Bush: a paragon of truth

[sturm und drang]

Since everyone here seems so fixated on what Kerry did or didn't do in 1968 and what he has or hasn't said about it – and holding Bush up as his foil, a veritable paragon of truth – let's take a closer look at "Honest George" Bush and his fibbing attempts to distance himself from the Enron debacle.

"I got to know Ken Lay when he was the head of the—what they call the Governor's Business Council in Texas. He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994. And she had named him the head of the Governor's Business Council. And I decided to leave him in place, just for the sake of continuity. And that's when I first got to know Ken. …"

—President George W. Bush, answering reporters' questions in the Oval Office Jan. 10, 2002

"When Governor Bush—now President Bush—decided to run for the governor's spot, [there was] a little difficult situation—I 'd worked very closely with Ann Richards also, the four years she was governor. But I was very close to George W. and had a lot of respect for him, had watched him over the years, particularly with reference to dealing with his father when his father was in the White House and some of the things he did to work for his father, and so did support him."

—Interview with Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay for Frontline's 2001 documentary, "Blackout: What Caused the Power Crisis in California? And Who's Profiting?"

[Usually Lurkin]

Is there more to this? I would like to know if Bush was lying about relatinships he might have had. But these two quotes don't necessarily contradict each other. Not in the least like Kerry's recollections contradict those of others (which is the parallel you are trying to draw, isn't it?)

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
Is there more to this? I would like to know if Bush was lying about relatinships he might have had. But these two quotes don't necessarily contradict each other. Not in the least like Kerry's recollections contradict those of others (which is the parallel you are trying to draw, isn't it?)

I agree. If there's more to this, let's hear about it. These two quotes aren't necessarily incompatible, but who knows? Maybe there is more. The attempted parallel with Kerry is really weak and off-point, though.

[Mavdog]

Fact: Ken Lay and Enron were the largest contributors to Bush's TX Governor campaigns.
Fact: Bush allowed (asked?) the regulators to institute voluntary guidelines, rather than mandatory reductions, for plants such as Enron operated around Houston. (Surprisingly these plants have not reduced their emissions).
Fact: Ken Lay is one of the members of the secretive Cheney Energy Task force and has been a guest of the Bush's at the White House.

How close were they? You decide, here's some of their personal correspondence which clearly shows a warm reciprocal relationship.

Bush/Lay letters

[LRB]

So far from what been presented here, this appears to be a non issue as far as Bush lying. Certainly not anywhere as close to Kerry's blatant lies. However if there is more, then I'm all for hearing it.

[sturm und drang]

Bush's version of his relationship with Lay:
"(After the election)... that's when I first got to know Ken. …"

Lay's version of his relationship with Bush:
"(During the election) "But I was very close to George W..."

Bush's version of who Lay supported in the election:
"He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994"

Lay's version:
"(I) did support him."

So Bush isn't lying? These statements don't contradict? Really? Bush isn't lying, desperately trying to distance himself from Lay and the Enron scandal? And if so, this isn't as important as where Kerry was on Christmas Eve in 1968? Really? I bet those tens of thousands of jobless, savings-less Enron workers might disagree.

My, what partisan glasses you all seem to be wearing.

Here's more from the (emphatically Republican) Dallas Morning News:

"In distancing himself from Enron, President Bush said that CEO Kenneth Lay 'was a supporter' of Democrat Ann Richards in his first race for Texas governor in 1994.

"But records and interviews with people involved in the Richards campaign show that he was a far bigger Bush supporter.

"Mr. Lay and his wife gave Mr. Bush three times more money than Ms. Richards in their gubernatorial contest, according to a computer-assisted review of campaign finance reports by The Dallas Morning News. … Mr. Bush, a Republican, collected $37,500 from the Lays in his successful bid to unseat the Democratic incumbent, state records show. Ms. Richards received $12,500."

—Wayne Slater, "Lay Gave More To Bush," Dallas Morning News, Jan. 12, 2002

[Evilmav2]

So the governor of Texas actually met, and even "got to know", the CEO of one of the largest corporations in the state? That's pretty darned shocking...

And as far as when that getting to know each other happened... Just like there can be different interpretations of the word "is", there can be different interpretations of the phrase "got to know". Lay and Bush Jr. could well have met each other before but Bush could be justified in saying they didn't really "know" each other if their introduction was just one of many at a business or political gathering. My guess is that it would not have been strange for two of the most prominant men in Texas to have at least been aware of each other, and I am sure it is likely that they met on at least an occasion or two on the cocktail party circuit, but their interaction on the governor's council was probably be the first time they aquainted themselves in a more comprehensive fashion than that encompassed by a simple meet and greet.

[Mavdog]

well if you and Zev say so...

Look at his acceptance speech at the convention.

How many times does he mention his service in Vietnam? 3 times. total. one of those is an allusion when he says he "defended the country as a young man" and will do so as President.

Terrorism? 5 times
Family? 6 times
Patriotism? 5 times
Environment? 3 times
taxes? 3 times
Education? 3 times
Foeign relations? 4 times
Healthcare? 5 times
Economy? 9 times
Iraq? 3 times
His time as a prosecutor? 2 times
His time as a Senator? 4 times

Yeah, those 3 times he brought up his service is Vietnam sure dominate his message and is the central theme to his candidacy.
At least for those who aren't listening....

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
well if you and Zev say so...

Look at his acceptance speech at the convention.

How many times does he mention his service in Vietnam? 3 times. total. one of those is an allusion when he says he "defended the country as a young man" and will do so as President.

Terrorism? 5 times
Family? 6 times
Patriotism? 5 times
Environment? 3 times
taxes? 3 times
Education? 3 times
Foeign relations? 4 times
Healthcare? 5 times
Economy? 9 times
Iraq? 3 times
His time as a prosecutor? 2 times
His time as a Senator? 4 times

Yeah, those 3 times he brought up his service is Vietnam sure dominate his message and is the central theme to his candidacy.
At least for those who aren't listening....

I didn't say he made it the most often-mentioned topic in his convention speech. I said the centerpiece of his campaign. Nice try, but no cigar.

[Mavdog]

[quote]
Originally posted by: kg_veteran

I didn't say he made it the most often-mentioned topic in his convention speech. I said the centerpiece of his campaign. Nice try, but no cigar.

yeah, what was termed "the most important speech of the campaign" was in reality nothing, it didn't frame his whole campaign.
yeah, right.
"centerpiece"?
barely mentioning it?
hardly.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
well if you and Zev say so...

Look at his acceptance speech at the convention.

How many times does he mention his service in Vietnam? 3 times. total. one of those is an allusion when he says he "defended the country as a young man" and will do so as President.

Terrorism? 5 times
Family? 6 times
Patriotism? 5 times
Environment? 3 times
taxes? 3 times
Education? 3 times
Foeign relations? 4 times
Healthcare? 5 times
Economy? 9 times
Iraq? 3 times
His time as a prosecutor? 2 times
His time as a Senator? 4 times

Yeah, those 3 times he brought up his service is Vietnam sure dominate his message and is the central theme to his candidacy.
At least for those who aren't listening....

#of lengthy salutes to the flag in homage to his Vietnam service - 1
#of lengthy salutes to the flag in homage of all other issues - 0

but on 2nd thought forget it Mavdog. I just don't belive it will ever be possible for you admit the simpliest of truths in a political argument. Of course even by your own admission Kerry gave his Vietnam service equal references as other "nonissues" of Iraq, education, and the environment. [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

[Mavdog]

It is fascinating to read your accusations of "red herring" while you are the one fishing out on the boat, but without a paddle or an oar, as your boat is sinking.

Not only did Lay and Bush do business together, they socialized. Not only did Lay become the largest single contributor to Bush's TX governor campaigns, he was a guest at the Governors Mansion and after becoming President a guest at the White House.

Of course, you may be "ignorant" and have people that you don't know stay at your house, or take tens of thousands of dollars from them without "knowing" them, have them become chairman of your father's orchestrated nomination convention which you spoke at, all without knowing them.

But all that history means nothing, while you pontificate about the varieties of how Dubya could have meant with his use of the word "know".

"is" redux indeed.

Red herring? sure, a red herring, facts in your eyes are the red herring while questions on how to define "know" are substance.

I am setting the record straight on the relationship between Lay and Bush, I never attempted to compare what Kerry did say to what Bush did say. That was Sturm as you seem to have failed to notice.

Did Bush lie? At the very least it was an attempt to minimize and cloak his relationship, an apparent loss of memory by George Bush when asked about his friend ken Lay. But of course george doesn't do that...just like he doesn't flip flop either.

One can hide from the facts such as you insist on doing, or one can see that George W. Bush had a relationship, knew from both a business and personal basis, the infamous Ken Lay. He knew him as a business partner, knew him as a family friend, knew him as a campaign contributor, knew him as a guest in his home, and later knew him as a consultant on this administration's energy policies.

Unfortunately for your attempts to place George Bush above this, knew Lay as an accused corporate thief who will soon stand before the judicial system to face the law for his apparent misdeeds. The largest bankruptcy in the history of the US, billions of billions of dollars stolen from people throughout America, empowered with the tools to accomplish this larceny by the republicans on FERC.

without a doubt George Bush knew Ken Lay. You can act like an ostrich and say it isn't so, but the facts are there nonetheless.

[LRB]

without a doubt George Bush knew Ken Lay. You can act like an ostrich and say it isn't so, but the facts are there nonetheless.

Mavdog, get a clue please. Just one is all I'm asking for. Bush said that he knew Lay. I concurred with that point. Bush explained when he 1st became familar with Lay, which was when Bush 1st became govenor. This would account for the times Lay visited Bush at the govenors mansion that you bring up. I don't know that this did occur, but since it contradicts nothing that Bush has said it would be pointless for me to verify you facts for the context of this argument. Of course it was pointless of you to add this in the 1st place.

As to Bush knowing Lay before he was govenor as more than a casual acquaintance at best has yet to be shown. Bush admits that as govenor that he came to know Lay better than as a mere acquaintance. Anything else is extremely loose conjecture at best and outright fabrication at worst on your part. That their companies did business together does not prove that the men ever met in person or even on the phone in relation to those joint business ventures. Your argument here has been stretched so thin as to be transparent.

So what dates, times, and places did Bush and Lay supposedly spend together in individual or small group intimate settings prior to Bush being elected govenor? You've yet to show any evidence approaching this level of detail. Until you do, you have nothing more than innuendo and gross conjecture.

[sturm und drang]

" Well, first of all, Ken Lay is a supporter. And I got to know Ken Lay when he was the head of the -- what they call the Governor's Business Council in Texas. He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994. And she had named him the head of the Governor's Business Council. And I decided to leave him in place, just for the sake of continuity. And that's when I first got to know Ken, and worked with Ken, and he supported my candidacy.
This is -- what anybody's going to find, if -- is that this administration will fully investigate issues such as the Enron bankruptcy, to make sure we can learn from the past, and make sure that workers are protected. "

Nice try, but Bush is clearly referencing Lay's support for his PRESIDENTIAL candidacy. Which was undeniable.

He's still lying about who Lay supported in the 1994 gubernatorial race, still lying about when he got to know Ken Lay. He is doing everything within his grasp to distance himself from Lay – including lying.

It may not be the "centerpiece" of his campaign but a lie is a lie nevertheless. In fact, it's been all of you Kerry-crucifiers who are justifying your rabid excitement over Kerry's geographic location on a night in 1968 that use the "if he lies about small things like this, can we trust him to not lie on the larger issues?" rubric.

By that standard, you have to question good ol' George W. as well.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
" Well, first of all, Ken Lay is a supporter. And I got to know Ken Lay when he was the head of the -- what they call the Governor's Business Council in Texas. He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994. And she had named him the head of the Governor's Business Council. And I decided to leave him in place, just for the sake of continuity. And that's when I first got to know Ken, and worked with Ken, and he supported my candidacy.
This is -- what anybody's going to find, if -- is that this administration will fully investigate issues such as the Enron bankruptcy, to make sure we can learn from the past, and make sure that workers are protected. "

Nice try, but Bush is clearly referencing Lay's support for his PRESIDENTIAL candidacy. Which was undeniable.

He's still lying about who Lay supported in the 1994 gubernatorial race, still lying about when he got to know Ken Lay. He is doing everything within his grasp to distance himself from Lay – including lying.

It may not be the "centerpiece" of his campaign but a lie is a lie nevertheless. In fact, it's been all of you Kerry-crucifiers who are justifying your rabid excitement over Kerry's geographic location on a night in 1968 that use the "if he lies about small things like this, can we trust him to not lie on the larger issues?" rubric.

By that standard, you have to question good ol' George W. as well.

Talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

1st of all Bush had a reelection campaign in 1998 before his run for the presidency. I'm sure Lay supported him in that campaign which is what I took Bush's reference to mean. Of course it could mean that Lay supported him in his presidential campaign or both. Either way I don't see where Bush is lying there, unless you can prove that Lay DIDN'T support Bush.

Again, financial records show that Lay and/or his wife did support Ann Richards with a 5 figure financial contribution for the 1994 gubernatorial campaign. That alone meets the definition that he supported Richards. However Lay was appointed to a position in Richards administration and serving therein during the 1994 election. This too could be construed as support. Who did Lay publicly give his endorsement to or did he publicly endorse either candidate? I've seen nothing to indicate either way. Still Bush was speaking of his perception of who Lay supported. I don't see how Bush would be distancing himself for Lay by announcing that Lay supported him for political office. Maybe because he said Lay also supported a democrat, Ann Richards for public office? But evidence has been posted which points to the strong, actually much more than strong, probability that Lay did contribute financially to Richards campaign. We do know for a fact of public record that Richards did appoint Lay to a position in her administration and Bush admits to continuing that appointment.

Apparently your partisanship is causing you to add on to Bush's words, instead of taking them at face value. You have the assumption that he made this statement to distance himself from Ken Lay and therefore he lied to enhance his position. However you have to read in a lot of implied statements and narrow interpretations while ignoring other interpretations to arrive at any semblance of a lie. And still you don't account for any honest misrecollection on Bush's part when answers an impromptu question by an appartently argumentative reporter. This contracts highly with Kerry's planned statement about his location being seared into his memory.

Now it is quite possible that Bush has told an obvious lie on public record. This however is not an obvious lie and can only be viewed as such under the fine microscopic view of democratic partisanship.

[Mavdog]

[quote]
Originally posted by: LRB

As to Bush knowing Lay before he was govenor as more than a casual acquaintance at best has yet to be shown. Bush admits that as govenor that he came to know Lay better than as a mere acquaintance. Anything else is extremely loose conjecture at best and outright fabrication at worst on your part. That their companies did business together does not prove that the men ever met in person or even on the phone in relation to those joint business ventures. Your argument here has been stretched so thin as to be transparent.

So what dates, times, and places did Bush and Lay supposedly spend together in individual or small group intimate settings prior to Bush being elected govenor? You've yet to show any evidence approaching this level of detail. Until you do, you have nothing more than innuendo and gross conjecture.

I posted the link above to the corresponance while Bush was Governor.
To throw out a claim that I've not shown "any evidence" after detailing their business links, their working together on the Houston Convention, that Lay wa a guest in not only Dubya's home but also his father's and while his father was in the White House, well, you just don't listen.

Here, take a look at this. As Dubya calls Lay an "old friend" in April, 1997, ends with "your younger friend", clearly there's a long relationship. Can't wait to see how you dismiss this like everything else,,,

I sure don't call someone I don't "know" an "old friend." Do you?

Bush letter to Lay

[LRB]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: LRB

I posted the link above to the corresponance while Bush was Governor.
To throw out a claim that I've not shown "any evidence" after detailing their business links, their working together on the Houston Convention, that Lay wa a guest in not only Dubya's home but also his father's and while his father was in the White House, well, you just don't listen.

Here, take a look at this. As Dubya calls Lay an "old friend" in April, 1997, ends with "your younger friend", clearly there's a long relationship. Can't wait to see how you dismiss this like everything else,,,

I sure don't call someone I don't "know" an "old friend." Do you?

Bush letter to Lay

Mavdog are you really this stupid or are you just trying to be a jerk? Did you read that letter that you posted the link about? Did you seen when it was dated? It was dated April 14th, 1997. That was well into Bush's tenure as govenor and after the time frame where he claimed to have got to know Lay. So it confirms that they had a friendly and cordial relationship as Bush declared. Perhaps if it was dated April 14th, 1987, you might have something there. As it is now all you have is egg on your face.

[Mavdog]

LMAO. just who is "stupid" and who is the "jerk"? my view says that it's you.

Sure, Bush was 1 year into his first term as guv....that's why "old friend" means so much. hmm, he says that he "got to know" Lay after he became governor, yet here a personal letter is with the phrase "old friend". A months long relationship isn't called "old" by any stretch of one's imagination. Bush even references his familiarity with Lay's wife, another clear example of their close relationship.

"Eyes wide shut" starring LRB in the lead role....wearing that egg he speaks about.

Clearly when presented with the evidence you are going to continue with you denial. deny on, but you're wrong.

Any rational person can see that the relationship betwen Lay and Bush was warm and existed before he became governor.

[LRB]

Bush even references his familiarity with Lay's wife, another clear example of their close relationship.

Gosh Mavdog I guess you're right. Bush couldn't have possibly learned the name of Lay's wife in a couple of years or so. Any one know that takes decades to do that. I mean honestly have you ever heard of any friends who learned the names of each other's wifes in such a short time. It's like a good friend of mine that I know probably for a oh 3 or 4 minutes before he told me his wife's names. In fact I learn the name of people's wife's names all the time, many who I don't even know that well.

Now as to the use of the word "old", Bush wasn't given a factual description of his realationship with Lay. He was writing a brief birthday greeting and using a play on words. You're straing at a knat Mavdog. And any rationale person with any intellect at all would clearly see this as no proof at all as to whether a deep releationship had existed before Bush became govenor.

BTW thanks for showing your intellectual capacity in determing that Bush was in his 1st year of office in April of 1997. Let's see Bush was elected in Novemeber of 1994. Took office in January 1995 I believe. That would make it his 3rd year in office, having recently completed his 2nd. Even if Bush didn't take office until later in April of 1995 it would still be almost to the end of his second year in office and much closer to the 3rd year than the 2nd.

Reeds you don't have a leg to stand on and yet you persist with this asinine argument. Surely you can find something of more substance to criticize Bush on that this contrived crap that fails to hold the smallest drop of water. I mean Bush isn't perfect. But making up this sensely garbage is juvenille and quite frankly stupid. All you do is shoot yourself in the foot with every post. 1st you post a letter as proof that occured more than 2 years into Bush's 1st term as govenor and say it shows proof that Bush knew Lay. Then I call you on it and you say because Bush knew Lay's wife's name that it's proof. But any idiot knows it only takes a minute or less to learn the name of a man's wife. Of and Bush tries to make a funny, and not a great one IMO ( maybe you should criticize him on not being funny here), on a play of words and you jump on that play as proof. Even if Bush was descibing the relaitonship between him and Lay, certainly 2 years is more than enough for some people, maybe not you, but some people to characterize someone as an old as in longtime friend. Hell I recently lost a good friend to death who I knew less than 2 years and I would have characterized as an old friend. You have nothing along this line to show that Bush lied. Bush freely admits that he got to know Lay and that they had a relationship closer than mere acquatiences. This is a pathetic line of arguement on your part.

[Mavdog]

Your excuses are just that, excuses.

Arguing the meaning of the word "old" after attempts to define "know".

yawn.

The Emporer has no clothes...

[Murphy3]

As someone that IS undecided as to who I will be voting for, I must say that the democrats, in general, do an embarrassingly poor job on this site of backing up their opinions with few exceptions. I must say that much of that probably has to do with how difficult it is to back up much of what Kerry has said and done.

Yes, there's a couple of posters that do have an exception when it comes to my last statement...

[sturm und drang]

If you simply can't admit that Bush told two little white lies here to distance himself from Ken Lay and the Enron debacle... sigh.

The evidence is right in front of you. Even the Dallas Morning News – a staunchly, staunchly Republican paper – called him out on it. Fer chrissakes.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
If you simply can't admit that Bush told two little white lies here to distance himself from Ken Lay and the Enron debacle... sigh.

The evidence is right in front of you. Even the Dallas Morning News – a staunchly, staunchly Republican paper – called him out on it. Fer chrissakes.

The evidence is hardly compelling. I see nothing to show that Lay did not support Richards in the 1994 elections. In fact I see evidence that he did. I see nothing but highly ambigious references to show that Bush and Lay's level of relationship was not in harmony with the characterization that Bush described it as. Sure there are some narrow interpretations which would result in viewing Bush as lying, but there are just as many if not much more that would result in him telling the truth. It all boils down to subjective interpretations of statemtents made by Bush. And since you yourself term them as "white" or harmless lies, if they are indeed lies, I don't even see the point of making an issue of something so trivial. But if this is the best that can be found by the Democrats of Bush lying in official communications, speachs, pronouncements, etc. during his political career; then Bush must be the most honest politician that I've ever heard of. This accusation speaks more against Bush's opponents than against Bush. To but it mildly, this is one of the weakest political accusations that I have ever heard of. If this is all you got, then you've got nothing.

[sturm und drang]

LRB wrote:

"And since you yourself term them as "white" or harmless lies, if they are indeed lies, I don't even see the point of making an issue of something so trivial."

Oh, so where John Kerry was on Christmas Eve in 1968 is critical, but Bush's relationship to the villanous mastermind behind the biggest corporate scandal in American history isn't.

Okey dokey.

[Mavdog]

You need to do some reading on just how the energy markets were deregulated, allowing for the market manipulation/trades that were the basis of the enron debacle. It has Republican hands all over it, from Phil and Wendy Gramm to Newt Gingrich to the State Commissioners appointed by George Bush as Governor who took a hands off approach.

Start with Wendy Gramm and FERC.

Enron didn't happen in a vacuum.

But why am I telling you, all you'll do is want to argue the definition of "energy", then "markets" and finally "deregulation".

[LRB]

Having worked in the energy trading business and actually programed the applications which facilitated energy trades I do know a little about that situation. And you have nothing but innuendo that any of the people that you mentioned, especially Bush knowingly participated in a conspiracy to manipulate the energy markets illegally and/or in Ken Lay's favor. If anything the failure was on the state administration side. Texas has controlls which would help prevent this, or at the very least limit it and help assure that whoever attempted it would almost certainly be caught. California was lacking in those controls. However that was more a state issue rather than a federal. I fail to see how Texas state commissioners appointed by Bush could possibly have had anything to do with California market manipulation though.

[Mavdog]

Texas is the only state in the Union that is not a part of the power grid. There was no energy manipulation in Texas.

Didn't know that huh?

Those who did manipulate the markets, who were first given the OK by FERC, were here in Texas.

Explain how "state administration" could have seen the trading of energy outside their state to be resold inside their state at a huge profit? How about the withholding of energy to one state by stopping the transmission from out of that state, thereby forcing the markets to pay more for that same electricity? These were the actions of Enron.

You don't know about the shortsighted decisions by FERC (a federal agency BTW) which started this whole unseemly episode, do you?

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Texas is the only state in the Union that is not a part of the power grid.

I'm confused by this statement. Why would we be in either the Eastern or Western power grid? Geographically speaking, Texas should logically be seperate. There isn't another state with a large population near us.

http://www.usdieselengines.com/US%20Power%20Grid.htm

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Texas is the only state in the Union that is not a part of the power grid. There was no energy manipulation in Texas.

Didn't know that huh?

Those who did manipulate the markets, who were first given the OK by FERC, were here in Texas.

Explain how "state administration" could have seen the trading of energy outside their state to be resold inside their state at a huge profit? How about the withholding of energy to one state by stopping the transmission from out of that state, thereby forcing the markets to pay more for that same electricity? These were the actions of Enron.

You don't know about the shortsighted decisions by FERC (a federal agency BTW) which started this whole unseemly episode, do you?

What in the hell are you trying to say mavdog. You rambled all over the place and only seemed to contradict yourself in saying that the texas state administrators had nothing to do with the manipulation as you had earlier claimed.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
What in the hell are you trying to say mavdog. You rambled all over the place and only seemed to contradict yourself in saying that the texas state administrators had nothing to do with the manipulation as you had earlier claimed.

They are two different issues. There's the price manipulation in the west (thanks to Enron) and there's the issues here in Texas that are seperate (we aren't in the grid sending power across state lines).

To see what Enron was able to do outside of Texas in the western US, look at FERC.

To see what Texas producers have done, look at ERCOT.

I thought you said you "know..about the situation"?

Here's a tidbit about ERCOT:

"ERCOT Scandal Just One of Five Utility Issues Sunset Commission Needs to Consider, Consumer Groups Say

Commission to Hear Testimony Tuesday on Effectiveness
Of Public Utility Commission and the Office of Public Utility Counsel

AUSTIN – Texas consumer advocacy groups say the ongoing Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) scandal should not shift attention from other critical consumer issues when the Sunset Advisory Commission begins its review of the Public Utility Commission (PUC) tomorrow.

The consumer groups identified additional reforms needed to protect the state's nine million customers from abuses by electric utilities.

"The Sunset Commission needs to act now to protect residential and other small consumers in the electric market,” said Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office "We've seen a dramatic increase in electric bills. And key price protections in both electric and telephone service are set to expire next year. Consumers also ought to be concerned about a perilous proposal to abolish the Office of Public Utility Counsel and other rollbacks of consumer protections.”

Rate Protections Need Consideration

Since deregulation began two and a half years ago, the average monthly electric bill for residential electric customers who have not switched providers has increased 22 to 34 percent, depending on where customers live, said Tim Morstad of Consumers Union's Southwest Office. Eighty-five percent of residential customers in areas open to competition are paying these higher rates.

and then there's the infamous Enron debacle and FERC's assistance to Enron:

The bigger issue, however, has to do with a ruling handed down by FERC on Nov. 1, 2000, related to the sky-high wholesale power prices that wreaked havoc in much of the state between May and October of that year. Then Gov. Gray Davis, along with dozens of other state officials, charged that energy companies conspired to drive up electricity prices in the state by using a variety of schemes to game the market. The November 2000 investigation by FERC was the first probe into California's power crisis. The commission conducted a second investigation in mid-2001.

During the 2000 investigation, the Republican dominated FERC investigated the issue of high electricity prices and said the wholesale market structure in California is "seriously flawed" but FERC found no significant evidence that power sellers or providers manipulated prices. Instead, the report blamed the state's mandated market structure for the summer's power shortages and rising prices.

We have found that Enron did manipulate prices. repeatedly.

[LRB]

So you agree that Texas state regulators had nothing to do with energy manipulation in the West. Fine, next time not mix things up so much that it's hard to tell which issue that you're talking about.

Pretty much everyone agrees that Enron did tons of crooked things. So no big news story there.

I'm still not sure what you're getting at about Ercot. You make obscure reference and beat all around the damn bush but really don't come out and say what you mean. What exactly is the problem that you personally have with ERCOT or do you even have a problem with it?

[Mavdog]

Look at the map on your link Max, Texas power grid is seperate from the rest of the country. It doesn't hook up to anywhere else.

Why should "Texas be logically be seperate"? It is seperate just due to our desire to be such,. sorta a manifestation of the Texas mindset of, well, just being Texan. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Max Power]

Your initial statement made it seem like there was a NATIONAL power grid that we weren't a part of. THAT would have seemed odd. But there are two other grids, an Eastern and a Western one. So back to my initial question - why would we be in either the Eastern or Western power grid?

Cause it sure sounds like you are seeing a conspiracy where there isn't one.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Max Power
Your initial statement made it seem like there was a NATIONAL power grid that we weren't a part of. THAT would have seemed odd. But there are two other grids, an Eastern and a Western one. So back to my initial question - why would we be in either the Eastern or Western power grid?

Cause it sure sounds like you are seeing a conspiracy where there isn't one.

Yes, there is a national power grid (deliniated on a regional basis) and yes we are not a part of it.

Why would we be a part of the national grid? Actually why are we not. A conspircay? Yes, in that we Texans are a bit independent minded. This was a decision made years ago when the national grid was proposed and set up. Texas set up it own org "ERCOT" to govern the Texas grid and they won't allow outsiders to crash the party.

When the blackout occured a year ago in the midwest the decision to not be in the national grid looked like a good one. When the energy traders manipulated the western states and squeezed (raped?) the consumers the decision looked like a good one.

I can't say that the "go it alone" mindset willl hurt us, tho if we see a supply issue (unlikely as we have surplus supply) we will not have anywhere to get additional juice.

OTOH, ERCOT has been characterized as a pawn of the producers, who have been accused on some price manipulation, although on a much smaller scale than what Enron did out west a few years ago.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Yes, there is a national power grid (deliniated on a regional basis) and yes we are not a part of it.

From the website I posted. Do you have different information?

It is important to note that there is no "national power grid" in the United States. In fact, the continental United States is divided into three main power grids:
The Eastern Interconnected System, or the Eastern Interconnect
The Western Interconnected System, or the Western Interconnect
The Texas Interconnected System, or the Texas Interconnect

[Mavdog]

We really aren't disagreeing Max, my point is that the rest of the country is interconnected (the eastern and the western as you have shown) and then there's Texas. we aren't connected to the rest of the US.

[Drbio]

There.Is.No.NATIONAL.Power.Grid.


period.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
There.Is.No.NATIONAL.Power.Grid.


period.

OK, I will never, ever again use the phrase "National Power grid" without adding the qualification that it is broken into the 3: western, the eastern and the Texas electrical grids.

notice, FERC uses the phrase "nation's power grid" as shown below...

[Drbio]

Just to jump in here a second....We have our own electrical generation plant here on campus. In addition, due to the size of campus we use external electrical as well . We have a full time electrical engineer here who monitors the use and relationship between our system and the grid. He used to be a regulator in the field and was a good hire. I asked him specifically these two questions:

1. Is there a national grid?
2. Is Texas connected to any other state?


1. No. He spoke in a very detailed manner but advised that there are several grids that are connected in various ways. And I was admittedly confused about much of what he said.

2. Yes. Texas has several power generation sites (Ex. Reliant's Jewitt plant) that generate and place power on the grid. Supply is based on real time demand. Even we have the ability to sell excess to the grid (although we do not due to power management systems). Texas has the ability to send power to other states via grid connections however. In the case of California, Texas indirectly piggybacked power to California by supplying it to New Mexico who provided it on to Cali. Again...some of it was confusing....interesting, but confusing.


Now back to our regularly scheduled pissin' match.....

[Drbio]

Second, ERCOT has multiple scandals of its own that taint its reputation to the point that there is talk of the Sunset Commission ending its reign. Guess who appointed the majority of members? Could it be, yes, the republicans?

OOPS...just saw this. Now I understand. It isn't facts that are at issue....it's the opportunity to make a political stab. I see now.