Sure enough, the major topic on CNBC, in nearly every interview involving politics, was the guest's opinion of Fred Thompson's performance in the Tuesday afternoon economics "debate" in Michigan.
The various CNBC anchors continued poke fun of Thompson, and bait guests with questions, clearly hoping they would judge Thompson to have failed to provide satisfactory responses.
How the network felt that two clearly leftist interrogators, Chris Matthews, former aide to Tip O'Neill, and Maria Bartiromo, would fairly handle a slate of Republican candidates for President is beyond me.
Wouldn't it have made much more sense to have people like Larry Kudlow, John Rutledge, and/or Brian Wesbury moderate the debate?
The two of them practically bludgeoned any candidate who did not agree with their pre-conceived notion that America is nearly in, if not already in, a recession. Having chosen an economically mis-managed and depressed state in which to have the debate, the two then baited the candidates to challenge the public-at-large's misconception about our country's economic health.
As this post, on my companion business blog, notes, I'm sorry to say Mitt Romney caved and declared a national economic emergency over one state- Michigan.
Thompson, however, got it right. He noted, if a bit obliquely, that economic opportunity does not mean a guaranteed job in your current locale.
But perhaps the best news regarding the debate was delivered by a pollster who appeared on Larry Kudlow's program following the debate. Despite Larry's hectoring about economic issues, the pollster, whose name I wish I could now recall, but cannot, said something to the effect of,
'Look, Larry, those are valid economic questions. But most Americans are not economists. They simply don't think that way. They aren't politicians, either. They just don't sit there and say, "hey, here's an economic problem- let's see which candidate has a viable program or plan to solve it."
Instead, they just vote for the person who they feel can be trusted to behave in a way that is similar to their own values and preferences.'
Which is pretty much what I wrote in this post last month. And this is why I believe Thompson has real potential among voters. Like Reagan, he's sensible, mature, and straight-shooting.
That said, on the basis of their economic-related statements, and focus on Hillary's weaknesses, I'd be okay with either Giuliani or Romney winning the Republican nomination as well.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Fred Thompson & The Debate
As I write this, I am listening to the left-leaning anchors on CNBC, particularly Carlos Quintillana, poke fun of Fred Thompson.
The line I've heard most often today- perhaps 5 times already- is something like,
'You know, it's been 11 years since Thompson's been in a debate. Does he still have it? Can he still hold his own?'
Give me a break!
The guy is a successful actor. He's used to presenting himself as needed. The liberals used to delight in poking fun of that two-term President, Ronald Reagan, too.
Yep. Both times that he beat their best candidate.
I find it odd that liberals are given credibility for having anything of value to say about Thompson.
Just a few minutes ago, when Erin Burnett repeated another oft-heard Thompson knock,
'I've heard he has a reputation for being lazy,'
Quintanilla replied something like,
'I don't know, maybe because he's an actor?' and then mumbled some follow-on comment.
My guess is that the CNBC personality was in high school when Thompson was in the Senate representing Tennessee. I doubt Quintanilla even knows much about Thompson's background.
Between some conservative political pundits demanding that Thompson essentially produce a new, fresh plan and solution for every national ill, and liberal political pundits joking that he can't actually speak, it seems these professional observers have set quite the high bar for this candidate.
In total, these observers may constitute 40 votes come November, 2008.
My guess, coming about 90 minutes prior to the Dearborn Republican Presidential candidates' debate, is that Thompson will hold his own, and then some. He's been to the big games, played on the national political and legislative stage for years.
That said, it should be an interesting discussion. Hopefully, in toto, these candidates- Giuliani, Thompson, Romney- will provide the American voting public with attractive, optimistic, credible tax and spending policies which will provide stark contrast to the gloom and tax agendas of Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.
The line I've heard most often today- perhaps 5 times already- is something like,
'You know, it's been 11 years since Thompson's been in a debate. Does he still have it? Can he still hold his own?'
Give me a break!
The guy is a successful actor. He's used to presenting himself as needed. The liberals used to delight in poking fun of that two-term President, Ronald Reagan, too.
Yep. Both times that he beat their best candidate.
I find it odd that liberals are given credibility for having anything of value to say about Thompson.
Just a few minutes ago, when Erin Burnett repeated another oft-heard Thompson knock,
'I've heard he has a reputation for being lazy,'
Quintanilla replied something like,
'I don't know, maybe because he's an actor?' and then mumbled some follow-on comment.
My guess is that the CNBC personality was in high school when Thompson was in the Senate representing Tennessee. I doubt Quintanilla even knows much about Thompson's background.
Between some conservative political pundits demanding that Thompson essentially produce a new, fresh plan and solution for every national ill, and liberal political pundits joking that he can't actually speak, it seems these professional observers have set quite the high bar for this candidate.
In total, these observers may constitute 40 votes come November, 2008.
My guess, coming about 90 minutes prior to the Dearborn Republican Presidential candidates' debate, is that Thompson will hold his own, and then some. He's been to the big games, played on the national political and legislative stage for years.
That said, it should be an interesting discussion. Hopefully, in toto, these candidates- Giuliani, Thompson, Romney- will provide the American voting public with attractive, optimistic, credible tax and spending policies which will provide stark contrast to the gloom and tax agendas of Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.
More Out of Touch Ramblings from Peggy Noonan
This Friday's Wall Street Journal column by Peggy Noonan, one-time Reagan speech writer, may have hit a new low for being out of touch with reality.
She lauded Chris Dodd and Joe Biden for having good sense and a grasp of complex issues. She boosted Obama for his 'thoughtful look.'
Oh my God! What in the world has gotten into Noonan?
These are not "good" candidates. Dodd and Biden are relatively minor, attention-seeking, long-in-the-tooth Senators of the Dole and McCain model. They run on the same "it's my turn, dammit!" platform.
Being a longtime insider, I don't think Noonan can really see this anymore.
The Democratic party doesn't have a 'really good' candidate. They have various damaged candidates scrambling after a soon-to-be-vacant Oval Office with no incumbent running.
The good news, though, is that if one of them gets in, it's a fair bet that they will only enjoy at most two years of Congressional majority, before the whole gang gets carried away with spending, liberal legislation, etc., and get the Republicans back in control of the House and Senate.
She lauded Chris Dodd and Joe Biden for having good sense and a grasp of complex issues. She boosted Obama for his 'thoughtful look.'
Oh my God! What in the world has gotten into Noonan?
These are not "good" candidates. Dodd and Biden are relatively minor, attention-seeking, long-in-the-tooth Senators of the Dole and McCain model. They run on the same "it's my turn, dammit!" platform.
Being a longtime insider, I don't think Noonan can really see this anymore.
The Democratic party doesn't have a 'really good' candidate. They have various damaged candidates scrambling after a soon-to-be-vacant Oval Office with no incumbent running.
The good news, though, is that if one of them gets in, it's a fair bet that they will only enjoy at most two years of Congressional majority, before the whole gang gets carried away with spending, liberal legislation, etc., and get the Republicans back in control of the House and Senate.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Campaign 2008: Hillary, Fund Raising and the Web
The other day, I was discussing Presidential candidates with a quasi-liberal friend. The conversation began when I mentioned having watched President Bush's recent address involving vetoing the SCHIPP bill. I'll have a separate post on that.
However, in the course of the address, Bush demonstrated very nuanced knowledge of the tax code and economics, as he explained why his hosts, who file as a SubChapter S corporation, represent a large class of taxpayers who file as individuals with small businesses.
As I discussed the liberal media's distortions and omissions in regard to Bush's record and intellect, I opined that perhaps the new wrinkle coming in the 2008 campaign will be the declining role of money.
Even my friend welcomed this.
My reasoning is as follows. More than four years ago, the internet has become the primary medium for video content distribution of political messages. It's free, controllable, and takes little money to even produce content.
Fred Thompson, a front-running Republican candidate, did not even bother to run his announcement speech on network air time. Instead, he appeared on Jay Leno's show, then ran the announcement speech on his website. I would guess it's on YouTube by now, as well.
Does it still matter that Hillary is ahead on fund raising? When I read the hand-wringing reports that Republican candidates are being out-raised and outspent by Democrats like Obama Bim Baden and Hillary, I wonder if this is the blind spot of the 2008 campaign.
After all, is big, old media really going to report on its own demise? Not likely.
Where will you hear of this shift of substantial resources and effort to the web for content and message distribution?
Not on the networks, I'd bet. And just maybe on cable news.
No, this may be a totally stealth transformation of Presidential campaign operations.
In a way, it would be just desserts for all the campaign finance 'reform' hoopla to which we've been subjected for 30 years.
I'm not saying having money to spend is inconsequential. In a tight race between two similarly-qualified and supported candidates, network and cable air time might indeed give an edge to the better-financed candidate. Even if just for street money, to get out the vote.
But I don't believe, and neither does my Democratic friend, that money can elect a bad candidate. And she doesn't even believe Hillary will win the general election, if nominated.
So suppose Obama is too green, Hillary fractures somewhere on the campaign trail. Could just money really elect John Edwards over Giuliani or Thompson?
Or even elect Hillary, if she begins to break down in the home stretch?
No, I think we may be seeing a major turning point in the democratizing of Presidential elections, without any notice from the major media. Ubiquitous computers and high-speed access allows anyone to search and find information, videos, messages, from all the candidates. On their own time, without media filtering.
If the 2004 election woke everyone up to Howard Dean's internet-based fundraising, perhaps the 2008 election will awaken the professional political campaign managers and handlers to their weakening influence.
If message distribution and consumption heads for the individual-oriented, wild west of the internet, will managed campaigns ever recover their ability to control, shape and disseminate all aspects of their candidate's utterances? Won't the omnipresent oppositions digital camcorder on the campaign trail give each candidate raw footage of each opponent?
Imagine the video messages that could fly between the two party's candidates a year from now, as each edits and presents the other's video appearances on various websites and YouTube.
The last place you may look for live campaign 'news' may be the networks. Or, as my friend opined, perhaps they will basically be reduced to covering the internet campaign duels between the competing websites.
Honestly, I think I can hardly wait for that day. The demise of the political pundits, the campaign managers, and network anchors. And the rise of individual voters to simply surf, view, and decide on their own, without so many filters.
However, in the course of the address, Bush demonstrated very nuanced knowledge of the tax code and economics, as he explained why his hosts, who file as a SubChapter S corporation, represent a large class of taxpayers who file as individuals with small businesses.
As I discussed the liberal media's distortions and omissions in regard to Bush's record and intellect, I opined that perhaps the new wrinkle coming in the 2008 campaign will be the declining role of money.
Even my friend welcomed this.
My reasoning is as follows. More than four years ago, the internet has become the primary medium for video content distribution of political messages. It's free, controllable, and takes little money to even produce content.
Fred Thompson, a front-running Republican candidate, did not even bother to run his announcement speech on network air time. Instead, he appeared on Jay Leno's show, then ran the announcement speech on his website. I would guess it's on YouTube by now, as well.
Does it still matter that Hillary is ahead on fund raising? When I read the hand-wringing reports that Republican candidates are being out-raised and outspent by Democrats like Obama Bim Baden and Hillary, I wonder if this is the blind spot of the 2008 campaign.
After all, is big, old media really going to report on its own demise? Not likely.
Where will you hear of this shift of substantial resources and effort to the web for content and message distribution?
Not on the networks, I'd bet. And just maybe on cable news.
No, this may be a totally stealth transformation of Presidential campaign operations.
In a way, it would be just desserts for all the campaign finance 'reform' hoopla to which we've been subjected for 30 years.
I'm not saying having money to spend is inconsequential. In a tight race between two similarly-qualified and supported candidates, network and cable air time might indeed give an edge to the better-financed candidate. Even if just for street money, to get out the vote.
But I don't believe, and neither does my Democratic friend, that money can elect a bad candidate. And she doesn't even believe Hillary will win the general election, if nominated.
So suppose Obama is too green, Hillary fractures somewhere on the campaign trail. Could just money really elect John Edwards over Giuliani or Thompson?
Or even elect Hillary, if she begins to break down in the home stretch?
No, I think we may be seeing a major turning point in the democratizing of Presidential elections, without any notice from the major media. Ubiquitous computers and high-speed access allows anyone to search and find information, videos, messages, from all the candidates. On their own time, without media filtering.
If the 2004 election woke everyone up to Howard Dean's internet-based fundraising, perhaps the 2008 election will awaken the professional political campaign managers and handlers to their weakening influence.
If message distribution and consumption heads for the individual-oriented, wild west of the internet, will managed campaigns ever recover their ability to control, shape and disseminate all aspects of their candidate's utterances? Won't the omnipresent oppositions digital camcorder on the campaign trail give each candidate raw footage of each opponent?
Imagine the video messages that could fly between the two party's candidates a year from now, as each edits and presents the other's video appearances on various websites and YouTube.
The last place you may look for live campaign 'news' may be the networks. Or, as my friend opined, perhaps they will basically be reduced to covering the internet campaign duels between the competing websites.
Honestly, I think I can hardly wait for that day. The demise of the political pundits, the campaign managers, and network anchors. And the rise of individual voters to simply surf, view, and decide on their own, without so many filters.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Bernie Sanders on Economics, Trade and Protectionism
Yesterday, Larry Kudlow hosted an exchange between Vermont Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and George Mason University Professor of Economics, Walter Williams.
To say that Sanders embarrassed himself by his ignorance and lack of awareness of modern economics and global realities is an understatement. Professor Williams easily made a fool of Sanders.
At one point, the Senator actually alleged that virtually all Chinese-made goods are inferior and dangerous to allow in the country, arguing, instead, that these should be made in the US. When Williams informed Sanders that he, Williams, had just purchased a Japanese-made car, Sanders expressed surprise and congratulated the Professor on finding an alternative source.
But, basically, Sanders' paean was the typical, tired leftist and socialist bromide that if only American companies would manufacture more goods onshore, we'd all be better off. Or at least Sanders' constituents would be.
Confronted with the realities of rising American manufacturing output over the past decades, with rising productivity, requiring fewer workers, Sanders missed the point. He railed at the lost jobs, rather than understanding the resulting rise in living standards brought about by this increase in productivity.
Despite Professor Williams' and Larry Kudlow's best efforts, Sanders remained resolute in his ignorance and stupidity.
What I realized, upon reflection, is not just that this Senator is, sadly, a representative of the Democratic majority in our upper chamber, with all his attendant misunderstanding of the operation of free market economics.
No, what really frightens me is that Sanders fails to distinguish between government which sets conditions, rules, and lets people create their own lives, wealth, and jobs, and government that legislates what will be made, by whom, where, and at what price.
Of course, that latter description tends toward either socialism or fascism.
By insisting that his voters must have jobs, and all US trade policy must directly ensure this, Sanders demonstrates his break with the country's actual past.
Our forefathers, who settled the Eastern seaboard, then pushed inland, were in pursuit of territory and resources with which they could fashion their own lives. They had no support network from the government. Nobody provided them with unemployment insurance, healthcare, or guaranteed jobs and wages.
Immigrants, of course, are an even more profound example of risk-taking citizens.
Now, we have Senators such as Sanders attempting to mandate industrial and trade policies to force companies to employ their voters.
They miss the fundamental fact of our free market system. Business and jobs go where necessary resources are. If Vermont workers are suitably educated and priced, and other aspects of Vermont are conducive to investment, then business will thrive there.
If not, in time, Vermonters, like their fore bearers, will pick up and move where there are jobs. Economic mobility is a key feature of our successful economic system. Our immigrant history adds to this expectation.
What Sanders and his ilk fail to realize is that our population, like our economy, is mobile and accepting of risk.
Does anyone seriously believe Bernie Sanders and 99 others like him can plan our economy better than tens of thousands of risk-taking business owners and millions of risk-taking workers? When did we come to expect certainty, either in business success, or employment?
It troubles me greatly that the perspectives, ignorance and values of Bernie Sanders, socialist, may well influence the evolution of our free market economic system in years to come, without a return to the majority of conservatives in the Congress.
To say that Sanders embarrassed himself by his ignorance and lack of awareness of modern economics and global realities is an understatement. Professor Williams easily made a fool of Sanders.
At one point, the Senator actually alleged that virtually all Chinese-made goods are inferior and dangerous to allow in the country, arguing, instead, that these should be made in the US. When Williams informed Sanders that he, Williams, had just purchased a Japanese-made car, Sanders expressed surprise and congratulated the Professor on finding an alternative source.
But, basically, Sanders' paean was the typical, tired leftist and socialist bromide that if only American companies would manufacture more goods onshore, we'd all be better off. Or at least Sanders' constituents would be.
Confronted with the realities of rising American manufacturing output over the past decades, with rising productivity, requiring fewer workers, Sanders missed the point. He railed at the lost jobs, rather than understanding the resulting rise in living standards brought about by this increase in productivity.
Despite Professor Williams' and Larry Kudlow's best efforts, Sanders remained resolute in his ignorance and stupidity.
What I realized, upon reflection, is not just that this Senator is, sadly, a representative of the Democratic majority in our upper chamber, with all his attendant misunderstanding of the operation of free market economics.
No, what really frightens me is that Sanders fails to distinguish between government which sets conditions, rules, and lets people create their own lives, wealth, and jobs, and government that legislates what will be made, by whom, where, and at what price.
Of course, that latter description tends toward either socialism or fascism.
By insisting that his voters must have jobs, and all US trade policy must directly ensure this, Sanders demonstrates his break with the country's actual past.
Our forefathers, who settled the Eastern seaboard, then pushed inland, were in pursuit of territory and resources with which they could fashion their own lives. They had no support network from the government. Nobody provided them with unemployment insurance, healthcare, or guaranteed jobs and wages.
Immigrants, of course, are an even more profound example of risk-taking citizens.
Now, we have Senators such as Sanders attempting to mandate industrial and trade policies to force companies to employ their voters.
They miss the fundamental fact of our free market system. Business and jobs go where necessary resources are. If Vermont workers are suitably educated and priced, and other aspects of Vermont are conducive to investment, then business will thrive there.
If not, in time, Vermonters, like their fore bearers, will pick up and move where there are jobs. Economic mobility is a key feature of our successful economic system. Our immigrant history adds to this expectation.
What Sanders and his ilk fail to realize is that our population, like our economy, is mobile and accepting of risk.
Does anyone seriously believe Bernie Sanders and 99 others like him can plan our economy better than tens of thousands of risk-taking business owners and millions of risk-taking workers? When did we come to expect certainty, either in business success, or employment?
It troubles me greatly that the perspectives, ignorance and values of Bernie Sanders, socialist, may well influence the evolution of our free market economic system in years to come, without a return to the majority of conservatives in the Congress.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Democratic Presidential Candidates Change Their Tune on Iraq
Did anyone else catch the Democratic hopefuls' mass change of tune on Iraq at their last Bush-bash...er.....debate?
I saw some clips of their responses on O'Reilly last week, and my jaw almost dropped.
All three Oval Office wannabes- Hillary, Obama and Edwards, when pressed, declined to promise that troops would be out of Iraq by the end of 2009.
Funny, that. Haven't they all assailed Bush constantly for keeping troops there?
Yes, when given the clear, explicit opportunity to put their money and promises where their mouths are, each one, individually, cited unforeseen circumstances and developments which might hinder their ability to implement the total withdrawal they've been pressing our sitting President to conduct.
Cynical, or just newly-cautious? I'd guess some of both, really.
All three Dems are becoming wary of the sound bite that will, well, bite her/him in the ass, come the general election campaign. None of them want to promise total withdrawal, only to have conditions change in mid-campaign, or seem too soft on terrorism.
If they are caving on such a knife's edge issue this early, what else will they waffle on in the coming months?
And what punishment will moveon.org extract from them for their transgressions?
I saw some clips of their responses on O'Reilly last week, and my jaw almost dropped.
All three Oval Office wannabes- Hillary, Obama and Edwards, when pressed, declined to promise that troops would be out of Iraq by the end of 2009.
Funny, that. Haven't they all assailed Bush constantly for keeping troops there?
Yes, when given the clear, explicit opportunity to put their money and promises where their mouths are, each one, individually, cited unforeseen circumstances and developments which might hinder their ability to implement the total withdrawal they've been pressing our sitting President to conduct.
Cynical, or just newly-cautious? I'd guess some of both, really.
All three Dems are becoming wary of the sound bite that will, well, bite her/him in the ass, come the general election campaign. None of them want to promise total withdrawal, only to have conditions change in mid-campaign, or seem too soft on terrorism.
If they are caving on such a knife's edge issue this early, what else will they waffle on in the coming months?
And what punishment will moveon.org extract from them for their transgressions?
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Bill Clinton's Continuing Scandals
Last Wednesday's Wall Street Journal featured a fascinating article describing how scandal and smarmy behavior continue to dog former President Bill Clinton.
The story involves Clinton's new right-hand man, Douglas Band, and a wannabe Italian power broker named Raffaello Follieri. It's the sort of thing that comes right out of the old nighttime television soap opera, Dallas.
Essentially, Band, who had climbed up the Clinton staff ladder to become a trusted advisor, befriended Follieri, who was on the make for important American financial and social connections.
Meanwhile, Clinton had taken a lucrative position as a partner in Yucaipa Companies, a California-based investment firm. Since he left office, Clinton has allegedly turned his and his wife's sizable personal debts into a small fortune, thanks to earning $40MM in speaking fees.
Nevertheless, Clinton turned to his partners a Yucaipa to compensate his new key man, Mr. Band, so that the latter would not take offers to return to the business world. Arrangements were made for Yucaipa to direct various payments to Band in exchange for continuing to remain as Clinton's key staffer.
Such proximity to the former President helped Band in other ways, as well. Mr. Follieri used his growing friendship with Mr. Band to secure financing from a partnership formed by Yucaipa, via Bill Clinton, to help him buy Catholic Church properties and redevelop them for commercial uses.
The Yucaipa partnership, via Ron Burkle, one of its partners, invested $100MM with Mr. Follieri's venture. Another Clinton pal, Mr. Michael Cooper, advanced more money to Follieri, allegedly causing the latter to pay Mr. Band $400,000 for his efforts in making this connection bear fruit.
It seems, though, that Mr. Follieri focused more energy and money on his offices, than on actually executing the business plan which attracted the Yucaipa funding. Somewhat cynically, Follieri had promised that the US Catholic Church, in order to pay its mounting legal bills and settlements for various transgressions by its priests, would be selling real estate to raise that cash. Follieri presented himself as having key relationships which would give him an inside track to buying and developing these properties.
However, first, Follieri secured expensive offices on Fifth Avenue in New York, as well as a penthouse space in the same building. Shortly thereafter, he moved into the penthouse. Other lavish expenses triggered a lawsuit by Mr. Burkle for misappropriation of funds from Yucaipa.
Meanwhile, Follieri used his contacts, via Mr. Band, to try to establish business ties with former Brazilian President Cardozo, as well as Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim.
Back in the original US business foray, Follieri's group did manage to buy about $50MM worth of properties near Chicago and Philadelphia. However, the pace of the purchases, and interactions with Messrs. Cooper and Burkle did not go well.
Overlaid on this, of course, is a muddle involving Follieri and Hillary Clinton's campaign. Follieri alleges that Hillary's campaign staff requested his help to woo Catholic voters, while the staffers counter that Follieri offered his help to them.
Either way, the entire mess seems to be par for the course for Slick Willy. Follieri approached him for entree to partners with more money for investments. In exchange for buying access via Clinton's key aide, Mr. Band, Follieri came away with more than $100MM from a partnership formed by Clinton's new business base. Then things fell apart, and Clinton's partners are suing the young Italian who had suddenly become part of Clinton's expanded circle of international contacts.
Pictures of Follieri and his significant other, actress Anne Hathaway, with the Clintons, are now explained with that familiar 'he gets his picture taken with lots of people whom he really doesn't know' line.
Somehow, you get the feeling that Clinton and his minions did a lot less sniffing around Follieri's past dealings than the Journal's reporters did. They carefully avoid libel, but leave the distinct impression that Follieri is an Italian on the make in the US, puffing up his prior business accomplishments, and running a very agreeable-sounding sort of con game to shake tens of millions of investment capital from gullible American financiers.
Some things don't seem to change. I saw Maria Bartiromo of CNBC interviewing Clinton last week, I suppose in connection with his big 'Clinton Global Initiative' meeting in New York. Why she, or her network, thinks Bill Clinton has the experience or background to opine on any business matter, such as the recent mortgage market meltdown, is beyond me.
It seems that scandal, losses, and shady business dealings seem to cling to Bill Clinton even now, eight years after his rather scandalous departure from the White House.
The story involves Clinton's new right-hand man, Douglas Band, and a wannabe Italian power broker named Raffaello Follieri. It's the sort of thing that comes right out of the old nighttime television soap opera, Dallas.
Essentially, Band, who had climbed up the Clinton staff ladder to become a trusted advisor, befriended Follieri, who was on the make for important American financial and social connections.
Meanwhile, Clinton had taken a lucrative position as a partner in Yucaipa Companies, a California-based investment firm. Since he left office, Clinton has allegedly turned his and his wife's sizable personal debts into a small fortune, thanks to earning $40MM in speaking fees.
Nevertheless, Clinton turned to his partners a Yucaipa to compensate his new key man, Mr. Band, so that the latter would not take offers to return to the business world. Arrangements were made for Yucaipa to direct various payments to Band in exchange for continuing to remain as Clinton's key staffer.
Such proximity to the former President helped Band in other ways, as well. Mr. Follieri used his growing friendship with Mr. Band to secure financing from a partnership formed by Yucaipa, via Bill Clinton, to help him buy Catholic Church properties and redevelop them for commercial uses.
The Yucaipa partnership, via Ron Burkle, one of its partners, invested $100MM with Mr. Follieri's venture. Another Clinton pal, Mr. Michael Cooper, advanced more money to Follieri, allegedly causing the latter to pay Mr. Band $400,000 for his efforts in making this connection bear fruit.
It seems, though, that Mr. Follieri focused more energy and money on his offices, than on actually executing the business plan which attracted the Yucaipa funding. Somewhat cynically, Follieri had promised that the US Catholic Church, in order to pay its mounting legal bills and settlements for various transgressions by its priests, would be selling real estate to raise that cash. Follieri presented himself as having key relationships which would give him an inside track to buying and developing these properties.
However, first, Follieri secured expensive offices on Fifth Avenue in New York, as well as a penthouse space in the same building. Shortly thereafter, he moved into the penthouse. Other lavish expenses triggered a lawsuit by Mr. Burkle for misappropriation of funds from Yucaipa.
Meanwhile, Follieri used his contacts, via Mr. Band, to try to establish business ties with former Brazilian President Cardozo, as well as Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim.
Back in the original US business foray, Follieri's group did manage to buy about $50MM worth of properties near Chicago and Philadelphia. However, the pace of the purchases, and interactions with Messrs. Cooper and Burkle did not go well.
Overlaid on this, of course, is a muddle involving Follieri and Hillary Clinton's campaign. Follieri alleges that Hillary's campaign staff requested his help to woo Catholic voters, while the staffers counter that Follieri offered his help to them.
Either way, the entire mess seems to be par for the course for Slick Willy. Follieri approached him for entree to partners with more money for investments. In exchange for buying access via Clinton's key aide, Mr. Band, Follieri came away with more than $100MM from a partnership formed by Clinton's new business base. Then things fell apart, and Clinton's partners are suing the young Italian who had suddenly become part of Clinton's expanded circle of international contacts.
Pictures of Follieri and his significant other, actress Anne Hathaway, with the Clintons, are now explained with that familiar 'he gets his picture taken with lots of people whom he really doesn't know' line.
Somehow, you get the feeling that Clinton and his minions did a lot less sniffing around Follieri's past dealings than the Journal's reporters did. They carefully avoid libel, but leave the distinct impression that Follieri is an Italian on the make in the US, puffing up his prior business accomplishments, and running a very agreeable-sounding sort of con game to shake tens of millions of investment capital from gullible American financiers.
Some things don't seem to change. I saw Maria Bartiromo of CNBC interviewing Clinton last week, I suppose in connection with his big 'Clinton Global Initiative' meeting in New York. Why she, or her network, thinks Bill Clinton has the experience or background to opine on any business matter, such as the recent mortgage market meltdown, is beyond me.
It seems that scandal, losses, and shady business dealings seem to cling to Bill Clinton even now, eight years after his rather scandalous departure from the White House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
