When Bill Clinton was first elected president in 1992, every Democrat
wanted to be an F.O.B. (Friend of Bill). That was then; this is now.
The Sept. 25 edition of the New York Times contained a fascinating
article about the beginning of the end of the Clinton Empire. For the
rest of this column, I will share parts of the Times article and talk
about their implications.
Under the headline, “Clintons Said to Have Unsuccessfully Sought
House Aid From Ex-Aides,” Don Van Natta Jr. of the New York Times
reported that:
- “In the tense days and hours before and after they signed an
agreement
to buy a white house in Chappaqua, N.Y., for $1.7 million, President
Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton sought financial assistance from
former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and two former White
House chiefs of staff, according to several people with knowledge of
the arrangement.
“But Rubin, as well as the chiefs of staff, Thomas F. McLarty III and
Erskine B. Bowles, declined to help the Clintons buy the first home
they will own since 1983, several people with knowledge of the
requests said today. They said that Bowles had originally committed to
being the guarantor but declined on Sept. 1, just three days after the
Clintons signed an agreement to buy the house under the condition their
loan would be guaranteed.”
Apparently, the Clintons thought they could turn to former
employees for “financial assistance” in buying a millionaire’s home.
Maybe that’s the way things are done in Arkansas, but it sure looks and
feels like a “shake down” to the rest of us. No one, not even the
Clintons, would shop for a house without assurances that they could get
financing. Erskine Bowles had to know that. So why did he turn his
back on them after the sellers had accepted their offer?
The Times continues that once their first former chief of staff,
Erskine Bowles, turned them down:
- “The couple then quickly put out feelers to Rubin and McLarty
before
finally asking Terry McAuliffe, the prolific Democratic fund-raiser,
who agreed to guarantee the Clintons’ mortgage by depositing $1.35
million in the bank as collateral.
“The McAuliffe guarantee was criticized by Republicans and public
watchdog groups because McAuliffe is also raising millions for the
Clintons’ legal defense fund, the Clinton Presidential library to be
built
in Little Rock, Ark., and the First Lady’s all-but-certain Senate
campaign in New York State. Now, three people knowledgeable about
the matter say, the Clintons are considering seeking a mortgage from a
different lender who would not require collateral. That would eliminate
McAuliffe’s role.”
The Clintons were clearly so confident that Bowles would finance
the deal that they had not developed any backup plans. Why were they so
sure of Bowles’ money? And why, when three “friends” turned them down,
did they turn to a current employee? Remember, McAuliffe is raising
money for Bill’s legal defense fund and presidential library, for
Hillary’s Senate run and for the DNC. The ethical implications for a
sitting president asking for a “personal favor” from this Democrat fund
raiser are stunning.
More from the Times:
- “It had not been known publicly that the Clintons, apparently
through
intermediaries, had sought help from both Rubin and McLarty. The
Washington Post previously reported that Bowles had agreed, then
refused to assist the Clintons before McAuliffe stepped in earlier this
month to put up his own money to cover the full value of the Clintons’
mortgage with Bankers Trust.
“None of the three would comment on the matter and it was not clear
why they all turned the Clintons down. McAuliffe also would not
comment.
‘The Clintons, indebted by $5 million in legal bills, have slightly
more
than $1 million in assets, according to their most recent financial
disclosure report, made public in May.
“Leaders of several public watchdog groups said that the refusals by
McLarty and Rubin demonstrate that the favor done by McAuliffe was
even more important to the Clintons than anyone had first realized.”
It is not surprising that no one knew about the Clintons begging
for help to buy their new home. What is surprising is that the word got
out. Who told the press? Why did they want the world to know that the
Clintons had been rebuffed? Why did Rubin and two former White House
chiefs of staff say no to their former boss? What message were they
sending to Democrat Party leaders? What message were they sending to
the rest of the world?
The New York Times article becomes even more interesting when we
learn that collectively, the three men who said no to the Clintons have
a net worth in excess of a quarter of a billion dollars.
- “Rubin, the chief architect of the Clinton Administration’s
economic
policy, resigned from the Cabinet in July. Before joining the
administration, he was co-chairman of Goldman, Sachs & Company,
the investment banking firm, and reported making $26.5 million in
1992. Several years ago, his net worth, mostly in family trusts, was
estimated to be $100 million.
“McLarty’s net worth was recently estimated to be $107 million. Last
year, he sold a 51 percent interest in his 19 auto dealerships in
Arkansas to Asbury Automotive Group of Pennsylvania.
“Bowles did not return several calls this week.
“A longtime confidant of Clinton, he is a general partner at the New
York buyout firm of Forstmann Little & Company.
“In his 1997 financial disclosure report, Bowles estimated his
family’s
net worth at $30 million to $60 million.”
If the three of them had split the bill, they wouldn’t even have
noticed the cost of bailing out Bill. The fact that they said no speaks
volumes. Each one of them became a household name because of Bill and
Hillary. It would have been understandable for these wealthy men to
help their president. But they didn’t. They said no. Think about the
chill this message has sent through the Gore camp and the rest of the
Democrat establishment. Did these guys say no because they know that
something bad is getting ready to happen?
The Times article said that:
- “Two people close to the Clintons said today that the couple was
now
considering taking out a mortgage with another bank that will not
require collateral. The Clintons intend to put down $350,000 as a
deposit, or more than 20 percent of the cost. Jim Kennedy, a
spokesman for the White House counsel’s office, declined to comment.
“The Clintons’ unorthodox financing arrangement has drawn harsh
criticism from several Republicans, including Mayor Rudolph W.
Giuliani of New York, who, like the First Lady, is considering a bid for
United States Senate next year. “A million-three is a lot of money;
somebody putting it in the bank for you is quite unusual,” Giuliani said
last week on his radio show.
“One person close to the First Family said that the Clintons,
especially
Mrs. Clinton, had been genuinely concerned that they might not qualify
for a mortgage. In August, several mortgage lenders contacted by the
New York Times said that despite the Clintons’ enormous legal bills,
the couple would have no problem qualifying for an unsecured
mortgage because they would almost certainly earn millions of dollars
from book contracts, speaking engagements and service on corporate
boards.”
Everyone knows that the Clintons will make millions when they
leave office. So why didn’t they just arrange traditional financing
with a bank or a mortgage company? What would cause them to ask
“friends” for money? Why did they want to avoid giving a financial
institution detailed information about their finances?
The New York Times article continued with an interesting insight into
the First Lady’s state of mind.
- “[When] the Clintons learned that Bowles had decided not to back
the
loan [they] quickly tried to find someone else to back the mortgage. As
they put out feelers to Rubin and McLarty, the Clintons worried that
they might not find a guarantor and could lose the house.
“It weighed very heavily on Hillary,” said one person close to the
Clintons. “She was very worried that they were going to lose the house.
She was distraught.”
The New York Times article shows that there still are real
journalists in America. Although they printed the story last Saturday,
the day of the week when Americans buy the fewest newspapers, they
printed it. This story connects the dots and follows the money. It
also exposes the wide gap between the rhetoric of the Clintons and their
reality.
Bill and Hillary are the leaders of the attack on wealth and
success. What many Americans never realized, however, was that these
so-called advocates-for-the-poor surrounded themselves with more
millionaires on their first Cabinet than former President Bush. Now, I
have nothing against people making it in business. I am a capitalist
and believe making it big is the American dream. What I resent is
people who try to have it both ways.
Second, it sure seems as though the Clintons were trying to shake
down their millionaire former staffers. It was almost as though they
were saying, we made you famous, now write us a one-point three million
dollar check.
Third, the refusal of men worth more than a quarter of a billion
dollars, collectively, to loan the Clintons anything speaks volumes.
Maybe this is their way of punishing the Clintons for what they have
done to America. Maybe this is their way of saying, “we are disgusted
with your sexual perversions.” Or maybe they were just saying, “we
earned our money the hard way, you do the same.”
Whatever their reasons, when all three turned their backs on the
Clintons for what amounted to spending change, they sent a clear and
very loud message to all Democrats. That message is:
The Titanic has hit the iceberg and it is sinking. All rats, excuse
me, I mean, all F.O.B.s, abandon ship.
