This was originally posted to the Town Hall Forum (#3474)
TO: MY DEMOCRAT FRIENDS
FROM: MARK F. (THOR) HEARNE, II
DATE: OCTOBER 11, 1996
RE: THE CASE FOR CHARACTER
"Bill Clinton would rather climb a tree to tell a lie than stand on
the
ground to tell the truth." So said an Arkansas official familiar with
Clinton on
CNN during the 1992 presidential campaign. Democrat Senator Bob Kerry
has
said,
"Clinton's an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize
that?"
Senator Kerry did not make this observation during the heat of a
primary
battle but this past January in Esquire Magazine. Kerry is not only a
Democrat Senator but is a leader of his party and Chairman of the
Democrat
Senatorial Campaign Committee. Senator Kerry knows whereof he speaks.
Forget what this says about Clinton - what does it say about us. We
are
told that Clinton is leading by a significant margin in his campaign
to
be our
next president. (51% to Dole's 38% according to last week's Wall Street
Journal/ABC poll.) We are told that "character" does not count. We are
told that a
candidate's "personal life" has no relevance to the office of
President
and
has no "traction" as a political issue. Indeed, we are even made to
feel
ashamed for raising the issue. (On July 15th Clinton said, "I think
character is a legitimate issue and I look forward to having that
discussion." But,
whenever the issue of character is mentioned Clinton dodges the
discussion
by claiming any question about his character is a viscous, Republican-
motivated "personal attack.")
Consider the current bestseller list. A list which includes an
astounding
number of books about the corruption which is the Clinton
administration.
Boy Clinton, Unlimited Access and Blood Sport are only a few. But
let's
concede
Clinton the benefit of his denials and explanations. Even by this
analysis,
in the light most favorable to Clinton and taking only those facts
Clinton has
acknowledged and granting him his spin on these facts, Clinton is
far
and
away the most dishonest president or presidential candidate in the
history of
our nation.
Assume that only 10% of what these noted authors and a career FBI
agent
relate about Bill Clinton is valid. Assume that only 10% of the drug
use,
rampant
promiscuity, financial fraud and blatant violation of state and
federal
law
are accurate. Assume only 10% of the Wall Street Journal's four-year,
two-volume documentation of Whitewater, Travelgate and FBI Filegate
is
not
innuendo and conjecture. Assume that Clinton's unlikely explanation of
Whitewater is correct. (It wasn't a crooked deal to funnel taxpayer
guaranteed funds from a Savings and Loan into his political campaign.
Rather, we are
told, Bill and Hillary, naive in matters of money -- notwithstanding
Hillary's wildly successful commodities speculation -- were duped by
the
crafty
McDougalls into a foolish real estate investment scheme funded by
kited
checks and illegal loans. Frankly, even if valid, I fail to find any
comfort in
this explanation. Do we want a sharp crook or a financially
unsophisticated waif
in charge of our national economy?)
Granted even these assumptions, impeachment should be likely,
reelection
unthinkable. Consider the following:
Richard Nixon's administration collapsed, Nixon resigned the
presidency
and
Chuck Colson was jailed over misuse of one FBI file and the related
cover-up. By contrast, Clinton and Craig Livingstone spirited away FBI
files on their
political opponents by the hundreds and the cover-up and stone-walling
continues.
Spiro Agnew resigned the vice-presidency over charges of tax evasion
stemming from $16,000 he accepted from contractors when he was
Governor
of Maryland.
By contrast, Clinton has conceded that he filed misleading tax returns
that
did not properly disclose illegal loans made by a now-defunct S&L the
proceeds
of which were used in his campaign for Governor. The reason he is not
charged
with tax evasion is that he released the tax returns after the
statute
of
limitations had expired. Equally well established is the fact that
Hillary
enjoyed more than $100,000 in "profits" steered to her from
commodities
trading orchestrated by Tyson Foods in exchange for favorable
treatment
accorded Tyson Foods by her husband the Governor.
Gary Hart bowed out of the 1988 presidential race because of one wild
weekend in the Bahamas and a sleep- over in Washington D.C.. By
contrast,
Clinton
is being sued in federal court for enticing a young woman - against
her
wishes
-- into his hotel room, dropping his trousers and suggesting she
engage
in a
lurid sex act. Clinton's known sex-partners could form a single-file
line
longer than the inaugural parade route. (At least JFK was honest
about
his
philandering. During a 1961 meeting in Bermuda with British Prime
Minister
Harold McMillian Kennedy said, "I wonder how it is with you, Harold?
If
I
don't have a woman for three days, I get terrible headaches.")
Ginsburg is not a member of the U.S. Supreme Court because he used
marijuana during college. By contrast, during Clinton's term national
drug use has
doubled due to Clinton eviscerating drug enforcement. Remember also
Josalyn
Elders, Clinton's selection for Surgeon General. In addition to her
crusade
to distribute condoms (for which she earned the moniker "the Rubber
Maid") and
to have mast. taught in public schools, she campaigned for the
legalization of
drugs. During her term as Clinton's Surgeon General, Elders son was
convicted of felony cocaine and crack distribution. (If she couldn't
keep
her own son
from pushing crack, how could she be expected to reduce national
drug
use?)
It is simply beyond belief that, with someone of Elder's views as his
pick for
the nation's chief medical officer, Clinton expects us to believe he
truly
wants to battle illegal drugs.
On a personal level Clinton acknowledges that he used marijuana but
claims
he "didn't inhale". Yet in an MTV interview with high school students
Clinton
states that if he had it do over again he, "probably should have
inhaled."
Roger Clinton described his brother's appetite for cocaine by
stating,
"He
(Bill Clinton) has a nose like a Hoover." (Referring to the vacuum
cleaner
not the president. who preceded Roosevelt.) But, we can discount this
allegation because Roger Clinton, along with Friend Of Bill Dan
Lasater,
have been
convicted of felony drug charges for the distribution of cocaine.
(As an entry for the "How'd They Do That" file consider this: Roger
Clinton
served only two years for his cocaine distribution charges and Dan
Lasater
served only six months. Roger cut a deal with the prosecutor to
testify
against Lasater. Lasater was convicted but pardoned by Governor
Clinton.
(Clinton says the pardon was so Lassater could qualify for a hunting
license.)
However, even as Lasater was being investigated for drug dealing
Clinton's
Arkansas Finance Authority awarded Lasater authority to underwrite a
$30
million bond issue. An undertaking for which Lasater pocketed
$750,000.
The
purpose of this bond issue for which the state of Arkansas awarded
$750,000
to a drug dealer? An Arkansas state police communication facility.
Clinton's
pardon of Lasater raises an interesting point. Why won't Clinton
promise to
not pardon Susan McDougal (who is currently in jail because she
refuses
to
testify about Clnton's role in the Whitewater scandal) and other
Whitewater
defendants? Clinton has already indicated a willingness to put the
power of
a presidential pardon to a personal purpose. Clinton has pardoned Jack
Pakis
a Hot Springs, Arkansas bookie and close friend of the Clinton family.
Given this, why is Clinton the favored candidate for president? Have
our
standards for the office of president fallen this far this fast?
What
does
it say about us and our esteem for our nation that we would trust Bill
Clinton
with the United State of America.
A question should be asked of each vice-presidential candidate in the
upcoming debate. "Would you want your daughter to marry a man with the
personal
character of your running mate?" Recall the question to Mike Dukasis
about
how he would view the death penalty if his wife itty was raped. Well,
why
not a
similar question to Hillary. How would she feel if Chelsea brought
home
a
boyfriend with the same character and integrity as Bill Clinton?
(Some
may
be upset with me for bringing Hillary into the discussion. After all,
they may
retort, she is not running for office. Would it have been fair they
ask
to
deny Lincoln the presidency because Mary Todd was a lunatic? To which
I
reply, Yes, if Lincoln had threatened to put Mary Todd in charge of
the
Union Army
as Clinton tried to do with Hillary and health care.)
Two responses, and only two responses, are possible. One, all the
charges
against Clinton are false and Clinton is, in truth, a noble and
honest
-
though much maligned - man. (This is the official White House
position.)
Two, the charges are, in whole or part, true but it just doesn't matter.
Clinton's character is irrelevant to his fitness to serve as president.
If you opt for option number one, "Clinton is a wrongly- maligned
honest
man", than you probably also thought O.J. Simpson was framed. Halley
Barber's
line, "Clinton may not believe anything but his friends have
convictions
- for
bank fraud, embezzlement, conspiracy..." resonates because it is true.
Two-thirds of the Rose law firm, the source of Clinton's closest
colleagues
including his wife, are either dead under suspicious circumstances
(Vince
Foster), in jail after serving in the Clinton administration (Webster
Hubble) or under indictment or investigation by a special prosecutor
(William
Kennedy). A similar fate has befallen many of Clinton's other top
advisors.
Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros and Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy
subject to independent counsel investigation; former Commerce
Secretary
Ron Brown
subject to an independent counsel investigation prior to his death;
Clinton
understudy and friend Arkansas Governor Guy Tucker and Clinton
business
partners Jim and Susan McDougal jailed for 24 count conviction for
bank
fraud and conspiracy. Clinton testified on behalf of the McDougals and
Governor
Tucker. After the trial, jurors told reporters that they did not
believe
Clinton's testimony and several jurors stated that, based upon the
evidence
they considered, Clinton was definitely involved in the wrongdoing.
It is simply not possible to consider the incredible number of
Friends
Of
Bill who are under indictment, under investigation by independent
counsel, in
jail or awaiting sentencing and conclude that all the charges against
Clinton
are false.
Clinton apologists reply that it is unfair to paint Clinton with the
same
brush as his jailed colleagues. Democrat Senator Chris Dodd claims
that
to
view Clinton in light of his friends is to engage in "guilt by
association".
These defenders argue that Clinton has just suffered the misfortune of
being surrounded by dishonest people and is not, himself, dishonest.
This
explanation, even if credible, is of little comfort. Do we want as
president a man so lacking in judgment that he has a profoundly
uncanny
ability to
choose as his closest advisors a collection of crooks and felons.
Bluntly put, Bill Clinton is an unmitigated, dissembling liar. What
Clinton
says is meant to deceive not to inform. During an interview on
September
23rd with PBS's Jim Lehrer Clinton said, "There is not a single
solitary
shred
of evidence of anything dishonest that I have done in my public life."
Most of
us hearing this proclamation would understand it to be a blanket
denial
of any
wrongdoing. Clinton clearly intended to communicate this
understanding.
However, reread Clinton's statement. "There is not a single solitary
shred
of evidence...." Clinton does not deny dishonestly, rather he denies
that
there is any evidence of his dishonesty. Quite a different proposition.
Continuing with a further qualification Clinton said, "...that I have
done in my
public life." The injection of "public life" presumes a distinction
with
Clinton's
private life. Given the mountainous evidence of Clinton's
dishonestly,
we
can only conclude that Clinton believes using drugs, funding his
Arkansas
gubernatorial campaigns, funding his presidential campaign, managing
the
WhiteHouse travel office and FBI files and formulating national
policy
are
all part of his private life.
Option Two, "Clinton is dishonest but character doesn't count when
choosing
the President", is equally untenable. Consider the purpose of the
election.
For starters, this November we will decide who will take the
constitutionally prescribed oath next January. A candidate for
president
does not become
president by winning the election. The candidate must also take the
oath of
office and does not become president until he does so. (Recall the
photograph of Lyndon Johnson taking the oath of office in Air Force
One
on the tarmac
in Dallas standing next to a blood- splattered Jackie Kennedy.)
We do not make much of oaths now days. Yet, the men who crafted our
form of
government, founded our nation and authored the Constitution placed
great
significance on oaths and, correspondingly, the integrity of the
individual
taking the oath. A man's honesty and integrity were vitally
important
to
our founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democrat party,
wrote,
"We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred
Honor."
Of what value is Bill Clinton's "sacred honor" and to what cause
would
he
pledge it? (Obviously not his wife, nor his country when called to
military
service.) More importantly, would you believe him if he did?
This is a more troubling question for my principled liberal friends.
(Especially for those who make so much of Republican scandals
whether
it be
Watergate, Iran- Contra or the Teapot Dome.) The most outrageous
Republican
is a piker compared to the mythomaniacs, miscreants and poltroons which
populate the Clinton administration. (Will someone please tell me George
Stephanopoulos's job description and how whatever it is he does
furthers
the legitimate business of the presidency.)
Those Democrats who support Clinton (and their allies in the media who
overlook the Clinton scandals) have lost the right to ever again
mention
Watergate, Iran-Contra or any other allegation of Republican
corruption.
Most liberals acknowledge Clinton's fundamental dishonesty. However,
they
appear willing to tolerate or overlook his moral failings because they
believe Clinton will advance a liberal ideology and Bob Dole will
oppose
the
liberal's agenda. But, in choosing Clinton as their standard bearer,
what
are
liberals saying about their own integrity and the validity of their
ideology?
How can the noble ideals proffered by the liberal be reconciled with
the
tawdry and untrustworthy reputation of their candidate? What does is
say
about the validity of liberalism that the adherents chosen advocate is a
consummate fraud? In choosing Clinton as their candidate (a candidate
who
liberals
support because they believe he will govern with a liberal bent even
though
he publicly campaigns as a conservative) aren't liberals saying that
their
agenda is best advanced by disguising and concealing their ideology
and,
by
implication, recognizing that if American voters truly appreciated the
liberal agenda they will reject the ideology?
If I believed I had a worthy policy to advance I would not choose an
unworthy spokesman to advance the policy lest the message be sullied
by
the
messenger. If I was trying to sell a drug to cure cancer I wouldn't
choose Jack
Kavorkian to be my spokesman.
Indeed, Clinton's failure to keep the faith even with political
bed-mates
is why two high-ranking administration officials resigned when Clinton
signed
the Republican welfare reform bill. A bill that Clinton had previously
promised
to veto. Abandoning Clinton is the only rational response available to
honest
liberals who truly believe in the merits of their ideology.
Others don't defend Clinton but disparage us. They argue:
"So what if Clinton lies, uses drugs and cheats on his spouse, most
American's behave this way and it is hypocritical to hold a leader to
a
standard
higher than the standard by which we measure our own behavior."
While I don't agree that Clinton's behavior is characteristic of the
typical American, I will grant this point for the sake of argument.
Granted even
that assertion, I dispute the central premise. Americans aspire to
greatness and
have always been an optimistic people. Our leaders should be the
best
from
among us not the worst.
A far sadder event than a second Clinton term will be a second
Clinton
term
because a majority of Americans believe a man of Clinton's integrity
is
representative of the character of our nation.
It has been said that hypocrisy is vice's tribute to virtue. Well,
if
so,
Clinton should be Master of Ceremonies hosting a Telethon for Virtue.
Within hours of being elected president Clinton proclaimed that his
administration
would be the most ethical ever. This promise was made in the context
of
Clinton's campaign attacks upon the Bush administration for, what
Clinton
claimed was, unethical behavior such as the State Department
official
who
allegedly tried to pull Clinton's visa file and document Clinton's
trip
to
the Soviet Union during the time Clinton was leading anti-American
rallies
overseas. Clinton was "shocked" at the Bush campaign's "outrageous"
use
of
official personnel and records to gain an advantage on a political
adversary. Clinton can not understand, however, why everyone seems so
exercised about
the hundreds of FBI files on Republican opponents he and Craig
Livingstone have
squirreled away in the White House.
What does it mean when the victor of this fall's campaign will take
the
oath of office to lead our nation into the next millennium? For me I
want
to
believe the man who places his hand on the Bible and says, "I do
solemnly
swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the
United
States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and
defend
the Constitution of the United States."
November 5th is national examination day. The question is one of
character.
Not Clinton's character but our character; our character as a nation
and as
individual voters. And, if the answer is Bill Clinton, we all fail.
Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, II
|