Posted on 07/10/2007 9:06:01 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
Bingo, we have a winner...
I’m fairly sure Thompson voted to convict on one or more charges and to acquit on one.
And no Senator can vote “against impeachment proceedings.” Only the House has the power to impeach. The impeachment TRIAL is held in the Senate.
Really, well then let's dissect this little nugget from early in this article.
If he’s that ineffectual against an easy target like Bill Clinton at the height of his parade of scandals, why should we expect Thompson to be any more effective against, say, the other partner in the Clintons’ 20-year plan to rule the nation?Characterizing bill clinton as an easy target doesn't exactly seem like the factual information produced by accurate and competent research. In spite of mountains of evidence of wrong-doing, obstruction of justice, invasion of privacy, abuse of power regarding every thing from the travel office firings to FBI files to sexual assault to purloined billing records to insider trading to exporting sensitive military infomation to the Chinese, how many actual charges were any of the STAR investigators and prosecutors able to stick on either of the "easy target" clintons?
The something it may say isn’t neccessarily good.
*************
A fan of the Second Amendment, are you? Just like Fred. :)
This is a Democr*p hit piece. I’m for Fred and always will be. He isn’t Reagan but so what? Only Reagan was Reagan. He will give leadership at a time when we need it. Looking at the other people who are standing for the Republican nomination he looks like the best running. Expect more mud to come and exect it in buckets.
AND is also far better than a 20 percent guy like Rudy, who would split the GOP.
Once a Constitutional rights infringer.....always a Constitutional rights infringer.
Sally Quinn is Fredthusiastic!
Any source?
Even if true, the failure of the republican senate to force clinton from office for political reasons is more than enough to eliminate each one individually from further political consideration.
IMHO
Neglected is the point that Fred did vote to remove on one of the articles of impeachment (obstruction), and he wrote a compelling dissection of why the perjury article was severely flawed.
The House had myriad reasons to impeach Clinton. They chose Monicagate, and did a rather poor job with it at that. It ain't Fred's fault that the House GOP mishandled impeachment.
Hardly. It comes from the "funding father" of conservative direct mail - one of the original Reaganites.
You are correct about the “impeachment” charge. That charge amazed me when I first heard it for the reason you state. If the Senate had anything to do with impeachment, Clinton would not have been impeached.
I wonder how many are unaware that Clinton was impeached because they are ignorant of the meaning of the term.
By the time Viguerie's conservative savior arrives we'll have Rudy Giuliani as the GOP nominee. As a conservative in "anybody but Giuliani" mode, Fred Thompson looks pretty damn good.
Thompson is not Reagan and he may not be a conservative savior, but he may be the man capable of saving the GOP from fracturing and landing on the ash heap of history. Maybe that needs to happen, but Viguerie needs to offer a viable alternative and be prepared for the consequences because he probably won't live to see another conservative president or majority.
Also, as many forget, Fred ran on a pro-term limit platform and promised from day one to only serve two terms- a promise he kept.
As for the article, I'm going through these votes, but I see some that are referenced are procedural votes and not actual bill votes. There was a influx of anti-Fred posts a few weeks back quoting some anti-immigration site that proved Fred voted for illegal immigration. This was shown to be bogus because they only pointed out the procedural votes to move the bill to and from committee (which he voted For) and ignored completely that when the actual bill went to vote, he voted against it.
Gawd, that is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen on FR.
It takes a 2/3rds vote to remove from office.
Now show us where the Senate GOP had a supermajority.
At the end of the day, Slick was not removed from office because the Dems refused to vote to do such.
Secondly, Thompson found the President guilty on one charge but felt that the prosecution had not met the burden of proof on the other charge. His explanation of his vote is thought provoking and screams “Federalist”.
Reagan would not approve of this kind of attack on a fellow Republican. How can one call himself a “Reaganite” when he behaves like and talks like a Democrat?
I think all it says is that he needs staff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.