Gerald Ford's Views on a Hillary Clinton Presidential Run

Hillary Clinton at the 1996 Democratic National Convention

Today is former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's 66th birthday. In 2016, she will be 69 years old, the same age that Ronald Reagan was when he became the nation's oldest elected president. Still, Clinton -- also a former senator from New York and First Lady during the two terms of Bill Clinton -- is widely seen as a likely presidential candidate to succeed Barack Obama.

Clinton is not the only potential Democratic candidate for 2016. Vice President Joe Biden has made known his desire to run for his current boss's job. Others whose names have been suggested are New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

I was intrigued, while recently reading a book about former President Gerald Ford, to find out that Ford had some strong opinions about Hillary Clinton as a potential president and presidential candidate.

In Thomas M. DeFrank's 2007 book, Write It When I'm Gone, Ford was unusually candid. The premise of the book is that, over a series of interviews conducted in Ford's post-presidency (mostly in the 1990s but also as recently as a year before his death), DeFrank wrote down Ford's thoughts about politics, policy, and personalities with the understanding that nothing from the interviews would be published until after he died.

Ford did not meet either of the Clintons until after Bill's inauguration in 1992, but he admired Hillary (somewhat begrudgingly) and predicted she could be the Democrats' presidential nominee in 2004 or 2008. (Ford did not have the prescience to see the formidable challenge HRC would face in Barack Obama. At Ford's death in December 2006, Obama was barely on the national radar screen, much less Ford's own.)

Over three pages of Write It When I'm Gone (pp. 149-152), DeFrank recounts several conversations with the former president about his assessment of the then-First Lady:

... he and Hillary were polar opposites ideologically, and he wasn't sure she would be a particularly appealing candidate if she ever ran for the White House.

But those first encounters [at the Fords' Colorado vacation home] convinced him she had the emotional toughness for the job:

"I learned this: she's stronger and tougher than he is," he told me in 1994. "When she takes a point, you're gonna have to be damn sure you're well informed, because she won't compromise as quickly or as easily as he. She's very bright, she's strong, and I think he defers to her. When she gets her dander up, she ain't gonna roll over."

When Clinton ran for the U.S. Senate in 2000, Ford thought it was a cynical move to give her a stepping-stone to the presidency, but he also thought it would backfire on her. "Truth is," he told DeFrank, "that's a handicap to her."

Nonetheless, Ford still foresaw a White House run in Hillary's future:

"The Republicans will make a mistake if they think she is gonna be a pushover. She is a tough, knowledgeable,articulate lady. On the other hand, her toughness in the political arena may not be a big asset. She obviously wants to stay in the political spotlight."

By 2002, he was certain Hillary had already decided to make a presidential bid:

"I'll make this prediction, as long as this is off the record. I'll gar-antee [sic] you, either in 2004 or 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton will be a candidate for president. [And] I wouldn't rule out Hillary in 2004, I really wouldn't."

Obviously, Ford was wrong about 2004 but he was right about 2008 -- 2016 was beyond the scope of his predictions in 2002, of course.

DeFrank reported further:

Asked if Hillary would be formidable, he replied that her nomination by the Democrats was a foregone conclusion: "Hillary is gonna be on the ticket in '04 or '08, one or the other, and you can write that down."

Why was he so sure Hillary was running?

"Because she has unlimited ambition. When you look at her record, she's a bona fide liberal with unlimited ambition.

"You look at her track record. She went to Arkansas and married Clinton because she saw in him a way to get national recognition 'cause she thought from the beginning he would be a candidate for president and she would get to be president. There's nothing in her track record, Tom, which shows any [inclination] to stay in the background."

I have to wonder whether Ford heard that joke making the rounds in the 1990s, which went something like this:

Bill and Hillary were driving in the countryside when they stopped for gas. The gas station attendant smiled and said, "Hello, Hillary, it's been a long time."

Curious, Bill asked her who he was.

"Oh, that's an old boyfriend of mine. We were once engaged to be married."

Bill chuckled and said, "Isn't that interesting! If you had married him, you'd be the wife of a gas-station attendant."

"No, Bill," Hillary said. "If I had married him, he would be President of the United States."

In any case, DeFrank also noted Ford's doubts about Hillary's electability as a presidential candidate.

... he thought she'd have trouble getting elected because of all the personal and political baggage she'd be toting.

"It depends on the public sentiment in the years out [at the time]. Of course, she's very vulnerable -- she was the mastermind of that terrible health care program which she tried to sell. So that would always be a liability for her."

(After 20 years, would Hillarycare be more popular than Obamacare?)

Later in the book (p. 252), DeFrank recounts a 2006 interview in which he and Ford discussed the upcoming 2008 presidential campaign.

His Republican favorite was still Rudy Giuliani. "I think Giuliani is an electrifying guy. He's a great speaker. He's had a good record of winning in New York City, and he can be tough."

Ever the political junkie, the House minority leader who used to travel 250 days a year boosting Republicans said he was relishing a head-to-head confrontation between Hillary Clinton and Rudy. For years he'd been telling me Hillary was consumed by ambition, was intent on running in 2004 or 2008, and that despite her political baggage -- and her husbands -- would make "a darned good candidate."

"That would be a great contest between Hillary and Giuliani." He wasn't sure who would win -- it would depend on what else was happening in the country -- but he thought Giuliani had the edge.

"What else was happening in the country" turned out to be the operative phrase in that speculative paragraph.

It happens that I was present at the 2006 presentation of the Gerald R. Ford Journalism Prizes at the National Press Club, where Thomas DeFrank was one of the recipients. That turned out to be the first time that Ford himself was not able to attend the event, because of his poor health. Dick Cheney, then vice president and much earlier White House chief of staff in the Ford administration, was the principal speaker at that ceremony.

Who Says Reading Doesn't Pay Off?

This afternoon I was listening to Coy Barefoot's drive-time program on WINA-AM, "Charlottesville ... Right Now." He and guest Hawes Spencer were chatting with news reporter (and walking Wikipedia) Chris Callahan about various popular culture items, such as when The Brady Bunch TV series ran on ABC, what celebrities attended George Washington High School in Alexandria (Jim Morrison of The Doors, John Phillips of the Mamas and the Papas, and Mama Cass Elliott, to name three), and the debut of Saturday Night Live on NBC. (Then known as "NBC's Saturday Night," to distinguish itself from an ABC program, featuring the Bay City Rollers and hosted by Howard Cosell, called "Saturday Night Live," the original name also follows the NBC nomenclature that included "Today," "Tonight," and "Tomorrow.")

Chris noted that SNL had its premiere on October 11, 1975, and then posed this trivia question to listeners: What famous couple were married on the same day that Saturday Night's first episode aired?

As it happens, a couple of weeks ago I was reading Carl Bernstein's fascinating biography of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, A Woman in Charge, and I remembered the passage about Hillary's wedding to Bill, in October 1975. It was a modest, backyard ceremony, rather hurriedly put together. (Hillary's mother was aghast to find out, a couple of days before the wedding, that Hillary had not bothered to get herself a wedding gown.)

It wasn't much of a leap, even without checking, to guess that the "famous couple" Chris had in mind was the most famous power couple of our times.

So I called the station and said, "I know who was married on October 11, 1975." When I got on the air, Coy asked what the answer was and I said, "If I'm not mistaken, it was Bill and Hillary Clinton." Coy rang his bell and then Chris said there was not necessarily a connection, since the Clintons chose the date of their wedding without regard to the debut of Saturday Night Live. I noted that, since the wedding was in the afternoon, they could have watched the TV show later in the evening. Hawes quipped that the two of them probably had a deep conversation about health care policy after the wedding, and I added, "You might think you're joking, but you're not." The Clintons were as wonkish in their early days as they are now.

Then came the prize: Coy asked me if I would like a lunch for two at Michie Tavern, and of course I said yes. I'll be picking up my gift certificate from the station sometime soon.

There may not be such a thing as a free lunch, but having a head for trivia makes it as close to free as economically possible.

The thing is, if I had not read Carl Bernstein's book recently, I wouldn't have had a clue as to the answer to Chris Callahan's trivia question. Not only is reading fundamental, it pays off, too.

Dr. Ron Paul in Sunday's GOP Debate

Courtesy of a Congressional Quarterly transcript posted on line by the New York Times, here are the responses to questions posed by Fox News panelists to Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, one of the candidates for the Republican party's 2008 presidential nomination.

The debate was staged in Orlando, Florida -- home of Disney World and Universal Studios, among other tourist attractions.

The first question directed toward Dr. Paul was asked by the chief political correspondent for Fox News, Carl Cameron. Brit Hume introduced him:

Carl Cameron has the second round of questions.

Carl?

CAMERON: Thanks very much, Brit.

Congressman Paul, to you, on the subject of one of the core debates in the party, over social issues: gay marriage.

You've been quoted as saying, Any association that's voluntary should be permissible in a free society. And you've expressed your opposition to a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Many of your rivals on that stage disagree. Why are they wrong?

PAUL: I'm afraid I haven't been able to get most of your question. I know you brought up the subject of gay marriage, but I didn't get the point of what you're saying. I can't hear it that well.

CAMERON: Why are on those stage who support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage wrong?

PAUL: OK. Well, if you believe in federalism, it's better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony.

PAUL: And it should be dealt with religiously. The state really shouldn't be involved. The state, both federal and state-wise, got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago.

But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they're economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that's already in the dictionary.

We do know what marriage is about. We don't need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an amendment to the Constitution. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. It's very simply that the states should be out of that business, and the states -- I mean, the states should be able to handle this. The federal government should be out of it.

There's no need for the federal government to be involved in this. You can accomplish this without waiting five or ten or 15 years. The authority can be put in the states by mere voting in the Congress.

(APPLAUSE)

The second question for Congressman Paul came from Wendell Goler, the Fox News White House correspondent:

GOLER: Congressman Paul, you say that insurance companies and government programs have made health care simply unafforable. You objected so strongly to Medicaid that, as a doctor, I'm told, you simply treated patients on your own, at your own expense.

Is charity the way we should provide health care for the poor right now?

And how are you going to encourage doctors to do that -- primary care doctors to do that, when their salaries have been declining for more than a decade?

PAUL: Well, we've had managed care, now, for about 35 years. It's not working, and nobody's happy with it. The doctors aren't happy. The patients aren't happy.

PAUL: Nobody seems to be happy -- except the corporations, the drug companies and the HMOs.

You take care of poor people by turning the medical care back into the system, where people have some choices.

Now, we have a mess because we have -- a lot of people are very dependent on health care. But I have the only way we can afford to take care of people now, because we're going broke, with $500 billion going to debt every single year. And we have a foreign policy that is draining us.

I say, take care of these poor people. I'm not against that. But save the money someplace. The only place available for us to save it is to change our attitude about running a world empire and bankrupting this country. We can take care of the poor people, save money and actually cut some of our deficit.

So you don't have to throw anybody out in the street, but long term you have move toward the marketplace. You cannot expect socialized medicine of the Hillary brand to work.

And you can't expect the managed care system that we have today, which promotes and benefits and rewards the corporations -- because it's the drug companies and the HMOs and even the AMA that comes to us and lobbies us for this managed care, and that's why the prices are high.

PAUL: It's only in medicine that technology has raised prices rather than lowering prices.

(APPLAUSE)

Chris Wallace, moderator of Fox News Sunday, also directed a question toward Ron Paul, eliciting a comment on the Republicans' bete noire, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, the all-but-certain and certainly-the-GOP's-heaven-sent-choice-for Democratic presidential nominee.

WALLACE: Congressman Paul...

(APPLAUSE)

WALLACE: Congressman Paul, you're against the Iraq war. So is Senator Clinton. So what are the differences between you?

PAUL: Well, there's a very big difference, and I think the American people, if we as a party realize this and understand it, 70- some percent of the people in America want the war over with. They're sick and tired of it and they want our troops to come home.

Now, Senator Clinton has nothing new to offer. She's endorsing the same policy. She said that the troops would be there for another five years, continue to build this embassy that's going to be bigger than the Vatican, continue to build 14 air bases as are going on there, these private bases going on there, and never change.

PAUL: We in this party have to realize the American people are sick and tired of big government, big government overseas, an empire we can't maintain, the bankruptcy of this country, and also the attack on our personal civil liberties. We don't have privacy left anymore, and Hillary Clinton offers no solution to that, and neither does any of the Democrats. And we are not doing a very good job either.

If we don't recognize that, we don't have a chance because we need to get back to the basics, believe in the Constitution, believe in the rule of law, and not allow our government to spend endlessly and bankrupt this country.

(APPLAUSE)

HUME: Congressman Paul, thank you.

Brit Hume, who moderated the panel and the debaters, asked Dr. Paul to follow up on a question about Social Security and retirement savings for Americans that was posed to another candidate:

HUME: Congressman Paul, your thoughts on these issues?

PAUL: it's a mess. And it proves that the government is not very good at central economic planning, even for retirement.

PAUL: The money was taken from the people with good intention. We should do our best to return it to those that have taken it.

But we need to allow the young people to just flat out get out of the system. Because, I tell you what...

(APPLAUSE)

... if you have the government managing these accounts, it's not going to work.

And the other thing that you have to consider if you're really serious about protecting people's incomes, each and every one of us, is how you're going to protect the dollar. If you don't have the dollar maintaining its value, no matter where you put the money you're not going to have any value. That's where the crisis is coming.

You're going to go up with all these cost of living increases but you'll never keep up with the cost of living because the dollar's going down, the cost of living is going up.

Our dollar today is worth 4 cents compared to the dollar of 1913, when the Federal Reserve took charge of it. And if you don't deal with the dollar there will be no retirement for anybody. We're going to have chaos.

And that is why you have to cut spending. That's why we need a new foreign policy. We need to tie it to people over here in this country, the people who are dependent, but we need to let the people get out, whether it's Social Security or medical care or education. The Constitution doesn't advise that we do any of that anyway.

PAUL: That's the only way we can solve the problem.

(APPLAUSE)

Carl Cameron asked this question of Senator Fred Thompson, and then asked the other candidates, including Congressman Paul, for their opinions on the same issue:

CAMERON: Senator Thompson, violence escalated again today on the Turkish-Iraq border. The terrorist group, PKK, took Turkish soldiers hostage. If as President Bush says, we are fighting terrorists in Iraq to protect our homeland, shouldn't the Turks be able to go into Iraq to protect their own?

Dr. Paul's reply:

PAUL: This is a -- this is a result of a foreign policy of interventionism. The founders advised non-interventionism. And even our president won the election in the year 2000 to have a more humble foreign policy, not to go into nation-building, and not get involved in the internal affairs of other nations.

And we won an election on that.

But here we are. We're over there and we've invaded this country and this is just another unintended consequence. The war is spreading, the war is likely to go into Iran, nobody's willing to take anything off the table.

What would it be like if somebody came in here into Mexico and did some of these things -- say, like, putting missiles in Europe? We're just looking for trouble. It's so unnecessary. And we jeopardize ourselves. And, quite frankly, we're not able to afford this.

So we don't need to go looking for trouble. We don't need another Cold War. And all we have to do is start talking to people and trading with people.

We don't need to assume that the world is going to blow up. Just think of...

(AUDIENCE BOOING)

PAUL: When I was drafted into the military, and I served five years in the military, the Soviets had 40,000 nuclear weapons.

And here, we're now learning about agitating and putting missiles in Europe.

PAUL: It's the Turks' business. It's not our business.

(AUDIENCE BOOS)

(APPLAUSE)

The last question addressed to Dr. Paul came from Wendell Goler, and it really gave the congressman a chance to shine: The question, intentionally or not, sparked a brief summary of the political philosophy and policy stance that has drawn so many activists to the Ron Paul campaign (or, as it is affectionately known from coast to coast, the "Ron Paul Revolution"):

GOLER: Gentlemen, I want to ask you a series of questions on no particular subject. These are simply questions I haven't had a chance to ask yet.

Congressman Paul, I want to start with you. You have drawn some of the strongest reactions of any person on the stage, both pro and con, sir. When Ronald Reagan became a Republican, he said he hadn't left the Democratic Party, the Democrats had left him.

Given your differences with the other gentlemen on the stage, has the Republican Party left you? Have these gentlemen left the Republican Party?

PAUL: I think in many ways they haven't followed our platform and they don't follow the Constitution. So they're really not following (inaudible). I think in many ways we have become big spenders. Republicans are the big spenders. Our big-government conservatives, they're part of the neo-conservative movement. They've lost their traditions about traditional conservatism and the Constitution.

We have benefited for so many years and decades by having a position of less use of force. Eisenhower won his election in 1952 by trying to clean up the mess that Democrats created in Korea. Nixon won in '68. We continuously won in taking this position of a more commonsensical foreign policy.

Like I said, even George Bush won criticizing this interventionism, and now all of a sudden, just in this short period of time, we have accepted the Democrats' position on foreign policy, on entitlements, on deficits. I mean, we have lost our way.

No, I think that the position of the Republican Party today has not fulfilled their traditions.

And that's why we lost last year. And if we don't go back to our traditions and believe in the Constitution, limited government, personal liberties, and a foreign policy that's noninterventionist, that won't bankrupt us, so that we can defend this country -- we can't even defend our own cities while we're prancing around the entire world.

(APPLAUSE)

Dr. Paul also appeared with Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes on a post-debate wrap-up show, and he was in excellent form for that interview, too. When Hannity tried to pooh-pooh the cell-phone/text message poll that showed debate viewers favoring Ron Paul with 38 percent of their votes, Dr. Paul explained that this was just the enthusiastic response from discerning Fox News viewers across the country.

Hillary's Own Fundraising Scandal

For a man who has been in prison for several months, Aaron Tonken is turning up in all sorts of places. His photograph appeared last week in The Washington Times and the Charlottesville Daily Progress. His name turns up in a major article in today's Observer (a British left-of-center "quality paper") that begins:

It all sounds horribly familiar. Financial skulduggery, calls for a Senate investigation and the whiff of a sex scandal caught on tape. And all of it whirling around the Clinton name.

A court case involving the fundraising activities of Senator Hillary Clinton's former campaign finance chief threatens to put a time-bomb under the former First Lady's presidential ambitions.

Late last year, shortly after he was sent up the river, Tonken published a book called King of Cons: Exposing the Dirty, Rotten Secrets of the Washington Elite and Hollywood Celebrities. In it, Tonken describes the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of both political and charity fundraising. Here's an excerpt:

There is also a category called "in-kind" contributions. This covers, among other things, expenses incurred in the putting on of such events as the Salute [to President Clinton, a Hillary fundraiser]. These are supposed to be meticulously recorded and accounted for when a political fundraising entity makes its annual report of income and expenditures.

Thus, if Cher agrees to perform for a fundraiser, she can elect to do it for free, in which case the campaign is not obligated to place a value on her performance and report it. On the other hand, if she is paid by the campaign, that is a reportable expense. If she is paid indirectly, by someone like me, then I become the donor of record, and her performance becomes an in-kind contribution. It must be reported. Also included, and therefore subject to reporting, would be such things as air travel expenses, hotel bills, ground transportation, and so on.

It is these in-kind contributions that, in my experience, are seldom properly reported. Certainly, that was the impression from my dealings with Hillary Clinton's staffers. All told, I spent millions on expenses for fundraisers that I organized for her. How much was ultimately reported I don't know, but it couldn't have been much, since no one ever asked me for a detailed accounting. And, as I have noted, when I tried to offer campaign officials receipts, they were refused.

Considering these irregularities, the naturally-occurring questions are: who knew what, and when did they know it? Those are the questions that have started many a political figure's downfall.

All I can say is that David Rosen, Hillary Clinton's director of finance, worked out of our offices and knew about every dime that was being spent. More than that, he participated in the spending.

Just before Tonken went to prison, venerable Hollywood gossip columnist Army Archerd wrote a synopsis of what took Tonken from the high life to Club Fed in Daily Variety:

Tonken is involved in California, federal and local lawsuits ranging from the fraud charges to Chapter 7, plus a countersuit vs. David Schwimmer who has sued Tonken for defamation. Tonken's book names a long list of celebs who took fees -- and demanded more -- for so-called charitable appearances. The extent of some of the celeb demands, Tonken says are beyond imagination. The Federal Election Commission has also demanded information from Tonken on a fundraising event for Hillary Clinton's senatorial campaign he headed. (It was sponsored by New York Senate 2000). Tonken's association with the Clintons was remarkable in view of his minor status in the establishment. How did this comparative newcomer gain the confidences of so many in the showbiz and political community? All in the name of charity. He claims he took none of the funds for himself. The book unravels an incredible rollout of cash and goods to the celeb participants in the charity events.

It's amazing that Tonken got off so easy, with just 63 months. And it's amazing how a man in prison can get so much press despite his, shall we say, incapacitation.

Is Hillary in Trouble Because of 'The King of Cons'?

First, I saw an article in Saturday's Washington Times -- in the old days, a story that appeared in a Saturday edition was buried from that point forward; now with the 24-hour news cycle, you can't count on that -- headlined "Hillary ex-aide indicted in false campaign filings," which reported:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's former campaign finance director has been named in a federal grand jury indictment in Los Angeles on charges of filing false campaign finance reports with the Federal Election Commission, the Justice Department said yesterday.

The four-count indictment said the finance director, David Rosen, understated the costs of an Aug. 12, 2000, fund-raising gala in Los Angeles by nearly $500,000, filing fraudulent documents with the FEC to increase the amount of funds available to Mrs. Clinton's "New York Senate 2000" campaign.

Times reporter Jerry Seper goes on to note some of those involved in the event leading to the latest indictment:

The event, staged while the Democratic National Convention was under way in Los Angeles, was billed as the "Hollywood Gala Salute to President William Jefferson Clinton" and was a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton's senatorial campaign.

Two of the event's organizers were Hollywood producer Peter F. Paul and charity fund-raiser Aaron Tonken.

Paul is a convicted felon now facing stock fraud charges in New York. He reportedly has been cooperating with federal prosecutors. Tonken pleaded guilty in 2003 to federal charges of diverting hundreds of thousands of dollars from donors and underwriters of Hollywood events he organized — including the August 2000 gala.

A sworn statement by Paul in a pending lawsuit against the Clintons, Mr. Rosen and Tonken said a host of Hollywood celebrities attended the Clinton gala, including Shirley MacLaine, John Travolta, Cher, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, Whoopi Goldberg, Patrick Swayze, Larry King and George Hamilton.

Second, today I received a news release from the publisher of a book by Aaron Tonken, who is now in federal prison. It says (in part):

King of Cons: Exposing the Dirty Rotten Secrets of the Washington Elite and Hollywood Celebrities goes deep inside the event, which was created by Tonken to connect Hollywood’s wealthiest with its most famous celebrities and President Clinton. The guest list that night was a who’s who of entertainment royalty, including John Travolta, Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt, Whoopi Goldberg, Ted Danson, Jimmy Smits, Anjelica Huston and Dylan McDermott. The program featured star-studded performances by the likes of Sugar Ray, Toni Braxton, Melissa Etheridge, Michael Bolton, Diana Ross, Patti LaBelle and Cher. No expense was spared, except when it came time to report those expenses to the feds….

The book tells in sordid detail of the relationship between Tonken and Rosen. Tonken writes, "David Rosen, Hillary Clinton's director of finance, worked out of our offices and knew about every dime that was being spent. More than that, he participated in the spending."

And then it gives a juicy laundry-list of political and entertainment celebrities whose misdeeds are included in Tonken's tell-all memoir:

Celebrities whose outrageous behavior is mentioned in the book include Paula Abdul, Roseanne Barr, Tony Bennett (and son, Danny), Milton Berle, Ray Charles, Cher, Natalie Cole, Joan Collins, Bill Cosby, Rodney Dangerfield, Tony Danza, former President Gerald Ford, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Leeza Gibbons, Melanie Griffith, Liza Minnelli, Rosa Parks, Lionel Richie, Diana Ross, Arnold Schwarzenegger, David Schwimmer, Sylvester Stallone, Rod Stewart, Sharon Stone, Suzanne Somers.

Did you ever think you'd see the words "former President Gerald Ford," "Rosa Parks," and "David Schwimmer" in the same sentence?

Now here's some real juicy gossip: The book includes a huge lie by omission. The gist is that, despite a manuscript that included the whole truth, the publisher chose to eliminate all references in the book to the fact that Aaron Tonken is gay, that the "prostitutes" hired by Tonken were all male prostitutes, and that Tonken's homosexuality was well known to the celebrities, fundraisers, lawyers, and law enforcement officials who did business (or otherwise dealt) with him.

Word is that Tonken requested that the publisher, Nelson Current (formerly WND Books) remove all references to his being gay in King of Cons on the eve of his arrival in federal prison. He was afraid that, if word got out among the other convicts that he was gay, he might end up as somebody's bitch -- or worse.

This is the sort of story that gets circulated by John Aravosis or Michael Rogers -- if it involves gay Republicans. Since Aaron Tonken was a Democratic party-boy and fundraiser, his story is unlikely to be highlighted by Aravosis, Rogers, or other famous outers, like Michelangelo Signorile.

Stay tuned. This story could blow up even more. Whether Hillary Clinton or some other VIPs get blown up with it remains to be seen.



Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!