**FRED SAWYER AND HUCKABEE FINN (Ann Coulter "A Job For King Solomon"?)**

Ann Coulter Website ^ | October 10, 2007 | Ann Coulter

[Syncro]

FRED SAWYER AND HUCKABEE FINN
October 10, 2007


Conservatives unhappy with our Republican presidential candidates seem to be drifting aimlessly toward Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee in the misguided belief that these candidates are more conservative than Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. This is like breaking up with Bobby Brown so you can date Phil Spector.

On illegal immigration, Huckabee makes George Bush sound like Tom Tancredo. He has compared illegal aliens to slaves brought here in chains from Africa, saying, "I think frankly the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before."

Toward that end, when an Arkansas legislator introduced a bill that would prevent illegal aliens from voting and receiving state benefits, Huckabee denounced the bill, saying it would rile up "those who are racist and bigots."

He also made the insane point that companies like Toyota would not invest in Arkansas if the state didn't allow non-citizens to vote because it would "send the message that, essentially, 'If you don't look like us, talk like us and speak like us, we don't want you.'"

Like all the (other) Democratic candidates for president, he supports a federal law to ban smoking -- unless you're an illegal alien smoking at a Toyota plant. (I just realized why Mike Huckabee can't run for president as a Democrat -- they've already got Mike Gravel.)

Huckabee also joined with impeached president Bill Clinton in a campaign against childhood obesity. What, O.J. wasn't available?

Bill and Mike's excellent adventure lasted about one week in May 2005 -- or just long enough to burnish the image of the president who committed perjury and obstruction of justice in a civil rights suit against him, molested the help and was credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick.

Huckabee teamed up with that guy to talk to children about healthy eating habits. Ironically, the obesity campaign kicked off almost exactly nine years from the very Palm Sunday on which President Clinton used a cigar as a sexual aid on Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office.

What is with Republicans? Clinton isn't your average ex-president, like Jerry Ford. This isn't even Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale.

Decent people shun Clinton, but elected Republicans keep trying to rehabilitate him. President Bush sends his own father on a feel-good "tsunami-relief campaign" with this guy, and Huckabee visits schoolchildren with him.

In 1999, Sen. Fred Thompson joined legal giants like Sens. Jim Jeffords, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to vote against removing Bill Clinton from office for obstruction of justice.

Thompson, whom President Nixon once called "dumb as hell," claimed to have carefully studied the Constitution and determined that obstruction of justice by the president of the United States did not constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors." He must have been looking at one of those living, breathing Constitutions we've heard so much about.

When the framers chose the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" for the Constitution, they were using a term taken from British parliamentary impeachments. There's a 600-year history of what this phrase means -- and Clinton met it about a dozen times before he gave a single statement under oath or suborned a single witness's testimony.

It has been used in this country and in Britain to remove one government official for making "uncivil addresses to a women," another for "notorious excesses and debaucheries" and another for "frequenting bawdy houses and consorting with harlots." Or, as Bill Clinton used to call it, "a three-day weekend."

The House didn't even impeach Clinton for his legion of "notorious excesses and debaucheries." He was impeached for excesses that also happen to be felonies. For a nation of laws, there are no more serious offenses than perjury and obstruction of justice.

The entire Supreme Court -- including the justices Clinton appointed -- boycotted Clinton's State of the Union address after his impeachment trial. That's what they thought of crimes that attack the legal system.

Rep. James Rogan lost his congressional seat because he stuck by his principles as a manager of Clinton's impeachment. Lifelong Democrat David Schippers abandoned his party's lockstep defense of Clinton to pursue Clinton's impeachment as the House Judiciary Committee's chief counsel. Rep. Henry Hyde saw an affair he had in 1965 become front-page news because he wouldn't waiver from doing his job under the Constitution.

Read more at Ann Coulter Website

[Petronski]

She fixed her typo too: “waver,” not “waiver.”

[calcowgirl]

http://web.archive.org/web/19991001134448/thompson.senate.gov/pr021699.html

Release Date: February 16, 1999

Historic Impeachment Vote

by U.S. Senator Fred Thompson

[calcowgirl]

I won’t jump to any conclusion on how/why/where it happened.

I do disagree with his vote of “not guilty.”

[SE Mom]

From your link:

FDT:

“In my view, the President’s pattern of conduct and obstruction of court proceedings caused great damage to the Presidency, the judicial system, and this country and, therefore, causes him to deserve removal from office. His actions were done for no purpose but to protect himself and to deprive his accuser, an American citizen, a fair day in court. “

[Syncro]

She spelled “waiver,” but she meant “waver.”

Looks like waver to me.

Got a link? Or if she did make a typo mistake, did you save it?

You should save stuff like that.

[Petronski]

The LP crowd caught the original too, but i don't think we're supposed to link them.

The original remains here also:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58080

[Petronski]

It’s been fixed. See the original at the top of this thread, or also here:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58080

Rep. Henry Hyde saw an affair he had in 1965 become front-page news because he wouldn’t waiver from doing his job under the Constitution.

[ml/nj]

Poor Annie sure can hold a grudge

So you think it's okay that Thompson voted against removal of Clinton, or it should just be forgotten? Did the Lady Coulter say something that is untrue, or just something you wish she had kept to herself?

ML/NJ

[prairiebreeze]

What Ann Coulter “pumps out” anymore seems to be shock-jock quality rhetoric at the behest of her producers and publishers.

She’s gone from claiming that conservative voters “need direction” to them “drifting aimlessly”. Insulting the voters is never a solid position and she knows it. But this is what she’s reduced to at this point.

Personally, I think it’s Coulter whose aim is off.

[jmyrlefuller]

Hmm... All of a sudden Coulter comes out criticizing Thompson and you start with an anti-Coulter nit-picking rant... I'm sure if she came out in his favor then you'd be singing her praises... but what else do I expect from the...

LEMMINGS FOR FRED THOMPSON

[Petronski]

So you think it's okay that Thompson voted against removal of Clinton, or it should just be forgotten?

Have you read the whole thread yet?

Thompson voted for removal on Article II. Only one count is needed to remove.

Saying he "voted against removal of Clinton" is a half-truth at best, but given Coulter's expertise, she knew or should have known her statement was false.

[tarheelswamprat]

1. Most important, Thompson *did* vote to remove the ‘toon from office; Coulter says that he didn’t. That is a very serious factual error that obviates her whole point.

Thanks, ellery, for getting to the nub of the matter. Coulter's whole argument with Thompson distills down to her repeated assertions that he voted to "let Clinton get away", when the fact is he did no such thing. A conviction on a single impeachment account is sufficient to remove the President, and Coulter knows this full well.

I'm willing to accept that switching the perjury versus the obstruction counts in the article was an oversight. However, the deliberate misrepresentation of the requirements for conviction and removal in the impeachment process are unworthy of anyone on "our side". Coulter is engaging in sophistry for purely partisan reasons.

[SE Mom]

See post # 124- he DID vote for the count of obstruction. He DID say he should have been removed from office.

[prairiebreeze]

The problem you have is expecting a “savior”. Fred is who he is and his positions are what they are.

If you’re looking for a Clintonesque presentation slickness you won’t find it in Fred, thankfully. He’s serious, thoughtful and engaging....but not slick.

And there is only one true savior. And He has nothing to do with mankind’s petty elections.

[ellery]

That mistake is on FR. That mistake is NOT on the article at her website.

Hi there, my FRiend. As of a few minutes ago, the mistake was in this article over at Human Events, too. It's also at yahoo news (and I'm assuming many other places): http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20071010/cm_ucac/fredsawyerandhuckabeefinn

The even more serious error in this article is the claim that Thompson voted to keep the 'toon in office. That is patently untrue -- his vote to convict the 'toon on obstruction of justice was a vote to remove the 'toon from office.

Even Coulter's claim that Thompson didn't believe perjury/obstruction of justice didn't rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors was wrong. He wrote that both claims absolutely met the standard of high crimes/misdemeanors -- what he said was that the House wrote the perjury case so poorly that it couldn't be proved.

I have no problem arguing about all these candidates -- but let's at least argue about the real record. Very irresponsible by Coulter.

[jmyrlefuller]

A conviction on a single impeachment account is sufficient to remove the President, and Coulter knows this full well.

Then why not hedge the bets to be sure and vote on both?

[HIDEK6]

I detect testiness in your tone.

waver

5 entries found.

waver[1,intransitive verb]waver[2,noun]waver[3,noun]flag-wavernew wave

Main Entry: 1wa·ver

Pronunciation: \ˈwā-vər\

Function: intransitive verb

Inflected Form(s): wa·vered; wa·ver·ing \ˈwāv-riŋ, ˈwā-və-riŋ\

Etymology: Middle English; akin to Old English wǣfre restless, wafian to wave with the hands — more at wave

Date: 14th century

1: to vacillate irresolutely between choices : fluctuate in opinion, allegiance, or direction

2 a: to weave or sway unsteadily to and fro : reel, totter b: quiver, flicker c: to hesitate as if about to give way : falter

3: to give an unsteady sound : quaver

synonyms see swing, hesitate

On the other hand:

waiver

Main Entry: waiv·er

Pronunciation: \ˈwā-vər\

Function: noun

Etymology: Anglo-French weyver, from waiver, verb

Date: 1628

1: the act of intentionally relinquishing or abandoning a known right, claim, or privilege; also : the legal instrument evidencing such an act

2: the act of a club's waiving the right to claim a professional ball player who is being removed from another club's roster —often used in the phrase on waivers denoting the process by which a player to be removed from a roster is made available to other clubs

Please retract your testy remark.

[SE Mom]

BINGO!

Her clear implication is- Thompson voted with RINO lightweights in the Senate and didn’t want Clinton tossed out.

[pogo101]

Rather than respond to the substance of those pointing out Ann’s obvious factual errors (... not even getting into her judgment; that’s a matter of opinion), you just name-call, “Lemmings!”

Is JimRob a lemming?

Ann got this one wrong, mostly, as I pointed out above. I still like her most of the time. Is that a Lemming?

[HerrBlucher]

See post 116, Thompson did vote to convict. Ann basically smears Fred with her article of selective ommission. Ann really blows on this one and blows bad, she should be ashamed but likely it was all deliberate and she knew full well what she was doing.....all the more shameful.