This
is Ann Coulter’s column – on the front page (and
continued on page 8) of the February 19, 2001
issue of Human Events.
Liberals Shocked: Felon Took Ottoman
By Ann Coulter
I always thought it would be thrilling to be a
liberal. As a cranky conservative, the world
just reinforces my prejudices on a daily basis.
But, for liberals, everything is always an
exciting surprise. They seem to live in a state
of constant shock.
I used to keep a file of New York Times
headlines – expressing breathless astonishment
at the achingly obvious. There would be big,
bold, proclamations – along the lines of:
“Experts Shocked Paroled Child-Molester Kills
Again”; “Crime Rates Decline As Prison
Populations Surge”; “Surprising Level of Mental
Illness Among Homeless”; and “Study Finds Rent
Control Reduces Available Housing”.
Most recently, liberals have made this shocking
new discovery: Bill Clinton is a crook!
Far be it from me to be callous to the
disturbed, but it wasn’t that long ago that
liberals were ardently defending this guy on
charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
They had no problem with the President’s killing
foreigners to distract from his personal
problems. They were willing to overlook credible
charges of rape against a sitting president.
They didn’t mind that the President chatted with
congressmen – about going to war – while Monica
earned her presidential knee-pads.
But the Clintons take an ottoman, when they
vacate the White House, and the entire left-wing
establishment is apoplectic.
As the saying goes, you find out who your real
friends are – when you lose the ability to save
Roe v. Wade.
I suppose it’s nice that the entire country is
finally on the same page about Bill Clinton –
but, frankly, we “right-wing Republicans” are a
little bored with the Born-Again Clinton-haters.
The New York Times – the same New York Times
that sneered about those silly little
Republicans thinking perjury, obstruction of
justice and numerous other felonies engaged in
by the President of The United States were
impeachable offenses – has finally developed the
capacity for outrage.
How is it, the Times recently demanded to know,
that “a departing President and his wife come to
put sofas and flatware ahead of the acute sense
of propriety that ought to go with high office”?
The Washington Post launched two editorials
denouncing Clinton’s most recent offenses:
The first, titled ”Count The Spoons’, said that
the Clinton’s gift registry “demonstrates again
the Clintons’ defining characteristic: They have
no capacity for embarrassment.” The diatribe
continued: “Words like ‘shabby’ and ‘tawdry’ …
don’t begin to do it justice.”
How about this for a word that might do Bill
Clinton justice? “Impeached!” (And no thanks to
you and your petulant editorials opposing
impeachment, Washing-ton Post?)
In a follow-up editorial titled “And Count The
Couches”, the Post called the Clintons’ sticky
fingers with the White House furniture
“ultimately the Clintons’ worst offense”.
Just curious, but where does that thing with the
cigar rank?
Two years ago, the Economist called Clinton’s
impeachment “a partisan witch-hunt”. Recently,
the Economist ran an item titled “Beyond Shame”
– helpfully in-forming its readers that, with
Clinton, “the sleaze just keeps coming in.”
(Yeah. See, that what the partisan witch-hunters
had figured out – a long time ago.)
The Economist’s ground-breaking news was that a
guy who perjured himself repeatedly in front of
a federal judge and grand jury, bought off
witnesses, bomb-ed innocent foreigners to delay
his impeachment and sodomized an intern after a
Bible-toting, photo-op stroll from his church on
Easter Sunday also did this:
“On February 5, the Washington Post revealed
that the ‘personal’ gifts that the Clintons
carted off with them included $28,000 worth of
furnishings that were given not to the Clintons
– but, to the National Park Service.
At this very moment, you could knock me over
with a feather.
Former Clinton Kool-Aid drinker, Margaret
Carlson dedicated her entire Time magazine
column to the Clintons’ “tacky” bridal gift
registry. It “just smells bad,” Carlson was
finally compelled to pronounce. Oral sex with
the fat chick doing the stapling was
evidentially a more ambiguous case.
Carlson noted that the Clintons’ friends
“insisted Hillary simply wouldn’t do” such a
thing. But, now – now! – “we have proof that
they would”! Wondering why the Clintons would
“troll for freebies they can surely afford”,
Carlson sadly concluded, “(O)nly Freud could
sort it out.”
Not to brag, but that’s what The Vast Right-Wing
Conspiracy has been trying to tell you, Timelady.
But, do we get thanks, maybe even a little
apology – or, at least, a polite nod in our
direction – for having grasped the obvious years
before Carlson? Oh, no.
Indeed, Carlson takes a shot at “the vast
right-wing conspiracy”, incoherently claiming
that since only conservatives complained about
the felonies – but, now liberals are upset about
the ottoman – the Clintons had better take note.
“The Clintons have long dismissed the criticisms
of those in the vast right-wing conspiracy, whom
they don’t respect,” says Carlson. “But, how do
you dismiss the views of those you do respect?
Who insist that you would never sink so low …
until they are silenced by proof of your
grasping?”
I’m not sure – but, I think that Carlson’s idea
here is to appeal to the consciences of felons,
by demanding that they respect the opinions of
idiots.
Another loony-left columnist, Mary McCrory,
spent the ‘70s demanding President Nixon’s
impeachment, spent the ‘80s demanding President
Reagan’s impeachment – and then, when the ‘90s
finally produced an official presidential
impeachment, McCrory was grumpy about it.
“The Republicans are beyond reason,” she
screeched. And Clinton’s impeachment “will
disgrace them as much as Bill Clinton has
disgraced himself”.
But, that was before the Clintons had sunk so
low as to take the ottoman.
Recently, McCrory wrote of the Clintons’ classy
departure: “If the Bushes had called in an
exorcist, it would not have been excessive.”
Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but the
idea of impeachment is …
And all this liberal hysteria was just about the
furniture. The heretofore unshockable left was
truly shocked – shocked! – about Clinton’s
selling a presidential pardon to Fugitive
Financier Marc Rich.
Rep. Major Owens (D-NY) – a member of the
Clinton-loving Black Caucus – once said of the
impeachment of a known felon and probable
rapist: “Our posterity will spit upon us for
allowing this madness to reach this level. This
is a political crucifixion.”
But, this past week – referring to the Rich
pardon – Owens said of his constituents: “They
think, ‘I may have done one-millionth of what
they did … but, I’m sit-ting in jail’.” (His
constituents must’ve been thrilled with that
description.)
I wonder what happens to his “constituents” –
when they tamper with just one witness? Or when
they get caught telling just a few lies under
oath? How many employees are they able to grope
and flash – before losing their jobs?
Democrat Pat Leahy, of Vermont, who had
criticized the Clinton impeachment – as the
result of “extreme partisanship and
prosecutorial zealotry” sputtered that the Rich
pardon “was inexcusable.. outrageous”
It was made possible by the decision of senators
– such as Leahy – not to remove Clinton from
office, when they had the chance.
After voting to acquit Clinton of the
impeachment charges, Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.)
said anyone with “a sense of fairness and
proportionality” knows that “the House
overreached”, when it voted to impeach.
But, the Rich pardon, Wellstone said, raised
“all the questions about values and ethics in
relation to the Clinton Administration”.
What were the questions again?
Clinton lied to the country, lied to his staff,
lied to his wife, lied to his party, lied in
private, lied in public – and lied under oath.
Senate Democrats voted to keep him in office
anyway. Now they profess shock that the man
cannot be trusted.
Barney Frank called Clinton’s impeachment an
”extraordinary triumph of ideology.” These days,
he can be found wailing about “a real betrayal
by Clinton of all who had been strongly
supportive of him.”
If the Republicans put ideology over facts, how
come it’s the Democrats who are screaming about
being shocked and betrayed?
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said that Clinton may
have been “brain dead” – when he granted the
Rich pardon.
Yeah. What kind of idiot would have failed to
anticipate that the same Democrats who warmly
embraced perjury, obstruction of justice, and
sexual perversion would get all bent out of
shape over a pardon?
Liberal GOP Sen. Arlen
(“Not-Impeachable-Under-Scottish-Law) Specter
(Pa.) responded indignantly to the pardon,
saying, “President Clinton, technically, could
still be impeached.”
Maybe under Scottish law – but not under the
U.S. Constitution. In his passion for truth,
Specter, once again, stopped short of reading
that document.
Rep. Christopher (Rape-Isn’t-Impeachable) Shays
(R-Conn.) has announced that Clinton’s pardon of
Rich is “sleazy”. A rapist sleazy? Who would’ve
thunk it?
Gee. Too bad these guys have only now discovered
what kind of man Bill Clinton is. Rather than
when it mattered.
(When you’re sending half your bank account to
the IRS this April, remember that it’s because
the government thinks geniuses like this can
spend your money better than you can.)
During the impeachment proceedings, Washington
Post columnist David Broder described the
evidence against Clinton as forming “a very
shaky case for an obstruction of justice count.”
The evidence on that count included: Testimony
from Clinton’s secretary that Clinton coached
her to lie in her testimony; Monica Lewinsky’s
testimony that the Big Creep told her how to
hide – from Paula Jones’ lawyers – the gifts he
had given Monica; Vernon Jordan’s testimony
that, at Clinton’s behest, he had frantically
called corporate magnates to line up a job for a
former intern – and crucial witness against the
President.
That, according to Broder, was a shaky case.
It turns out that of all the scandals, felonies,
lies and general slime to come out of the
Clinton White House, “nothing came close to
matching Clinton’s exercise of the pardon
authority.” The Rich pardon finally demonstrated
Clinton’s “sheer arrogance of power”.
These people are really insane.
Most beautifully, the New York Times – again,
the same New York Times that haughtily
instructed the Senate on its “duty to restrain
the zealous House prosecutors” from removing
Clinton from office – is now demanding that both
the House and Senate investigate the Rich
pardon.
“A thorough investigation and a reconstruction
of the events leading to the pardon are required
… (I)t may be appropriate for the Justice
Department and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to examine whether any laws were
violated.”
Well, well. Kind of a Johnny-Come-Lately on the
need for an investigation, aren’t we?
In a breaking development, Ken Starr already
performed an investigation. And, surprisingly
enough, it turned out that laws were broken by
the President.
Lots of ‘em too. But, for all his diligence and
hard work, the New York Times got snippy with
Ken Starr.
So, why exactly do we need another investigation
now?
If the idea is to find out whether Clinton sold
presidential pardons, I think I can save the
country – and the Times – the trouble of an
investigation.
The answer is: Yes, Virginia, Clinton did sell
presidential pardons. In case you missed the
Clinton presidency, he also sold the Lincoln
bedroom, plots in Arlington Cemetery, government
jobs, access to the President, a Naval Facility
at Long Beach, and anything else the Park
Service couldn’t physically nail down.
Without embarrassment, the Times reminded its
readers that “this page has had scant praise”
for Rep. Dan Burton (Ind.) the Republican
holding the pardon hearings, and then proceeded
to laud him for the current investigation.
Yeah. I remember that.
“This page” was really annoyed with Burton for
trying to point out that Clinton was a crook.
Now the Times is hopping mad at having just
discovered that Clinton is a crook. Who’s been
hiding that from the Times?
Either the entire liberal establishment has been
guzzling truth serum – or they don’t need
Clinton to promote their agenda any more.
