Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer are scheming to muzzle free speech by targeting conservative talk radio.
At least that's what Sen. James Inhofe is charging.
Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer say they never talked about a "legislative fix" to the "far right-wing extremists" that make up conservative talk radio.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said Thursday on John Ziegler's evening radio show on KFI in L.A. that he overheard Clinton, D-N.Y., and Boxer, D-Calif., saying they want legislation to control conservative radio talk shows.
"I was going over to vote the other day and I was walking with two very liberal gals that didn’t pay any attention to me being with them. They were outraged by something you said or Rush Limbaugh or somebody said that upset them," Inhofe told Ziegler. "They said, ‘we have got to do something about this, these are nothing but far-right wing extremists. We’ve got to have a balance, there’s got to be a legislative fix to this.’"
He added: "As we got off the elevator, I said, ‘you gals don’t understand. This is market-driven and there’s no market for your liberal trite.’"
This has become a "he said, she said, she said."
Both Boxer and Clinton claim that Inhofe is delusional.
Boxer spokeswoman Natalie Ravitz told FOXNews.com that conversation "never happened."
"Senator Boxer told me that either her friend Senator Inhofe needs new glasses or he needs to have his hearing checked, because that conversation never happened," Ravitz said in an e-mail.
"Jim Inhofe is wrong," added Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. "This supposed conversation never happened, not in his presence or anywhere else."
Could Inhofe be that screwed up?
Does he take Ambien and it affected his perception of reality?
I think it's far more likely that Clinton and Boxer are lying.
Is it a stretch to believe that these two libs spoke about talk radio as a thorn in the Democrat Party's side?
I think it's easy to imagine Clinton and Boxer babbling about castrating conservatives.
9 comments:
I can’t believe you posted this!! Let’s be adults here. Nobody knows what happened. Anyone could be lying here. People talk all sorts of things when they are not ‘on the record’. Do you remember George Bush’s remarks when he thought the mic was off calling a reporter an a-hole?
It’s silly to magnify such things. It simply makes us look like the very people we criticize and make fun of. We all have our moments. What matters is what we do ‘on the record’.
I also found the following line very disturbing – “I think it’s far more likely that Clinton and Boxer are lying”.
See, how is this different from a far-left bloggers who think the same way about George Bush when he talks about Iraq?
This is purely wrong and biased. It doesn't look good for a blog like this.
Relax, Vittal.
I wrote: This has become a "he said, she said, she said."
I'm very clear that there are different accounts about what was said or not said.
It's also clear that conservative talk radio is under attack.
Read more here.
I don't think it's silly to point out attempts to squelch free speech.
Based on the reality of attacks on conservative talk radio and the desperation of libs to counter the power of conservative talk radio, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to discuss it.
I didn't declare with metaphysical certitude that Clinton and Boxer ARE covering up and lying. I said that I think it's far more likely that Inhofe's account is the accurate one.
That's my opinion. By definition, that means it's biased. That doesn't, however, mean that it's wrong.
_________
By the way, Bush apologized for the language he used, calling that reporter a major league a**hole, off the record.
He didn't apologize for his opinion.
Hey, Fred!
Don't let the door hit you in the hat on the way out. ;)
We all know that free speech is under attack. Be it the attack on Conservative talk radio by liberals OR the attack on Liberal press by Conservatives like Bill O’Reilly. Nobody is arguing about it!!
Here is what is silly. It’s silly to quote someone who claims that he heard someone say something and suggest that the other people were lying!! I know you didn’t declare in clear terms that Clinton and Boxer were lying. But you clearly suggested that they could be lying!! It shows tons of bias. I know – you are entitled to your opinions. However, forming an opinion based on strong bias is not right.
Bush's apology? Well, remember – he was caught on tape. Otherwise, it would have been another ‘she-said, he-said’ episode!!
Why did I suggest that Rodham Clinton and Boxer could be lying?
Because they could be lying.
You are obvioulsy biased against my right to have biases.
That's wrong.
Disagree with my opinion, but don't try to strip me of my right to state my opinion.
I disagree with you, but I'm not chastising you for saying what you believe.
Get a grip.
They could be lying? Sure! Then, how come you didn’t ‘suggest’ the same thing about the Sen. James Inhofe? Is it because our side can’t be wrong, it has to be them??
I am biased against your right to have biases? Give me a break!! May be, it’s the same bias that makes me cringe when I find those far-left bloggers attacking Bush for his every move. May be, it’s the same bias that makes me find illogical things illogical without getting blinded by my ideology or beliefs.
Nobody is trying to chastise you for what you say or write. It’s your blog!! As a reader, I am only expressing how repulsive it was. Period.
Repulsive?
In my very biased opinion, that's a little extreme.
All I can say is: Deal with it.
Yes – it was repulsive.
Sure – I can deal with it...just like many other outrageous things I see everyday!
Post a Comment