>MEMORANDUM
>
>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 masturbation 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 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
>Kitty 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 Livingston 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
>Thornet@ix.netcom.com
>October 11, 1996
>Permission is granted to freely copy and distribute this
>memorandum.


