Yalie. His son held a Harvard Business School M.B.A.—and was a Skull and Bones Yalie. After Poppy became president and tiny Harken somehow secured a huge drilling contract in Bahrain, Harvard kept pouring millions into the little Texas oil company in ’89, ’90, and ’91.

In July 2002 the White House offered three explanations for Bush’s failure to report his own Harken stock sale. The first was that the filing of the disclosure form was “the corporation’s responsibility.” A letter from Harken’s general counsel dated October 5, 1989, gently reminds Bush that he had failed to file the same Form 4 when he exercised his director’s option to buy 25,000 shares of Harken stock exactly one year before he unloaded it in June 1990. The “Dear George” letter from Harken’s general counsel, Larry Cummings, made it clear to Bush that company lawyers or accountants couldn’t file the forms because they required his signature.

Turns out Bush regularly failed to report insider dealings to the SEC. On two occasions before his June 1990 stock dump,

Bush had sold as a board member and failed to file the disclosure forms.

There are countless subjects on which George W. Bush might have pleaded ignorance in 1990, but a failing oil business was not one of them. At the end of 1989 Harken president Mikel Faulkner told a reporter at the Petroleum Review that Harken would book more than $6 million in end-of-the-year profits. On August 22, 1990, Harken’s second-quarter report predicted $23.2 million in losses. Once the news hit the street, the stock sank immediately from $4 to $2.37; it later bottomed out at twenty-two cents a share.

Eight and a half months later The Wall Street Journal reported that the president’s son was under investigation for failure to report the stock sales. The chairman of the SEC was Richard Breeden, who had worked for Poppy Bush as an economic adviser. The walls of Breeden’s office were so plastered with photos of Poppy and Barbara Bush that a New York Times reporter observed, “George Bush is Breeden’s Mao.” The general counsel at the SEC was James Doty, the same James Doty of the Baker Botts law firm, who represented GeeDubya when he bought his 2 percent interest in the Texas Rangers with the money he got from dumping his Harken stock. The Houston law firm was founded by the great-grandfather of James Baker III, secretary of state under Bush the Elder and the point man for Bush the Younger in Florida after the disputed 2000 election.

Breeden and Doty never asked for an interview with the subject of their investigation. Since 1993 Breeden, Doty, and other partners of Baker Botts have contributed $210,621 to GeeDubya’s political campaigns, making the firm the president’s number-fourteen career patron. They were beaten out for the number-thirteen spot by Arthur Andersen, at $220,557.

In a letter regarding “George W. Bush Jr.’s [sic] Filings,” SEC investigators observed that Bush was familiar with the SEC’s filing deadlines, having met them when he filed reports of dealings with three other companies in which he owned stock. But with Harken, Bush filed “four late Forms 4 reporting four separate transactions, totaling $1,028,935.” During his first campaign for governor of Texas, Bush repeatedly told reporters he had been “exonerated” by the SEC, and Fleischer repeated the same line in the summer of ’02. But the report issued by the SEC’s enforcement division in 1993 specifically says the investigation “must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated.”

Just as Harken was selling itself its own subsidiary in Hawaii, it set up another corporation on another island. Harken Bahrain Oil company registered in the Cayman Islands in September 1989. The Caymans, like Bermuda, are a convenient offshore address for U.S. companies that want to do business at home but prefer not to pay U.S. taxes. After the furor over tax-dodging corporations broke, Bush made this ringing statement in August 2002: “We ought to look at people who are trying to avoid U.S. taxes as a problem.” Corporate tax dodgers now cost the country seventy billion dollars annually, according to the IRS, all of which has to be made up by average citizens who can’t acquire a mail drop in the Caymans. The Scourge of Corporate Misbehavior even daringly urged corporate tax-dodgers to “pay taxes and be good citizens.” Then the White House had to acknowledge that Harken Energy had set up an offshore subsidiary to avoid taxes. Bad timing.

Harken was not Enron, but it was certainly Enron in the making. What Bush took out of Harken was also twenty times as much as Bill and Hillary Clinton lost in a crummy Arkansas real estate deal that cost American taxpayers seventy million dollars to investigate. By the time Bush signed the Corporate Responsibility Act, Harken was selling at forty-one cents a share. Don’t put your Social Security money in it.

So who are the “regular folks” who have been affected here, and what have those effects been? In this chapter, you, dear readers, are the regular folks. Americans lost $6 trillion when the stock market collapsed after Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco. It’s your 401(k) that’s the subject here, your pension, your Social Security, your investments, your savings, and your jobs. You.

Of course George W. Bush and his petty self-dealing at Harken did not cause the collapse of Enron et al. What we are looking at is not causation but connection. If one wanted to paint with a broad brush, surely Bill Clinton, president during the enormous stock market boom of the second half of the nineties, has more responsibility for the eventual collapse than does George W., president for only eighteen months when it happened.

But an even broader brush shows a different pattern. Start- ing in 1980 with the presidency of Ronald Reagan (or even the 1978 deregulation of the airlines, if you’d like to include Jimmy Carter), this country has been going through a deregulatory mania. Supply-siders, Milton Friedman, free-marketeers of all stripes, “movement conservatives,” The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page—not to mention a motley assortment of anti-government cranks from militias to Republican candidates—have been trying to persuade us that government can’t do a damn thing right and that free markets are the answer to absolutely everything. There’s a true-believerism about the free-marketeers that is genuinely unsettling, as though it were a cult or a religion in which certain fundamental assumptions are never questioned. All you have to do to believe is ignore history and experience.

Capitalism is a marvelous system for creating wealth. On the other hand, unregulated capitalism creates hideous social injustice and promptly destroys itself with greed. A marketplace needs rules. From the very beginning, capitalism has required careful regulation. In the market towns of medieval England there were as many as twenty or thirty laws governing just the balance scales, and whether you could put your thumb or any other digit on the scale. Mostly what we’ve learned from the American experiment is that competition is good, but we need rules because people cheat. And there are some natural monopolies that need regulation or they end up in cartels that rip everybody off.

Government regulation and the much-maligned trial lawyers are the two instruments by which we control corporate greed. It seems to me government is neither good nor bad but simply a tool, like a hammer. You can use a hammer to build with, or you can use a hammer to destroy with. The virtue of the hammer depends on the purposes to which it is put and the skill with which it is used.

Of course government regulation is burdensome and often absurd. One famous federal form required employers to “list your employees broken down by sex.” “None,” read one reply. “Alcohol is our problem.”

What has changed in this country over the course of the past twenty-some years is that government has served less and less as a brake on corporate behavior and more and more as a corporate auxiliary, because of the corrupting effects of the system of legalized bribery we call “campaign financing.”

And here we find the root cause of the stock market collapse. During the nineties the SEC was increasingly starved for funds by the Republican Congress on the grounds that regulation is bad, and so it suffered a tremendous erosion of its authority. While the press was telling the Enron disaster story and CEOs were stepping forward like Baptists at an altar call to restate their companies’ earnings, Bush fought for a bare-bones SEC budget, recommending $576 million in July 2002. (The House autho- rization at the time was $776 million.) Clinton’s SEC appointee, Arthur Levitt, had struggled valiantly for such obvious reforms as expensing stock options and monitoring accounting firms, but the politicians paid no attention during the years of go-go and the all-absorbing crisis over the president’s sex life.

Phil and Wendy Gramm made a significant husband-and-wife contribution to the mess. In 1992, just a few days after Bill Clinton’s election, Wendy Gramm, in her last days as the lame-duck chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation (which was short two of its five members), pushed through a federal rule that exempted energy-derivatives contracts from federal regulation (because regulation is bad).* Energy derivatives were just then becoming one of Enron’s most profitable lines. According to Robert Bryce’s book on Enron, Pipe Dreams, this key piece of deregulation is what allowed Enron to become a giant in the derivatives business. The exemption not only prevented federal oversight, exempting the companies from the CFTC’s authority, it even exempted them if the contracts they were selling were designed to defraud or mislead buyers. Five weeks later Enron announced it was hiring Mrs. Gramm as a member of the Enron board, a job that eventually paid her about $1 million in salary, attendance fees, stock-option sales, and dividends. Senator Phil Gramm’s Banking Reform Act formally repealed the long-standing prohibition (which grew out of the stock crash of ’29) against merging banks, brokerage houses, and insurance companies. Then the IRS was emasculated by Gingrich Republicans on the grounds that collecting taxes is tantamount to fascism.

The whole dizzying array of corporate clout-wielders in Washington—powerful lobbyists who leave no fingerprints on curious little exemptions and special provisions that apply to only one company—gets larger and more brazen by the year.

George W. Bush didn’t invent any of this. His role is to pretty much embody it. He is what people mean when they speak of “crony capitalism.” His administration is what we mean by the cliché “setting the fox to guard the hen coop.” (Raccoons are actually far more dangerous to chickens—take our word for it.) Bush is

*The commission rule became known as the Enron exemption when it was passed into law in 2001, advanced by (Mr. Wendy) Phil Gramm, who chaired the Senate Banking Committee.

not motivated by greed—he honestly believes government should be an adjunct of corporate America and that we’ll all be better off if it is. Thus his role has been to build upon, to extend, to exaggerate, to further privatize, to cheerlead for, to evangelize about all that the free-marketeers have been preaching over the years.

The odd thing about Bush at midterm is that most of the Washington press corps has yet to recognize just how extreme his ideology is. As governor of Texas he tried to privatize the state welfare system and considered privatizing the University of Texas; he fought for “voluntary compliance” with environmental regulations. With the power of large corporations in this country already grossly disproportionate because of their influence over politicians through money, government is the last effective check on corporate greed. To put a man in charge of the government who basically doesn’t believe it should play a role is folly.

The tragedy of having him in office at this time is that the man is congenitally incapable of checking the excesses of capitalism. No sooner was the Sarbanes bill passed than Bush’s man, at the SEC Harvey Pitt, busily began undermining it. Pitt’s claim to the title of biggest raccoon in the henhouse is rivaled only by the perfectly ludicrous appointment Bush made to the board assigned to implement the new McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reforms—a man vehemently opposed to campaign-finance reform. There are contenders at Interior, Labor, and EPA as well, but Pitt probably deserves the prize. Pitt wanted to appoint Judge William Webster to head the new accounting firm oversight board set up by the Sarbanes bill. Webster turned out to have corporate conflicts of interest out the wazoo, and Pitt himself was fired as a result. However, he remained on the job and by January 2003 had managed to actually weaken the rules that had been in effect before the corporate scandals broke. So many fundamental reforms have not been addressed—the failure to count stock options as a business expense, which gives CEOs an incentive to run up stock prices with tricky accounting; out-of-control hedge funds; derivatives; directors with conflicts of interest; the list goes on. Less than nothing has been done about any of it, so one can guarantee this whole corporate-fraud fiasco is going to happen again.

George W. Bush should declare himself a conscientious objector in his own war on corporate crime.

Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

Introduction
1 Aloha, Harken 3
2 Julia Jeffcoat's Jobless Recovery 20
3 Class War 31
4 The Blues in Belzoni 50
5 Leave No Child Behind 72
6 Green Rabbits and Yellow Streams 97
7 Kill the Messenger 112
8 Ready to Eat? 125
9 Dick, Dubya, and Wyoming Methane 152
10 Warm in the White House 175
11 The United States of Enron 184
12 Army Surplus: Two Veterans at Enron 204
13 God in the White House 214
14 Dubya Bush's Bench 228
15 Shrub II: The Empire Strikes Back 248
16 State of the Union 276
17 What Is to Be Done? 293
Acknowledgments 307
Sources 309
Index 333
Read More Show Less

First Chapter

1.

Aloha, Harken


In the long run, there is no capitalism without conscience; there is no wealth without character.

—George W. Bush on Wall Street, July 9, 2001

In the long run, we are all dead.

—John Maynard Keynes on the long run, 1924

There he was. On the Tuesday after a long Fourth of July weekend. In the ballroom of an ornate Wall Street hotel that once housed the New York Merchants Exchange. Standing in front of a blue-and-white backdrop with the words corporate responsibility printed over and over on it, in case you should miss the point. Promising us "a new ethic" for American business. Our president, Scourge of Corporate Misbehavior.

It was like watching a whore pretend to be dean of Southern Methodist University's School of Theology. But as Luther said, hypocrisy has ample wages.

"Harken," said the Bush camp over and over, "was nothing like Enron." Interestingly enough, it was exactly like Enron in each and every feature of corporate misbehavior, except a lot smaller. A perfect miniature Enron.

By the summer of 2002, it had long been known that twelve years earlier Bush made a pile by selling his stock in Harken Energy Corporation just before it tanked. At the time, he was serving both on Harken's board and on a special audit committee looking at the company's financial health. As he spoke on Wall Street, stories were surfacing about Harken's sham sale of a subsidiary to a group of company insiders. The acquisition was financed by an $11 million loan guaranteed by the seller, Harken Energy. In other words, a fake asset swap to punch up Harken's annual profit-and-loss statement.

The"sale" of Aloha Petroleum, from Harken to Harken, was again Enron writ small and so outrageous that the SEC stepped in, declared the accounting unacceptable, and forced the company to restate its earnings. Bush unquestionably knew about the deal.

Even if he had convinced the public that earlier stories about his $848,560 insider trade, his failure to report it to the SEC, his low-interest loans from Harken to buy company stock (a practice he particularly denounced in his Wall Street speech, as though he had never heard of such an unseemly scam before), and the Enron-esque sale of Aloha Petroleum were all what he described as "recycled stuff," he was still surrounded by bad stories about to break. Enron was ripe for federal prosecution; Bush and Enron's CEO, Ken Lay, his single largest campaign contributor, had been tight for years. Halliburton was being investigated by the feds for fraudulent accounting practices put in place when Dick Cheney was CEO. Congress was investigating the secretary of the Army for his role in the collapse of Enron, in the fleecing of electricity customers in California, and for his failure to divest himself of Enron stock in a timely manner.

SEC chief Harvey Pitt had so many previous business connections with the firms he was now regulating, he had already had to recuse himself in twenty-nine cases being pursued by the SEC. Bush's hard-nosed, hard-assed political adviser, Karl Rove, had owned $108,000 in Enron stock and, more important, knew the Enron CEO because he was Bush's biggest funder. Two of Bush's economic advisers had worked as consultants for Enron. And the newly disgraced Ken Lay had convinced Bush to dump the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Curtis Hebert, and to replace him with the candidate of Lay's choice, a Port Arthur, Texas, homeboy. Before giving Bush the word to dump Hebert, Lay had a come-to-Jesus session with Hebert himself, telling him to embrace free markets and deregulation or, Lay said, things would end badly for Hebert. They did.

Considering the circumstances, heckfire and brimpebbles were the best GeeDubya could manage as he wagged his fingers at Wall Street's corporate criminals. What could he say about Lay: "I never had sexual relations with that man"? What he actually said, as the cock crowed, was, "He was an Ann Richards supporter." Kenny Boy, I hardly knew ye.

The stock markets responded to Bush in July as they had to bin Laden in September. Three days after Bush's Sermon on Wall Street, the Dow Jones had lost 7.4 percent of its value and Standard & Poor's 500 was down 6.8 percent. Three weeks after the speech, with more Harken stuff breaking, the market fell 390 points in one day. It took a corporate-responsibility bill—written entirely by Democratic senator Paul Sarbanes and vigorously opposed by Bush almost until the day it was passed unanimously by the House—to save the president and staunch the stock market's hemorrhaging.

The Bushies naturally would have preferred to put all this "recycled stuff" behind them and return to their agenda—including shifting Social Security funds into the stock market. But before we leave the subject, consider some wisdom from Jerry Jeff Walker, the Texas singer-songwriter. Walker met the man who inspired his first hit, "Mr. Bojangles," when they were both in jail in New Orleans. Years later, a reporter for National Public Radio asked Walker if he had worried about winding up in a drunk tank when he was in his early twenties. "No," Walker said. "It was just one time. You start worryin' when there's a pattern."

With GeeDubya Bush, M.B.A., there was a pattern. The pattern was: after he fouled up, a friend of Daddy's always showed up to bail him out. Either because Bush managed to seduce the press corps in 2000 or because Al Gore failed to raise the issue, the press started to notice Bush's business pattern only in the wake of the wrecks of Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Adelphia, etc. As the economy contracted and stock values plummeted in mid-2002, reporters began to focus on Bush's M.O.

Bush walked away from the Texas "awl bidness" in 1990 with almost a million in cash—after a career during which he lost more than $3 million of other people's money. Here he was advocating "a new ethic" on Wall Street despite his own business dealings, which couldn't even pass the "old ethic" test. The earlier dealings had been the subject of a pro forma investigation directed by the man President Bush the Elder appointed head of the SEC, and the investigation itself was conducted by a man who had worked as GeeDubya's personal lawyer before joining the SEC. A few of GeeDubya's deals, particularly a series of critical bailouts of his ever-sinking oil-field ventures, are truly astonishing—not just because of the volume of dollars flowing out of Northeastern banks and disappearing in Texas but because the transactions made little or no economic sense.

A company balance sheet can be misleading. There was leaseholds, there was momentum.

—candidate george w. bush on philip uzielli's $1 million bailout of arbusto

One of Bush's white knights, a friend of the Bush family consigliere* James Baker III, is so interesting that to leave him out is the journalistic equivalent of a breach of fiduciary responsibility. Philip Uzielli's $1 million cash-for-trash deal in 1982 allowed GeeDubya to keep his company alive long enough to sell it to Spectrum 7, then to sell the again-sinking Spectrum 7 to Harken and then to unload his sinking Harken stock—just before the bad news became public—for a large enough profit to buy 2 percent of the ownership of a baseball franchise that made him $15 million in less than nine years. Philip Uzielli ("Uzi" to GeeDubya) is a Panamanian businessman and Princeton classmate of James Baker. In 1982 he was listed as CEO of Panama's Executive Resources and as a director of Harrow Corporation and Leigh Products. As we reported in Shrub, when GeeDubya's company, Arbusto, was in a terminal cash crunch, Uzi showed up and paid $1 million for 10 percent of a failing company valued at $382,376, according to the company's financial statements. In other words, Uzielli paid $1 million for $38,200 in equity. Bush had changed the name of Arbusto to Bush Exploration after his father became vice president. (GeeDubya says arbusto is the Spanish word for "bush," although Cassell's Spanish/English Dictionary translates it as "shrub," the source of one of GeeDubya's nicknames.) By the time of the corporate name change, Arbusto had drilled so many dry holes that West Texas oilmen called it "are-busted." Mr. Uzielli lost his entire $1 million investment but later told reporters he didn't regret it. He described his investment with Bush as "a losing wicket" but said "it was great fun." What a sport.

Arbusto was not an oil company so much as it was a tax write-off company, taking advantage of the IRS tax-code provision that allowed investors to deduct up to 75 percent of their losses in the

*Maureen Dowd, columnist for The New York Times, was apparently the first journalist to use the word consigliere to describe Baker's role in the Bush family.

oil business. Bush didn't strike oil, he struck money from friends of his daddy. After the Uzielli bailout Bush Exploration was acquired by Spectrum 7. Spectrum 7 was owned by William DeWitt, Jr., son of the owner of the Cincinnati Reds. DeWitt couldn't pay Bush for what remained of Bush Exploration, so he sort of took him in, made him CEO and a director, paid him $75,000 a year and $120,000 in consulting fees, and gave him 1.1 million shares of Spectrum 7 stock.

Two years later Spectrum 7 had lost $400,000 in six months and was $3 million in debt. So Harken stepped in. The Texas-based company bought Spectrum 7 for $2 million in Harken stock. Of the $2 million, $224,000 in shares went to Bush, along with options to purchase more.

There was no malfeeance [sic], nor attempt to hide anything. In the corporate world, sometimes things aren't exactly black and white when it comes to accounting procedures.

—president george w. bush, july 8, 2002, on absence of "malfeeance" in the aloha sale

"His name was George Bush," said Harken's founder, Phil Kendrick. "That was worth the money they paid him." Oil-field losses followed GeeDubya the way that cloud of dirt used to follow Pig Pen in "Peanuts." By 1989 Harken was booking big losses but Daddy was president. In February 1990 the company's CEO, Mikel Faulkner, warned board members that a failed deal the previous year left the company "with little cash flow flexibility." In the months that followed, Harken's memos and board minutes should have been written in red ink. So the management team devised a scheme to obscure these losses.

See if you can follow this bouncing ball. Harken masked its 1989 losses by selling 80 percent of a subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum, to a partnership of Harken insiders called International Marketing & Resources for $12 million. Of that sum, $11 million came from a note held by Harken. Aloha was a small chain of gas stations and convenience stores in Hawaii, originally started by J. Paul Getty and acquired by Harken in a package deal in 1986.

When Harken sold Aloha in 1989, here's how it did the accounting. Since Harken carried an $11 million note on the $12 million sale, the only money it got up front was the first $1 million. But Harken booked $7.9 million, using the mark-to-market accounting that Enron made so fashionable in the late nineties. In January 1990, IMR in turn sold its stake in Aloha to a privately held company called Advance Petroleum Marketing, and the Harken loan was effectively transferred to Advance.

In brief, Harken insiders borrowed money from their own company to buy a subsidiary at an inflated price. Then they booked sales revenue that didn't exist as profit. Then they got rid of the loan that had provided the revenue that never really existed. This is the kind of deal that made Enron famous. It allowed Harken to declare a modest loss of $3.3 million on its 1989 annual report, and as a result the company's shareholders had no clue how bad things were. And we all thought the smart guys at Enron invented those clever transactions.

By 1990 Harken's management realized that the accounting in their sale of Aloha wasn't quite right. Their thinking on the subject had been clarified after what they described as "discussions" with the SEC. Actually, the SEC flatly declared the sale bogus. When Harken applied the standard "cost recovery" method of accounting required by the SEC, its 1988 losses suddenly became $12.57 million. It is remarkable what can be achieved by just a little attention from a federal regulatory agency. The same stan- dard accounting practices applied to 1989 showed the company had lost $3.3 million over the first three quarters, whereas the "aggressive accounting" originally applied by Harken gave them a $4.6 million profit for the period. Harken's accounting firm was Arthur Andersen.

Any time an officer of a publicly held corporation sells stock, we ought to know within two days. We ought to know. We being shareholders and employees.

—george w. bush on wall street, july 9, 2002

Harken's sham sale of Aloha was a shameful violation of shareholder trust, but it kept Harken's share value up long enough to let Bush sell his stock before the corrected profit-and-loss statements were released in August. The press seemed to prefer the stock-sale story because it is easier to explain than the Aloha deal. As reporters began to press harder on the issue, even the un- flappable Ari Fleischer began to flap. "The SEC has been well aware of the issue and the SEC has concluded that this is not anything that's actionable," said Fleischer in early July. Bush too became testy, telling reporters that if they wanted more information they should get the minutes of Harken's board of directors' meetings. Harken refused to release the minutes. The story might have stalled there had it not been for the work of Charles Lewis and the Center for Public Integrity. The Washington, D.C.–based public-interest group obtained Harken board minutes and correspondence through a Freedom of Information Act request to the SEC. Then they did what both President Bush and his SEC chairman, Harvey Pitt, had refused to do: they made the documents public by putting them on the center's website (www.publici.org).

You don't need an accountant to interpret the Harken documents. The company was in desperate trouble. At a May 1990 meeting attended by Bush, board members discussed a stock offering they hoped would bring in enough money to keep the company solvent. Bush was named to the board's "Fairness Committee," which was to measure the effects of bankruptcy on small stockholders. Ever the populist, GeeDubya said at this meeting "that inherent in these principles must be the interests and preservation of value for the small shareholder of the company." A month later Bush left the small shareholders holding the bag; he dumped $848,560 of the stock without disclosing the sale to the SEC. The purpose of the SEC's disclosure rule is precisely to inform all shareholders that something may be wrong—by letting them know when someone with inside information sells a large block of stock.

The Harken memos show just how much Bush knew about the company's dicey finances. By late May 1990, internal company memos warned that there was no other source of immediate financing, that a cash crunch was only days away, and that loans were slipping "out of compliance." Banks were demanding guarantees of sufficient equity to cover the notes. As chairman of the audit committee actually working with the accounting consultants called in by the board, Bush knew exactly how grim their conclusions were. He was warned, along with other directors, in a May 25 memo that it would be illegal to dump his stock. He sold in June to a private purchaser who has never been identified.

The company was kept afloat by investments from a small liberal-arts college in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This news was revealed only after a group of dogged and enterprising Harvard students at the nonprofit HarvardWatch dug into records there and turned their findings over to The Wall Street Journal in 2002.

Harvard's Harken bailout helped salvage Bush's last shaky oil company, at one time setting up a Harvard-Harken venture that moved $20 million in liabilities off Harken's books. It also cost the university's endowment more money than the young Bush ever earned in West Texas. Hooking up with Harken contributed to a record $200 million write-down for Harvard Management in 1991. Why did Harvard do it? Let us count the ways. Harvard Management exec Michael Eisenson sat on Harken's board with Dubya Bush. George Herbert Walker Bush was vice president of the United States—and a Skull and Bones Yalie. His son held a Harvard Business School M.B.A.—and was a Skull and Bones Yalie. After Poppy became president and tiny Harken somehow secured a huge drilling contract in Bahrain, Harvard kept pouring millions into the little Texas oil company in '89, '90, and '91.

In July 2002 the White House offered three explanations for Bush's failure to report his own Harken stock sale. The first was that the filing of the disclosure form was "the corporation's responsibility." A letter from Harken's general counsel dated October 5, 1989, gently reminds Bush that he had failed to file the same Form 4 when he exercised his director's option to buy 25,000 shares of Harken stock exactly one year before he unloaded it in June 1990. The "Dear George" letter from Harken's general counsel, Larry Cummings, made it clear to Bush that company lawyers or accountants couldn't file the forms because they required his signature.

Turns out Bush regularly failed to report insider dealings to the SEC. On two occasions before his June 1990 stock dump,

Bush had sold as a board member and failed to file the disclosure forms.

There are countless subjects on which George W. Bush might have pleaded ignorance in 1990, but a failing oil business was not one of them. At the end of 1989 Harken president Mikel Faulkner told a reporter at the Petroleum Review that Harken would book more than $6 million in end-of-the-year profits. On August 22, 1990, Harken's second-quarter report predicted $23.2 million in losses. Once the news hit the street, the stock sank immediately from $4 to $2.37; it later bottomed out at twenty-two cents a share.

Eight and a half months later The Wall Street Journal reported that the president's son was under investigation for failure to report the stock sales. The chairman of the SEC was Richard Breeden, who had worked for Poppy Bush as an economic adviser. The walls of Breeden's office were so plastered with photos of Poppy and Barbara Bush that a New York Times reporter observed, "George Bush is Breeden's Mao." The general counsel at the SEC was James Doty, the same James Doty of the Baker Botts law firm, who represented GeeDubya when he bought his 2 percent interest in the Texas Rangers with the money he got from dumping his Harken stock. The Houston law firm was founded by the great-grandfather of James Baker III, secretary of state under Bush the Elder and the point man for Bush the Younger in Florida after the disputed 2000 election.

Breeden and Doty never asked for an interview with the subject of their investigation. Since 1993 Breeden, Doty, and other partners of Baker Botts have contributed $210,621 to GeeDubya's political campaigns, making the firm the president's number-fourteen career patron. They were beaten out for the number-thirteen spot by Arthur Andersen, at $220,557.

In a letter regarding "George W. Bush Jr.'s [sic] Filings," SEC investigators observed that Bush was familiar with the SEC's filing deadlines, having met them when he filed reports of dealings with three other companies in which he owned stock. But with Harken, Bush filed "four late Forms 4 reporting four separate transactions, totaling $1,028,935." During his first campaign for governor of Texas, Bush repeatedly told reporters he had been "exonerated" by the SEC, and Fleischer repeated the same line in the summer of '02. But the report issued by the SEC's enforcement division in 1993 specifically says the investigation "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated."

Just as Harken was selling itself its own subsidiary in Hawaii, it set up another corporation on another island. Harken Bahrain Oil company registered in the Cayman Islands in September 1989. The Caymans, like Bermuda, are a convenient offshore address for U.S. companies that want to do business at home but prefer not to pay U.S. taxes. After the furor over tax-dodging corporations broke, Bush made this ringing statement in August 2002: "We ought to look at people who are trying to avoid U.S. taxes as a problem." Corporate tax dodgers now cost the country seventy billion dollars annually, according to the IRS, all of which has to be made up by average citizens who can't acquire a mail drop in the Caymans. The Scourge of Corporate Misbehavior even daringly urged corporate tax-dodgers to "pay taxes and be good citizens." Then the White House had to acknowledge that Harken Energy had set up an offshore subsidiary to avoid taxes. Bad timing.

Harken was not Enron, but it was certainly Enron in the making. What Bush took out of Harken was also twenty times as much as Bill and Hillary Clinton lost in a crummy Arkansas real estate deal that cost American taxpayers seventy million dollars to investigate. By the time Bush signed the Corporate Responsibility Act, Harken was selling at forty-one cents a share. Don't put your Social Security money in it.

So who are the "regular folks" who have been affected here, and what have those effects been? In this chapter, you, dear readers, are the regular folks. Americans lost $6 trillion when the stock market collapsed after Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco. It's your 401(k) that's the subject here, your pension, your Social Security, your investments, your savings, and your jobs. You.

Of course George W. Bush and his petty self-dealing at Harken did not cause the collapse of Enron et al. What we are looking at is not causation but connection. If one wanted to paint with a broad brush, surely Bill Clinton, president during the enormous stock market boom of the second half of the nineties, has more responsibility for the eventual collapse than does George W., president for only eighteen months when it happened.

But an even broader brush shows a different pattern. Start- ing in 1980 with the presidency of Ronald Reagan (or even the 1978 deregulation of the airlines, if you'd like to include Jimmy Carter), this country has been going through a deregulatory mania. Supply-siders, Milton Friedman, free-marketeers of all stripes, "movement conservatives," The Wall Street Journal's editorial page—not to mention a motley assortment of anti-government cranks from militias to Republican candidates—have been trying to persuade us that government can't do a damn thing right and that free markets are the answer to absolutely everything. There's a true-believerism about the free-marketeers that is genuinely unsettling, as though it were a cult or a religion in which certain fundamental assumptions are never questioned. All you have to do to believe is ignore history and experience.

Capitalism is a marvelous system for creating wealth. On the other hand, unregulated capitalism creates hideous social injustice and promptly destroys itself with greed. A marketplace needs rules. From the very beginning, capitalism has required careful regulation. In the market towns of medieval England there were as many as twenty or thirty laws governing just the balance scales, and whether you could put your thumb or any other digit on the scale. Mostly what we've learned from the American experiment is that competition is good, but we need rules because people cheat. And there are some natural monopolies that need regulation or they end up in cartels that rip everybody off.

Government regulation and the much-maligned trial lawyers are the two instruments by which we control corporate greed. It seems to me government is neither good nor bad but simply a tool, like a hammer. You can use a hammer to build with, or you can use a hammer to destroy with. The virtue of the hammer depends on the purposes to which it is put and the skill with which it is used.

Of course government regulation is burdensome and often absurd. One famous federal form required employers to "list your employees broken down by sex." "None," read one reply. "Alcohol is our problem."

What has changed in this country over the course of the past twenty-some years is that government has served less and less as a brake on corporate behavior and more and more as a corporate auxiliary, because of the corrupting effects of the system of legalized bribery we call "campaign financing."

And here we find the root cause of the stock market collapse. During the nineties the SEC was increasingly starved for funds by the Republican Congress on the grounds that regulation is bad, and so it suffered a tremendous erosion of its authority. While the press was telling the Enron disaster story and CEOs were stepping forward like Baptists at an altar call to restate their companies' earnings, Bush fought for a bare-bones SEC budget, recommending $576 million in July 2002. (The House autho- rization at the time was $776 million.) Clinton's SEC appointee, Arthur Levitt, had struggled valiantly for such obvious reforms as expensing stock options and monitoring accounting firms, but the politicians paid no attention during the years of go-go and the all-absorbing crisis over the president's sex life.

Phil and Wendy Gramm made a significant husband-and-wife contribution to the mess. In 1992, just a few days after Bill Clinton's election, Wendy Gramm, in her last days as the lame-duck chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation (which was short two of its five members), pushed through a federal rule that exempted energy-derivatives contracts from federal regulation (because regulation is bad).* Energy derivatives were just then becoming one of Enron's most profitable lines. According to Robert Bryce's book on Enron, Pipe Dreams, this key piece of deregulation is what allowed Enron to become a giant in the derivatives business. The exemption not only prevented federal oversight, exempting the companies from the CFTC's authority, it even exempted them if the contracts they were selling were designed to defraud or mislead buyers. Five weeks later Enron announced it was hiring Mrs. Gramm as a member of the Enron board, a job that eventually paid her about $1 million in salary, attendance fees, stock-option sales, and dividends. Senator Phil Gramm's Banking Reform Act formally repealed the long-standing prohibition (which grew out of the stock crash of '29) against merging banks, brokerage houses, and insurance companies. Then the IRS was emasculated by Gingrich Republicans on the grounds that collecting taxes is tantamount to fascism.

The whole dizzying array of corporate clout-wielders in Washington—powerful lobbyists who leave no fingerprints on curious little exemptions and special provisions that apply to only one company—gets larger and more brazen by the year.

George W. Bush didn't invent any of this. His role is to pretty much embody it. He is what people mean when they speak of "crony capitalism." His administration is what we mean by the cliché "setting the fox to guard the hen coop." (Raccoons are actually far more dangerous to chickens—take our word for it.) Bush is

*The commission rule became known as the Enron exemption when it was passed into law in 2001, advanced by (Mr. Wendy) Phil Gramm, who chaired the Senate Banking Committee.

not motivated by greed—he honestly believes government should be an adjunct of corporate America and that we'll all be better off if it is. Thus his role has been to build upon, to extend, to exaggerate, to further privatize, to cheerlead for, to evangelize about all that the free-marketeers have been preaching over the years.

The odd thing about Bush at midterm is that most of the Washington press corps has yet to recognize just how extreme his ideology is. As governor of Texas he tried to privatize the state welfare system and considered privatizing the University of Texas; he fought for "voluntary compliance" with environmental regulations. With the power of large corporations in this country already grossly disproportionate because of their influence over politicians through money, government is the last effective check on corporate greed. To put a man in charge of the government who basically doesn't believe it should play a role is folly.

The tragedy of having him in office at this time is that the man is congenitally incapable of checking the excesses of capitalism. No sooner was the Sarbanes bill passed than Bush's man, at the SEC Harvey Pitt, busily began undermining it. Pitt's claim to the title of biggest raccoon in the henhouse is rivaled only by the perfectly ludicrous appointment Bush made to the board assigned to implement the new McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reforms—a man vehemently opposed to campaign-finance reform. There are contenders at Interior, Labor, and EPA as well, but Pitt probably deserves the prize. Pitt wanted to appoint Judge William Webster to head the new accounting firm oversight board set up by the Sarbanes bill. Webster turned out to have corporate conflicts of interest out the wazoo, and Pitt himself was fired as a result. However, he remained on the job and by January 2003 had managed to actually weaken the rules that had been in effect before the corporate scandals broke. So many fundamental reforms have not been addressed—the failure to count stock options as a business expense, which gives CEOs an incentive to run up stock prices with tricky accounting; out-of-control hedge funds; derivatives; directors with conflicts of interest; the list goes on. Less than nothing has been done about any of it, so one can guarantee this whole corporate-fraud fiasco is going to happen again.

George W. Bush should declare himself a conscientious objector in his own war on corporate crime.


From the Hardcover edition.

Copyright© 2003 by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose
Read More Show Less

Interviews & Essays

An Interview with Molly Ivins

Barnes & Noble.com: Bushwhacked is subtitled "Life in George W. Bush's America." Did you ever think you'd be writing about Bush II as president after dealing with him in your previous book Shrub? Is it possible that not enough people read the first book?

Molly Ivins: I was actually tempted to start the introduction to Bushwhacked by observing, "If y'all had've read the first book, we wouldn't have to write this one." But cooler heads prevailed. Didn't want to sound churlish. Shrub is actually a fairly dispassionate account of Bush's record as governor. It's sure as hell not a hatchet job, although mirth attended parts of it. I have known George W. (very slightly: an attenuated acquaintanceship) since we were both in high school. I keep thinking I've gotten over being floored by the fact that he's president, but every now and then, it rears back and whacks me between the eyes: "Good Lord, Dubya is president." I suppose many people who knew the young Truman, Nixon, etc., have felt the same way. I always thought he was a really amiable asshole.

B&N.com: Is it safe to say, "What's bad for Texas is bad for the country?"

MI: It is widely accepted in Texas political circles that the primary purpose of government is to maintain "a healthy 'bidness' climate." This makes Texas the National Laboratory for Bad Government. Texas public policy is like Hungarian wine. It does not travel well. In fact, it's a disaster even here. Why anyone would take a state that's 49th in everything (thank God for Mississippi) as a role model is beyond me.

B&N.com: How are things in Texas, post–Governor Bush?

MI: Bush passed two huge tax cuts in Texas that left the state stone broke. (Sound familiar?) We had a $10 billion deficit going into the 2003 session of the legislature that, for the first time ever, was completely controlled by Republicans. All the statewide officials and both houses are Republican. Hell-bent on not raising taxes, they instead cut Medicaid and health insurance for poor children. All our already inadequate state services were cut further. But we're still No. 1 in hunger.

B&N.com: You and your coauthor, Lou Dubose, have written about Bush's questionable business dealings before. Why do you suppose he seemed to get a pass on his own creative accounting at a time when corporate malfeasance, such as with Enron, was in the headlines?

MI: As we explain in Bushwhacked, Bush's business dealings, particularly at his last stop in the oil bidness, Harken Energy, are a perfect miniature Enron. Enron writ small, right down to the phony deals, fake accounting, and Bush selling stock on insider information. As to why Bush got off so lightly on this (as compared to Clinton, who spent eight years answering questions about Whitewater, a case in which he had done nothing wrong): (a) the subject was under- or unreported in the 2000 campaign; (b) when it became painfully relevant again in the wake of Enron, etc., I think Karl Rove backed most of the press off the story by claiming that in the wake of September 11th, a true national disaster, running down the details of all the Harken shenanigans was small potatoes, if not actually unpatriotic. It is always better to be lucky than smart in politics.

B&N.com: Bush II seems determined not to make the same mistake his father was accused of: ignoring the economy. But wouldn't we be better off if he did ignore it?

MI: Bush hasn't so much ignored the economy as just been flat wrong about it. As a matter of ideology, he genuinely believes tax cuts for the rich are good for the economy as a whole. This is not malice, but mere wrongheadedness. Trickle-down, supply-side economics applied at the worst possible point in a business cycle. During a recession, what you want is to get money into the hands of people who will spend it immediately. Bush's tax cuts give huge amounts to people who can afford not to spend it. The theory that they will invest it -- thus producing jobs, thus ginning up the economy again -- is the slowest possible way to regenerate economic activity. If you own three factories and one is shut down because there's not enough demand for your product, you are unlikely to open a fourth factory with your dandy new tax cut.

B&N.com: For someone who claimed he was opposed to "nation building," Bush II seems to be doing a lot of just that. How do you think that's going for him?

MI: You have to give him this much: He said in 2000 we were no good at nation building, and he's certainly proving that.

B&N.com: Will we ever find WMDs in Iraq? If we don't, how serious is it for Bush?

MI: One of the most amazing things so far in this presidency is that anyone who now sticks up his hand and asks, "Uh, where are those weapons of mass destruction?" is told to "Get over it." Asking that question helps the terrorists, or something. This is the one I think he cannot get away with. He has permanently damaged his credibility. If I were Bush, I would do a Gray Davis number right now: "I made mistakes, I was misled, I misled you, heads will roll." Trying to pretend it never happened is just too far a reach.

B&N.com: What do you make of the recent attempts by the GOP to change the makeup of the Texas Legislature, led by right-wing zealot Tom DeLay? Do you detect any White House fingerprints?

MI: White House fingerprints? Hell, this one has Rove and DeLay's fingerprints, palm prints, stray hairs, smoking guns, DNA, blood types, signatures, and receipts all over it. A political crime of which the perpetrators are so self-evident you don't even need to ask. So far beyond normal partisan scrapping that it has permanently crippled a long-standing Texas tradition of bipartisanship. Ugly, nasty, extreme. As State Senator Gonzalo Barrientos said, "These people don't want to govern: they want to rule."

B&N.com: Those on the left who oppose Bush are frustrated at Bush's approval ratings, which remain relatively high despite the fact that average Americans don't necessarily agree with specific administration policies and positions. How do you explain that phenomenon?

MI: I hope this doesn't come across as cocky or dismissive, but what does that have to do with the price of beans? Most Americans apparently believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to September 11th. They're wrong -- so what? Does that change reality? Am I supposed to act as though I thought it did?

Hey, a lot us still believe in creationism, that Elvis is alive, and even that the earth is flat. That's no reason to change reporting on observable fact. (Actually, I covered Elvis's funeral for The New York Times -- known to them as "Mr. Presley's obsequies" -- I saw him in the box, and Elvis is definitely deceased.)

I normally don't quarrel much with American public opinion -- I think the people of this country are much smarter than the pols and the pollsters give them credit for. In this case, it's not so much lack of information as it is bad, wrong information. Why blame the people when you can tell who's spreading the wrong info? Bush did it again in his Sunday night [September 7, 2003] speech, as though there were a connection between September 11th and Iraq. Hey, Sept. 11 = 15 Saudis, 0 Iraqis.

B&N.com: Has the Bush administration exploited the 9/11 attacks?

MI: At the risk of sounding cavalier, does a bear shit in the woods? I think we are rapidly approaching the Urp Factor in September 11th exploitation. One problem is that those in New York City -- and to a lesser extent in D.C. -- were genuinely traumatized by the events: In the rest of the country, we're certainly sympathetic, but less actually affected. Our problem out here is that we're losing our jobs, our health insurance, our pensions, our overtime, the right to organize in unions, our civil liberties, clean air, clean water, national forests, and a bunch of other stuff. The major media are still located in NYC and D.C., and so, I think, are dwelling on that terrible hurt more than most of us in the middle and the West are starting to be able to suffer with good grace. I am not saying, "Get over it." I don't think any of us should get over it. I just prefer the eternal practical Yankee response: "So what should we do, and if that's not working, what else should we do?"

B&N.com: What will it take to unseat Bush in 2004? Do any of the current Democratic candidates have what it takes?

MI: Call me a cockeyed optimist, but yeah, I think it's quite doable. I know many of my colleagues in the punditry have looked at the Bush money-raising machine and sensibly concluded, "That's it. Game's over."

Maybe it is, but we're looking at two disasters here. The guy took over a peaceful, prosperous nation -- crime rates falling, poverty rates falling, policy wonks haring all over the place to improve this, that, and the other -- listeria regulations, arsenic in water regs, ergonomic injuries from repetitive stress on the job, pension plans secured, at least a hundred more. Three years later, the economy's in the toilet, we're sunk in quicksand in Iraq (God forbid, not a quagmire), and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Basically, the guy does not believe in government -- problems, sure. Let's turn them over to corporations. Lockheed can handle welfare, Halliburton can rebuild Iraq, Exxon & friends can handle energy questions (hey, they know how to do it), faith-based organizations with less than one-tenth of the combined resources of government can care for the lame, the blind, the handicapped, the insane, the homeless -- don't worry about a thing. Three million, two hundred thousand jobs gone: not to worry. And, boy, are other countries anxious to help us out: Can't imagine why the French won't pitch in.

Second disaster is the war on terrorism. Homeland Security, good, we're all taking off our shoes in the airports, but nothing has been done about container shipping coming through our ports. We got talked into a war that has nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. Democracy in Iraq appears to be somewhat remote. In case you hadn't noticed, those folks do not seem to be incredibly grateful that we have showed up to occupy their country. Peace in the Middle East has not exactly broken out yet. Exactly why are we spending more to rebuild Iraq (not that we're spending much, it's all going to the military) than we are on our schools?

You tell me if a case can't be made against this man's leadership.

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Average Rating 3.5
( 40 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(21)

4 Star

(2)

3 Star

(1)

2 Star

(0)

1 Star

(16)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
See All Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 40 Customer Reviews
  • Anonymous

    Posted February 13, 2004

    Populism and Prose, Texas Style

    Molly Ivins is as Texan as a Texan can be, and probably understands Texas politics better than most Texas politicians. 'Bushwhacked' is a thorough and well-written study of life in America during the first few years of the Bush administration, and, as she documents to some length, if you're not wealthy, it isn't been a great time. She spends much of the book documenting to detail the President's doings, from his time as Texas Governor to more current affairs. Sadly, this book's popularity will be determined based on one's political views. Those that count themselves partisan to President Bush will probably denouce this book as rubbish from a liberal madwoman, and those against Mr. Bush will trumpet any nuggets to support their distate of the President. The book has clearly been well researched, and while some personal examples of Bush policy gone wrong are, at times, a tad tiresome, they are instructive to what one hopes is unintended consequences of government policies. The sections devoted to Enron and Bush's other business interests are compelling in a 'follow-the-money' sense. Ivins does well with a hefty dose of her wit and humour as spoonfuls of sugar to make the less appealing parts go down smoother.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 11, 2004

    FINALLY THE REAL TRUTH

    After only reading the first chapter I would have paid $100.00 for this book. It has really enlightened this family on the 'Bushies'. Thank you Molly Ivins. Keep up the good work. You are to be congratulated for telling the truth.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 3, 2004

    A Real Eye-opener

    As a well read independent voter, I thought I knew all I needed to know about the Bush administration before I read this book. Boy, was I wrong! Molly Ivins lays out an airtight case that would make anyone short of a corporate CEO cringe. Showing how President Bush's policy decisions effect the everyday life of average Americans makes the book's message hit home even harder. It's difficult to believe that the reviewers who gave this book one star actually read the same book I did. Perhaps they should try it again, with their eyes open this time.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 30, 2004

    Wonderful!

    This is an excellent book, a book that not only tells the truth about the indignations of the Bush Administration, but also lays out a solution for the problems that Bush has incurred.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted December 5, 2003

    Molly nails Shrub

    Molly long history with bush back in texas gives her an insight into his warped ideology lacking in most observers. everyone in america should read this book.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted December 4, 2003

    Good sense of humor

    I recently bought a lot of books online. And ended up returning all but two. I kept this, and ¿the nice guys guide to getting girls¿ by john fate. Both books were very insightful (different topics, but both were insightful). Not only are these books insightful, it also has a touch of humor that makes them both a great read. Though bushwacked has humor in it, it¿s truth and substance about our president and his policies may upset you. The good thing about this book is the way the author relates the bush administration:s failed policies to everyday amercain life. The book effectively depicts the small and scary things that have changed and also the huge ordeals we are all aware of, such as iraq. This book is definitely what we need in these troubling times.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted December 6, 2003

    Always on Target

    Molly Ivins never disappoints. Well written and documented...couldn't put it down.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 14, 2003

    Molly hammers the Dittoheads

    Molly brings a breath of fresh air to the stench-ridden decay that trails Bush Junior's systematic rape of America. And unlike the purile fantasies of the dittoheads, these facts have valid provenance. She NEVER writes in CAPS. (;)P Let's put the Bushies back under the rocks from whence they crawled.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted November 21, 2014

    Liberal propoganda

    Why do you hate this guy? Is it because Bush believes that America is the greatist nation on earth? (Which it is). Deal with it. The guy is gone now. What would gore say about the 9/11 attacks? Probably how the ash would cause polar bears to go extinct.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 28, 2014

    Will not waste money on this book is sample is same chapter over & over again

    Won't waste the money

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 19, 2006

    almost old enough to vote

    Although im not totally into politics quite yet, this book gave me an insite on the scandals and corruption of our beloved government. You need neither be a democrat or republican to acknowledge Bush's terrible terms in office. How can people criticize this book? Somebody had to come out and speak their mind and Ivins just happens to have more balls then the rest of you to speak for what she believes in. Isn't that what America is based on? Society's morals and values have been distorted, so somebody had to come out and spark light through all the darkness.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted August 4, 2004

    a truthful account

    Speaking as both a resident of a conservation community and a believer in democracy, this book covered all the bases, from Bush's lousy environmental record, to his lousy corporate one. A factual and easy to follow account of our president.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted July 9, 2004

    another lying rant from a yellow dog democrat

    The author's hatred of the Bush family, the GOP, and anything conservative is well-known. This book continues the distortions she started in Shrub. Don't buy it. It's an attack job, not a study.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted June 18, 2004

    Smarts and Heart (Molly, not Shrub)

    Molly Ivens is a terrific writer -- the tone is lively, and the facts are energizing (infuriating?). Like the Research Scientist, I lived through the Bush years in Texas; unlike him, I didn't have a job with a title and benefits. 'Compassionate' conservative ... NOT! Molly gets it right: life under Bush sucks for a real person with a real job and a real conscience.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 2, 2004

    EYE OPENING

    MOLLY IVANS GIVES US AN EYE OPENING VIEW INTO THE MIND OF A MANIAC; SHE NAILS THE INFANTILE ELITEISM OF BUSH AND THE PEOPLE WHO PULL HIS STRINGS!

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted November 17, 2003

    'Drunken frat boy runs country into ditch'

    So, ok, I used a line from the book, but I couldn't think of one that described the state of our disunion any better. I discovered so many issues in this book that I had never even heard of that it was frightening. (I do consider myself relatively well-informed.) I think every voter should be forced to read this book before voting in the next Presidential election. I only wish they would.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted November 18, 2003

    Much ado about Nothing

    I'm sorry but this is just another liberal storyteller telling stories. Molly, you lost the election plain and simple. Yes, you won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote. It's time to move on. Molly you failed to mention what would have happened to our country had AlGore been cheif post 9/11/01.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 25, 2003

    I have a question.

    I gave this three stars so as not to upset the votes, but isn't this a forum for rating a book? It seems more people came here to argue about their own political beliefs rather than give potential customers a realistic view of content. I just wanted to say thanks for nothing.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted December 13, 2003

    Geez

    This book is dumber than the picture that graces the cover. Classical propaganda.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 9, 2003

    neocons- weeds around the shrub

    all you one-star reviewers out there - it is obvious to me that you have not read this book. you slam the book as lies and a waste of paper ignoring the fact that unlike coulter and her clones, every fact presented in this book is easilly validated, quotes are not out of context, and sources are not cut to fit. ivins is a professional journalist who has known the bushies her entire life. i just don't get it. i guess you one stars out there actually believe that democracy was only made to serve big money and big voices with small minds ( the religious right).

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
See All Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 40 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)