Defining the clintons and clintonism: Nov. 5, 2002 and Q ERTY

I think that history will view this much differently. They will say I made a bad personal mistake, I paid a serious price for it, but that I was right to stand and fight for my country and my constitution and its principles...

-----the First Psychopath, himself

...[bill clinton], a man who will be regarded in the history books as one of our greatest presidents.

-----Al Gore at clinton's post-impeachment rally

I suspect that, to spite us all, Arthur Schlesinger will live to 120 just so he can write the definitive clinton hagiography.

--------Mia T, Musings: Senatorial Courtesy Perverted

History Lesson

by Mia T

Someone--was it Maupassant?--

once called history "that excitable and lying old lady."

The same can be said of historians.

Surely it can be said of Doris Kearns Goodwin,

the archetypical pharisaical historian,

not-so-latently clintonoid,

Lieberman-Paradigmatic

(i.e., clinton is an unfit president;

therefore clinton must remain president),

intellectually dishonest,

(habitually doing what the Arthur Schlesingers of this world do:

making history into the proof of their theories).

The Forbids 400's argument is shamelessly spurious.

They get all unhinged over the impeachment of clinton,

claiming that it will

"leave the presidency permanently disfigured and diminished,

at the mercy as never before of the caprices of any Congress."

Yet they dismiss the real and present--and future!!--danger

to the presidency and the country

of not impeaching and removing

this admittedly unfit, (Goodwin)

"documentably dysfunctional," (The New York Times)

presidency-diminishing, (Goodwin)

power-abusing,

psychopathic thug.

Doris Kearns Goodwin and those 400 other

hog-and-bow-tied-save-clinton,

retrograde-obsessing historiographers

are a supercilious, power-hungry,

egomaniacal lot in their own right.

For them, clinton validates

what Ogden Nash merely hypothesized:

Any buffoon can make history,

but only a great man can write it.

QWER•TY (kwûr'tee) adj.
Of, relating to, or designating the traditional configuration of typewriter or computer keyboard keys. [From the first six letters at the upper left.]

Q ERTY Series: The Inspiration

No Joke

Those who trashed the White House were vicious vandals, not merry pranksters.

BY TUNKU VARADARAJAN
Monday, January 29, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST
The Wall Street Journal

What is a "prank"? And when does a prank take on a darker hue and
merit, instead, a less indulgent label--such as "delinquency," or
"vandalism"?

These questions, whose answers are rooted in common sense, culture and
civilization, were raised last week by revelations first detailed on the
Internet by Matt Drudge, for whose insolent, frontiersman's approach to
newsgathering we continue to be grateful. He's not always right, and
he's not always elegant, but he bawls his tales from the rafters when
others, more timorous and more conventional, would only mince their
words, or whisper.

Although the mainstream press echoed the story only reluctantly, and
sought to draw its sting by downgrading it to the status of rumor, the
contents of the Drudge report seemed to be unquestionably consonant with
the tone, the oh-so-jarring tone, struck, in their departure from the
White House, by the Clinton cohorts--from the strutting
self-congratulation of the ex-president at Andrews Air Force Base (like
a weed, he'd taken root, and like a weed he called to be ripped from the
soil beneath him), to the stripping bare of the former Air Force One by
the ex-presidential locusts.

According to reports, outgoing Clinton-Gore staffers at the White House
performed a range of "pranks," including the prizing out from many White
House computer keyboards of the W (Dubya) key, the gluing shut of
drawers on office desks, the infecting of computers with viruses, the
recording of offensive reception messages on the answering machines, the
slashing (yes, slashing) of telephone lines, the loading of pornographic
images on printers and computers, offensive graffiti on corridors and
bathroom walls, the turning upside down of desks, and, as a valedictory
signature, the leaving of a trail of trash across the West Wing.

Mr. Drudge, the only one to quantify the damage publicly, has put the
monetary estimate--in terms of its cost to the taxpayer--at $200,000.
There is some speculation that this is a conservative estimate...

In the context of the White House, any harm or damage must be construed
to include the infliction of a burden on the taxpayer--not to mention
the interference, however temporary, with the business of government.

...the slashing of phone lines? The gluing shut of desk drawers? The
gouging out from keyboards of the W key? The infection of computers
with viruses? The redirection of official phone lines, on which the
public and government rely? These, I fear, violate the prankster's
rulebook. They caused damage; lines, desks, computers and keyboards
needed repair and replacement. My money, and yours, was used for this
repair.

Most shabby of all, however, was the perpetrators' intent. A true
prank--a prank properly defined--is carried out in a jocular spirit.
Pranks are escapades, monkeyshines. They're not acts of venom or spite,
of resentment or ill-will. If the actor is malefic, he is not a
prankster but a vandal. He is, in truth, a delinquent.

That's what I learned in grade school, and I commend that interpretation
to you.

Mr. Varadarajan is deputy editorial features editor of The Wall Street Journal. His column appears Mondays.

I would argue with Mr. Varadarajan's contention that mens rea must be considered and that the absence of malicious intent reduces the act to mere prank. Such an argument runs contrary to the concept of strict liability crimes. That doctrine (Park v United States, (1974) 421 US 658,668) established the principle of 'strict liability' or 'liability without fault' in certain criminal cases, usually involving crimes which endanger the public welfare.

"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters."

- Frank Lloyd Wright

Someone recently tested the monkeys-on-typewriters bit trying for the plays of Will Shakespeare, but all they got were the plays of bill clinton.

clinton hunt-and-peck
Q ERTY1
Q ERTY2
Q ERTY3
Q ERTY4
Q ERTY5
Q ERTY6
Q ERTY7
Q ERTY8
Q ERTY9

Excellent.

Did you see this? I like the comparison list the best...

Dubya's love defined clinton hate

Dubya's courage defined clinton cowardice

Dubya's character defined clinton corruption

BTTT

Fantastic and enjoyable as always. Thanks!

bump

Thank you for the ping - what a wonderful post. With the advent of the 9th circuit court allowing Flowers to go ahead with her suit against Hillary, et. al., the Clintons can be further defined by an endearing Flowers' comment. (It's a bit trashy, my apologies, but they are Clintons after all.) Gennifer states "Bill is hung like a hamster."

Brilliant Bump!

Love your posts Mia T! Clintonism is a form of marxist/totalitarianism... they are not liberals.

They are akin to a sucker-type fish that feeds off of a shark... can't remember the name.

In 2004, they will be back and Bill will pimp the “beast”. All to gain and nothing to lose.

Oh the delicious irony!
Clinton's self-glorifying book isn't even written and already it's obsolete.

Without criticism, without malicious intent, strictly by comparison, President Bush is defining the Clinton presidency.

Clinton's book might well be titled, "My Shriveling Legacy"

That would be the remora and a perfect analogy:

Thank you Quilla.

Go, Mia!!!!! Beautifully done! Hallelujah!

LOL, Quilla--the shark/remora picture reminded me that hubby's teenage nickname (ala his best friend) was The Remora. Apparently when they'd be hanging out at a party, hubby would take advantage of any "cast-off" chicks that his friend wasn't interested in. As his friend said, "He didn't actually harm the host, but benefitted by being around him." To this day his friend still calls hubby "The Remora-cizer." LOL!

Oh yeah, loved you post, MiaT--excellent work as usual!!

A man walked into a cowboy bar near Snyder, TX and ordered a beer just as former President Clinton appeared on the television. After a few sips, he looked up at the television and mumbled, "Now, there's the biggest horse's ass I've ever seen." A customer at the end of the bar quickly stood up, walked over to him, and decked him.

A few minutes later, as the man was finishing his beer, Hillary Clinton appeared on the television. "She's a horse's ass too," the man said. This time, a customer at the other end of the bar quickly stood up, walked over to him and knocked him flat. The man said, climbing back up to the bar, "This must be Clinton country!"

"Nope,........." the bartender replied, "Horse country!"

(;>)

Hysterical!

googling "The Incredible Shrinking Legacy" found me nothing, so I hereby bequeath it to Bill Clinton. But I did find this oh so clever hitpiece on President Bush:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn0618.html

June 18, 2002
Bring Out the Booster Chair for Jr.
THE INcredible Shrinking President
by Alexander Cockburn

(Pardon me while I LMAO at the incredibly shrunk Cockburn)

Oh the delicious irony!
Clinton's self-glorifying book isn't even written and already it's obsolete.

Without criticism, without malicious intent, strictly by comparison, President Bush is defining the Clinton presidency.
Clinton's book might well be titled, "My Shriveling Legacy"

11 posted on 11/13/2002 10:31 AM EST by YaYa123

Q ERTY8 bump!
Given the clintons' obsolescence, do you think the Simon & Schuster gang will demand the return the $20-plus million???

Is hillary clinton's $8M "book advance" a Peter-Principle artifact?

For anyone who has wondered why Simon & Schuster would award an $8M "Book Advance" for the memoirs of someone whose prevarication and/or amnesia are exceeded only by her banality, I offer the following analysis:

Proposition: hillary clinton's interregnal $8M "book advance" is a Peter-Principle artifact.

Given:

Knowledge is Power.

Time is Money.

Work/Time = Power

Proof:

Knowledge = Power -->
Knowledge = Work/Time -->
Knowledge = Work/Money -->
lim (Knowledge) as Money approaches infinity = 0 -->

The less you know, the more you make. -->

Conclusion:
hillary clinton's interregnal $8M "book advance" is a Peter-Principle artifact.

Q.E.D

ex libris

by Mia T
The teeth-gnashing on Monday when the news was out about Clinton's advance was mostly by people who
a) didn't think Clinton should monetize the kind of thing that made him infamous, and
b) felt it was yet one more affront on the public that the price was probably right.
That last isn't a learned exploration of the economics of publishing, it's just a hunch. Publishing economics -- unlike what it is that brings the public to buy a book -- is not inscrutable. The author's royalty is 15 percent.

If Clinton's book sells for $30, he makes $4.50 from every sale. Times
a thousand, that's $4,500. Times 100,000, that's $450,000. Say a
half-million, to round things up a bit. So he'd have to sell 24 x
100,000 to earn the advance. Well, that's not going to happen, but
great chunks can be got from foreign sales, magazines, book clubs,
paperback editions.

Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. is stretching it, but they're rich, rich Germans
own it, and a sister publisher already paid $8 million for Hillary -- why
not a little competition at the bookstore?

The extra-economic resentment has to do with a wobbly extension of the federal rule that you are not allowed to profit from a crime.

Wrong Way Corrigan Rides Again:

Adding up the Clinton book deal

William F. Buckley

National Review

COMMENT:
So why did the Simon & Schuster gang shell out $20-plus million to two crooks whose prevarication and/or amnesia are exceeded only by their banality?

These "book advances" can be no less than payoffs, retroactive in one case, preemptive in the other. (As for the Gingrich precedent: That hillary clinton was 16 days short of taking office when the deal was consummated is quite irrelevant. Simon & Schuster is to CBS as Murdoch is to FOX.)

Because the deals give each clinton the largest advance ever for an elected official, because they are very large payments from a corporate favor-seeker--indeed, the SAME corporate favor-seeker, because the clintons demanded the $20-plus million up front, because the deal was negotiated by a First -- uh -- Lady in the White House, because in both cases it is the selling of the corrupting of the presidency, the clinton "book deals" fail the smell test not to mention the "usual and customary" test, a key phrase in Rule 36 of the Senate Ethics Manual that refers to publishing profits. The clinton "book deals" are sui generis; they are not "usual and customary."

SUGGESTIONS:

1- A less wobbly extension of the federal rule that you are not allowed to profit from a crime: the clintons' profits belong to the clintons' victims -- us. Invoke that extension of the federal rule.

2- Boycott anything connected to the clintons or the Simon & Schuster group.

3- Remain alert to instances of future conflicts of interest that signal a quid pro quo. hillary clinton, for example, must recuse herself whenever a Simon & Schuster et al. matter comes before the Senate.

NYTimes

February 17, 2001

Senator Clinton's Book Deal

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is understandably pleased by the approval

she received on Wednesday from the Senate Ethics Committee for her $8

million deal to sell her memoirs. In finding that the transaction

passes muster under the Senate's rules governing book deals, the

committee essentially supported Mrs. Clinton's contention that both her

auction of the book to the highest bidder and the terms governing her

advance payments conformed to "usual and customary" publishing practice,

the Senate's standard for assessing members' book agreements.

According to a statement issued by her lawyer, Robert Barnett, Mrs.

Clinton has already received one-third of the $8 million advance. Under

the terms of the contract, the remaining payments will be spread out

over the next several years, presumably timed to coincide with various

milestones toward the manuscript's completion. Regrettably, Mrs.

Clinton still declines to reveal the full details of her contract or to

release her submission to the committee.

The positive finding by the Ethics Committee amounts to an assessment

that Mrs. Clinton's contract deal with Simon & Schuster, a publishing

company owned by the media giant Viacom, conforms to Senate rules. It

does not solve the underlying problem with the deal -- that it is utterly

inappropriate for a senator to enter into a multimillion-dollar business

transaction with a conglomerate that has a slew of issues coming before

Congress. If Mrs. Clinton were a member of the House her deal would be

prohibited. We continue to hope that the Senate will adopt the House

policy of restricting members' payments to royalties on books actually

sold.

12-22-00

The Times Reaps What It Sowed

December 22, 2000
The New York Times

Mrs. Clinton's Book Deal

rs. Clinton's Book Deal
We are sorry to see Hillary Rodham Clinton start her Senate career by selling a memoir of her years as first lady to Simon & Schuster for a near- record advance of about $8 million. The deal may conceivably conform to the lax Senate rules on book sales, though even that is uncertain. But it would unquestionably violate the tougher, and better, House rules, and it is an affront to common sense. No lawmaker should accept a large, unearned sum from a publisher whose parent company, Viacom, is vitally interested in government policy on issues likely to come before Congress ó for example, copyright or broadcasting legislation.
Mrs. Clinton's staggering advance falls just below the $8.5 million received by Pope John Paul II in 1994. We wish as a matter of judgment that she had not sought an advance but had voluntarily limited her payments to royalties on actual book sales, as the House now requires of its members. That way there would be no worry that she had been given special treatment in an effort to curry political favor.
The Senate will judge Mrs. Clinton's deal in the context of outmoded rules that, regrettably, still permit members to accept advance payments for their books provided they fall within "usual and customary" industry patterns. Mrs. Clinton held an open auction for her book, so the $8 million advance emerged from a process that presumably represented the industry's consensus about what the book would be worth. But Mrs. Clinton has a duty to reveal the entire contents of her contract so that the public and members of the Senate Ethics Committee can judge for themselves whether its terms fulfill her pledge to comply with existing Senate rules, inadequate though they are.
As it is, Mrs. Clinton will enter the Senate as a business associate of a major company that has dealings before many regulatory agencies and interests in Congress. It would have been far better if she had avoided this entanglement. As she above all others should know, not every deal that is legally permissible is smart for a politician who wants and needs to inspire public trust.
Only a few years ago Newt Gingrich, at that time the House speaker, accepted an ethically dubious $4.5 million book deal with a publishing house owned by Rupert Murdoch, an aggressively political publisher seeking help with his problems with federal regulators. This was the issue that ultimately forced Mr. Gingrich to abandon his advance, and led the House to ban all advance payments for members' books.
That is the right approach, and it would be nice if Republican critics of Mrs. Clinton's deal now devoted real energy to persuading the Senate to adopt the House rules for the future. Both bodies need maximum protection against entangling alliances between lawmakers and government favor- seekers now that nearly all major publishing houses are owned by large corporations with a lot of business before Congress.
RE: Newt Gingrich's $4.5 million book deal:

JAMES CARVILLE: This is the first guy who tried to cash in before he was
sworn in.

BILL CLINTON: [I don't] even know how to think in these terms.

REP DAVID BONIER: This is an arrogant act for a man who's about to
assume one of the most powerful positions and offices in our land.
Before he gets to the public business, he's taking care of his own
private profits.

REP CARRIE MEEK: Exactly who does this speaker really work for? Is it
the American people or his New York publishing house?

REP CHARLES RANGEL: Why doesn't Newt end this by giving the $4.5 million
to Boys Town?

HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE: The committee strongly questions the
appropriateness of what some would describe as an attempt by you to
capitalize on your office.)

posted by Alex Mulkern

12-18-00
Corporate Favor-Seeker, Simon & Schuster awards $8M "Book Advance" to Failed "Author"/Senator-elect hillary clinton
11-22-99
Book Trouble
Newsweek, November 22, 1999
Hillary Clinton's latest book, on entertaining at the White House, is receiving withering scrutiny before it makes it to press. First the manuscript went into rewrite after aides judged it too airy for a senatorial candidate. "You don't want to look like Martha Stewart," says a publishing source. Now White House lawyers may derail a book tour, since it could be construed as campaigning. (Her tour for a picture book about First Pets Socks and Buddy was scotched by the Monica mess, and the book flopped.) Her next tome: a mini-memoir that'll serve as a campaign bio.

8-1-99

by Mia T

Hillary Clinton's equal and inapposite reactions seem to be, at first blush, instances of the immutable First Law of The Betrayed and Humiliated Wife: Outdo the errant hubby's doxy...at all cost.

Thus, Vanity Fair's glamorous Marilyn-Monroe spread of Monica's digitally reduced spread was answered by Vogue's lushly Elizabethan, gauzy-focus, hindquarter-cropped-pleated-and-flounced, Queen-Hillary-for-President cover.

And now we have Hillary Clinton doing a Martha Stewart, who herself, is purported to have been "done" by the aforementioned errant rogue (notwithstanding the plain fact that Martha is more well-known for her tarts than for being one).

Seems Hillary Clinton is now writing a book titled "An Invitation to the White House" in which she will follow the format of the Martha Stewart classic, "Entertaining", claim multifarious Martha-Stewart talents and wrap her indecorous and corrupt, backwoods, backroom style of White House "entertaining" in Martha-Stewart elegance and purity.

"The Clinton White House has been noted for the...innovation of its events," said Carolyn Reidy, president of Simon & Schuster's Trade Division, the book's publisher.

Hillary Clinton's spokeswoman, Marsha Berry, added that the book will focus on how the Clintons have "advanced the availability" of the White House by increasing the number and diversity of people; that it will "highlight the access that the Clintons have given to more people, more types of entertainment..."

It should be emphasized that it was without even a trace of irony or the slightest smirk that both women related the above.

On closer inspection, Hillary Clinton's bizarre behavior is more than simple Ivana Trump-eting. It is vulgar, compulsive, shameless, smarmy, contemptuous, demagogic, megalomaniacal, in-your-face naked clintonism.

It is one thing for the frumpy, chipmunk-cheek, huge-hindquarter fishwife to insinuate her image -- albeit Elizabethan-shrouded and low-res-clouded -- onto the cover of Vogue; but it is quite another for the corrupt harpy to trumpet White House access even as new charges emerge of the clintons' rapes and other predations, the clintons' corrupt quid-pro-quo arrangements with a menacing and motley assortment of drug dealers, gun runners and nuclear weapons makers.

For Hillary Clinton to vaunt White House access just as the clintons' China treason is becoming increasingly, patently manifest to all requires a certain level of contempt for the people and for the country that is uniquely clinton.
Thank heaven for small favors...

Or as the real Martha Stewart would say,

"That is a good thing."

Mrs. Clinton's Book Deal