Vast right-wing conspiracy, after all...

It's a sordid chapter in our history all right, and DeLay's continuing pestilential presence is a sad reminder of it...

Speaking of the continuing effort of a right-wing cabal to subvert our nation, I heard Bill Kristol, whose publication receives generous support from the Murdoch empire, on "To the Point" this afternoon. The topic was the American empire; I turned it on in the middle of a Kristol segment, and I thought I was listening to Beavis. Or was it Butthead? I haven't heard so much nervous giggling and smirking since the last time I caught their show...

Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, was paid $100,000 for serving on an Enron advisory board over two years. In November, the Standard disclosed his service in a largely positive article about Enron by contributing editor Irwin Stelzer, who served on the same advisory board, which was assembled by former CEO Kenneth Lay.



The Weekly Standard is owned by the News Corporation, which is part of the empire owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Really don't have to look far for links. Regarding Tom DeLay - that will be dificult, since they may hate him but they need him as the hated fall guy. Only thing I can see is to get the public riled up enough - the Texas public, so they can recall him. Needs dirt, because that's the way he plays. Has he ever made a statement about Tulia? What's his home life? Women? Start making fun of him, using pest control?

Trouble with Texas (and probably most other states) is that even when the guy is hateful, HE'S ONE OF OURS AND WE DON'T BACK DOWN!! I swear, I think it's the same rationale that's keeping Bush afloat in the polls... (Ah bought that thar Edsel an' yew cain't tell me it ain't a great ve-hickle...)

My father actually did drive an Edsel, and he voted for Nixon once or twice. What can one say--there were a lot of things we didn't agree on, but I never held the vehicle against him...

Getting back to Bill Kristol, his dad was a well-known political thinker; today's NY Times includes a feature on Saul Bellow's son who's written a book on why nepotism is a good thing. It made for sickening reading, I assure you!

Gee Tartar, "Pest Control" in Texas could mean a whole lot of things to the repubs. That's dangerous talk! ci

And Bush's new ress secretary is the brother of the guy who heads the FDA. And, they're from Texas. Tart, how come you're not in Washington?

We REAL Texans stick around to defend The Republic of Texas. Scuse me, gotta go clean my AK47.

That's very true re Texans in DC these days. Makes LBJ's group look almost diverse, in contrast...

I'm in. I like a good conspiracy.
This one's a monster.

Paul Krugman, columnist for the New York Times, was likewise paid to serve on an Enron advisory board. The New York Times is owned by New York Times Company, which is part of another media empire.

Which media empire do you mean that owns the NYT Company? At least here: http://biz.yahoo.com/p/n/nyt.html or at FT they don't mention anything about it.

Walter - Sorry, what I intended to write was the NYTCo is a large media empire, of which the NYTimes is a part.

And thanks for the link supporting my statement about Krugman.

The link Walter provided is to Krugman's own words, i.e., he was very up front about his past Enron involvment. How many of Bush's guys have been similarly up front?

As for Kristol, his access, as editor of the Weekly Standard, to Murdoch money is ongoing...

So you can believe that Krugman can seperate his past endeavors from current affairs, what then, are your opinions of Cheney's past endeavors with Halliburton in regards to current affairs?

It's by himself.

(As D'artagnan already noted.)

First off, I pointed out Krugman's relationship to Enron, not to indict Krugman, but to point out that Kristol's relationship was neither unique nor sinister.

Second, the fact that Kristol is still editor of the Weekly Standard means what, precisely? Krugman is still a columnist for the NYTimes. So? Each is still being paid by their bosses... what a shocker! What next? Are we going to learn that they both pay taxes?

It's hard to take you seriously, McG, with that smirking Cheney to the left of your posts. Interesting, come to think of it, how Bush and Cheney both favor the smirk as a means of communication...

You can hardly compare Krugman's brief role at Enron with Cheney's post at Halliburton. Wasn't Cheney one of their key officers?

Many differences. Bill Kristol, as editor of the Weekly Standard, has control over what appears and what doesn't appear in his paper, which, in turn, is subject to approval by the Murdoch group. This is a different role from that of David Brooks, who writes for the Weekly Standard, but doesn't control what goes into it. Just as Paul Krugman is a columinist for the New York Times, and has no control over what goes into it, or even the op-ed page to which he contributes. I realize the fruit basket is one of scrat's hobbies, but apples and oranges are not the same.

Further, as per Walter's link, once Krugman joined the Times, he severed relations with Enron. In plain English, while writing for the Times, Krugman had no relationship with Enron. In contrast, Kristol, while editor of the Evening Standard, took money from Enron and continued his work with the Standard. Once again, apples and oranges. And a little ethics.

Next - Murdoch's empire is big - he not only owns newspapers here and in Australia and England and other places, he also owns radio stations and tv stations, and hundreds of people. And he has many names for these different things. The New York Times is its own entity, and while it too owns several media, they are always identified as being part of the NYT.

Cheny's association with Haliburton was vastly different. He wasn't just paid money by Halliburton, he ran it, and was extremely reluctant to sever relations with them when he joined up with Bush.
Apples and oranges again.

I realize the right can't possibly let a statement get by without saying yes but...and then go on to dig up whoever they can think of. But just a little bit of research will usually get the facts, and then perhaps some kind of reasonable response will result.

I vote we take a stand against those who are tendentious, argumentative, and don't provide clear links. Troublemakers, in a word.