Fred Thompson, John McCain, and the trial of Bill Clinton

Powerline ^ | November 16, 2007 | Paul

[kevkrom]

Paul Mirengoff is lazy?

He admits in in the article:

I don't remember the evidence well enough to opine with confidence on the merits of these votes

He's on the freaking INTERNET. It would have taken him less than 30 seconds to find the information posted in #1 of this thread (since it comes up so often, I have it bookmarked myself, but I found it with a simple Google search originally).

He chose to write the column from willful ignorance. "Lazy" is being charitable.

[frogjerk]

No one can ever accuse either men of being pro-clinton. So what’s the point??

Exactly. This isn't going to sway me to vote for McCain-Feingold...er, I mean McCain.

[frogjerk]

What is the purpose of this article. To try and pull votes from Thompson?

[elizabetty]

List of the Republican voting NOT GUILTY on the perjury charge.

Would you vote for ANY of these extremely liberal Republicans (actually two have since left the Republican Party)????

Republicans:
Chafee of Rhode Island
Collins of Maine
Gorton of Washington
Jeffords of Vermont
Shelby of Alabama
Snowe of Maine
Specter of Pennsylvania
Stevens of Alaska
Thompson of Tennessee
Warner of Virginia

This is NOT a list of Conservative Senators.

[frogjerk]

For the record, 45 Senators found Clinton guilty of obstruction of justice and 50 Senators found him guilty of obstruction of justice.

Boy, do I wish this were true! 95-5 would have been wonderful!

[frogjerk]

Thompson is an extremely liberal Republican?

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Here is a glimpse at Ann Coulter's take on the matter. If you read her first book, you would know she researched it extensively. This is just one of many opinions that disagree with Thompson.

It is my firm belief that Thompson has a tendency to decide tough issues based on the outcome he prefers rather than on truth. This was such a case. He hedged, he wanted to be seen as counting Clinton guilty but he did not want Clinton to be impeached so he voted to achieve his desired outcome. Did he forget that he swore to uphold the law?

Sadly, Thompson is better than many alternatives, but he is not all that!

[Petronski]

Freddie’s vote was well-reasoned and intelligent. The writer doesn’t critique it because he admittedly did not do his research. Lazy.

I frankly don’t care what you OR Coulter think about it.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Bully-the-vote! Great plan. Good luck with that.

[Petronski]

He hedged, he wanted to be seen as counting Clinton guilty but he did not want Clinton to be impeached so he voted to achieve his desired outcome.

Complete and utter bullshit. You're not even equipped to have the discussion. By the time the matter reached the Senate, Clinton was already impeached. The question before the Senate was conviction (and thus removal) on the two articles of impeachment. Fred voted to convict on obstruction of justice, and only one conviction is needed to remove the President from office.

[eureka!]

Likewise. If Fred, however, relied on Scottish law, then I would have problems with his analysis. ;^)

[Petronski]

YOU are the vote?

Disagreeing with you pointedly is bullying?

Get over yourself.

[Politicalmom]

More laziness.

Thompson’s record is no more similar to McCain’s than it is to any other mostly right leaning Republican’s record.

During the eight years that Thompson and McCain served together, they cast votes on 102 CQ-defined key votes and agreed on 83 of them - or 81.4 percent of the time. They disagreed 18.6% of the time, that’s pretty high considering that both are Republicans and both are considered relatively conservative. Just as an example from one year, among the instances in which Thompson and McCain differed were votes in 2002 to effectively extend a repeal of the estate tax beyond 2010, to authorize oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and to postpone tougher automobile fuel efficiency standards. Thompson voted “aye” and McCain voted “no” in all three cases.

*****

Some key SenateMatch responses for Fred Thompson and John McCain:

“Abortion is a woman’s right”
Fred: Strongly Opposes (voted to ban partial-birth abortion)
McCain: Opposes (voted to allow partial-birth abortion)

“Sexual orientation protected by civil rights laws”
Fred: Strongly Opposes
McCain: Favors

“More federal funding for health coverage”
Fred: Opposes
McCain: Favors

“Replace coal & oil with alternatives”
Fred: Opposes (Voted to preserve budget for ANWR oil drilling)
McCain: Favors (Voted to kill budget for ANWR oil drilling

“Allow churches to provide welfare services”
Fred: Favors
McCain: Opposes

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain_VoteMatch.htm

[Badeye]

‘The author is not lazy.’

‘For the record, 45 Senators found Clinton guilty of obstruction of justice and 50 Senators found him guilty of obstruction of justice.’

The fact he didn’t proof read seems to indicate otherwise.

[kevkrom]

This is just one of many opinions that disagree with Thompson.

You know... it's OK to disagree with people once in a while. You, Ann Coulter, and anyone else are free to offer your own opinions.

Just because you disagree, however, does not mean that the other person is guilty of anything more than not agreeing with you. I see this all the time from liberals -- failure to agree with them means you're stupid, lazy, or evil -- I hate seeing it from conservatives.

[DoughtyOne]

Get outa here... LOL

[Politicalmom]

Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference

WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Yes I messed up the wording of that. The concept is the same. Fred voted for an outcome, ignoring the facts.

As for being equipped to have a discussion, you apparently equip yourself by refusing to hear or read alternative views.

So is it your position that all those other Senators who voted guilty were wrong? Or are you like Fred and your opinion today is shaped by your desired outcome: A Fred Thompson win in '08.

[McGruff]

In the case of William Clinton, his perjury was his doing and did not involve an abuse of presidential powers. So Clinton was therefore dispensed to a US Court where he was convicted of perjury.

I'm not a lawyer but it makes sense to me.

[ejonesie22]

Shelby is no liberal...