Minor detail: Inhofe now says Hillary convo happened three years ago
posted at 7:57 pm on June 22, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I blame myself for not having been more skeptical. I think I was seduced by the similarity between his voice and Patrick Swayze’s. Would the man who led daring guerrilla raids on the Soviet occupiers in “Red Dawn” lie to us? No, my friends, he would not.
And yet, he sort of did.
Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma says he doesn’t need an eye exam or a hearing aid and that he clearly remembers hearing Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Hillary Clinton of New York talk about the need for a “legislative fix” to curb conservative talk radio.
But Inhofe now says the conversation he overheard took place three years ago, not “the other day,” as he told KFI talk radio host John Ziegler on Thursday night…
“I’ve been telling this story for three years and told this story 100 times,” the Oklahoma Republican told FOXNews.com. “I have it memorized … I tell it the same way every time because it gets a very good reaction.”…
“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,” [Boxer spokeswoman Natalie] 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.”
I feel like such a fool. To think, we thought this woman couldn’t be trusted.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Good to know that one of the staunchest Republicans is pretty much on par with Granpa Simpson mentally.
Number 2 on June 22, 2007 at 8:05 PM
Of course it was long ago. Talk radio is to last year. They will be coming for the blogs next!
Resolute on June 22, 2007 at 8:05 PM
This may be an Oklahoma thing. My dad uses “the other day” to refer to events that took place, oh, nine months ago. Always has. I usually have a two-month cutoff myself.
see-dubya on June 22, 2007 at 8:09 PM
So What?!?!?!?! It happened and the content of the conversation is far more important (and troublesome) than when it took place.
Andy in Agoura Hills on June 22, 2007 at 8:10 PM
He has been saying that all along. He said it on Hannity’s radio show today, that it was three years ago.
CrimsonFisted on June 22, 2007 at 8:11 PM
The issue is, did it happen. Inhofe said it did and he’s standing his ground . . . that’s good enough for me.
rplat on June 22, 2007 at 8:12 PM
How can you take his word for these two trustworthy and righteousness-possessed dames’ one?
Entelechy on June 22, 2007 at 8:22 PM
You’re right on see-dubya.
Spirit of 1776 on June 22, 2007 at 8:27 PM
and ?
Wade on June 22, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Say what you want about Inhofe…he knew to drop this little nugget in the midst of the renewed UnFariness Doctrine discussion.
Genius, I tell ya!
Kid from Brooklyn on June 22, 2007 at 8:52 PM
Wow. I feel so much better. So, now you’re saying that Clinton and Boxer were discussing censoring opposing political views three years ago. Whew. I guess they can be trusted now!
amerpundit on June 22, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Monica questions the timing
Wade on June 22, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Does the fact that it happened 3 years ago mean it isn’t true? And yeah, “the other day” can certainly include 3 years ago to an Okie while “a while back” is much much longer. By way of example we invaded Iraq the other day while Reagan was President a while back.
Buzzy on June 22, 2007 at 8:56 PM
All the more reason to be vigilant. Thats three more years they’ve had to plot. OT Has anyone noticed recently how the Dems have this stupid look on their face they are copying one another. Like how Bill Clinton juts out his jaw and wrinkles it at the same time. Its a goofy thing I have noticed in recent photos this year. really.lol Mabey it means something like I’m with Hillary or I’m a communist rat bastard.
sonnyspats1 on June 22, 2007 at 9:05 PM
Oh. Well, I guess we have nothing to fear from Hillary with regard to any sort of Congressional takeover of talk radio, then.
That’s a relief. Phew!
Right? Right?
Kensington on June 22, 2007 at 9:15 PM
It’s Inhofe, for Pete’s sake. No offense, but yes, you should have been more skeptical.
Besides, let them talk. It will never happen.
SouthernDem on June 22, 2007 at 9:40 PM
I despise people who give people passes based on which party they belong to. I don’t like being misled about the circumstances surrounding a conversation. That doesn’t mean you have to like hillary. I would just hope you’re making your decision based on factual information, which is a reasonable request.
triple on June 22, 2007 at 9:46 PM
I don’t see a story here. Of course this is what Hillary and Boxer think. Silencing the opposition is as much part of the liberal agenda as promoting free speech is for conservatives.
Move along, nothing to see folks.
csdeven on June 22, 2007 at 9:48 PM
We know what they’ve come up with over the past three years – the Fairness Doctrine.
amerpundit on June 22, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Satellite and web radio make this moot.
They may wish they could control speech, but the Cyber-horse is long out of the Arpa-barn.
(But maybe Gore has invented a workaround? Quantum time-reversal censorship?)
profitsbeard on June 22, 2007 at 9:51 PM
The conversation still took place, and we’re hearing the same rhetoric from others today. They’ve produced the Fairness Doctrine. One detail wrong, doesn’t make the entire story incorrect.
amerpundit on June 22, 2007 at 9:51 PM
“Once again, things that could have been brought to my attention YESTERDAY!”
/robbie
Slublog on June 22, 2007 at 10:34 PM
amerpundit on June 22, 2007 at 9:51 PM
It is obvious that the good ethics of the American public have been savaged as a weakness to be taken advantage of by the Left. This is for all the marbles as far as I can tell with no comming back once all the mechenisms are in place. Like Levine said “The Stalinists is at the Gates”. I would rather fight like hell now here and now than later in the streets cause you know it’s comming. The scenerio might be where the NSA could intern ANYONE as an enemy of the state as the law now exists. Total control of the media, schools,populace ie; immigrants, total dependance on government for health care (outlawing private doctors) Most of these things are in plain sight now. I don’t think it would be a stretch to conclude that full on communism could be two mabey one generation away. So for me it’s a street fight from here on out. Let me tell you I know how to street fight! Time to bust some heads. Figuratively speaking of course.
sonnyspats1 on June 22, 2007 at 10:36 PM
This great line from Animal House always pops into my head where these Dems are concerned:
“You f**ked up! You trusted us!”
DAT60A3 on June 22, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Don’t put Inhofe in the corner!
Coyote D. on June 22, 2007 at 11:04 PM
DAT60A3 on June 22, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Heh Heh Heh I love that movie.
sonnyspats1 on June 22, 2007 at 11:42 PM
I give no politician a pass. I trust none of them.
SouthernDem on June 23, 2007 at 12:52 AM
WHAT…
Mazztek on June 23, 2007 at 4:56 AM
…EVER!
Mazztek on June 23, 2007 at 4:56 AM
Three years or three days….these two commie loving old, dried up whores will do whatever it takes to stifle free speech. Wait and learn.
lynnv on June 23, 2007 at 8:21 AM
Maybe Okieness is next to Godliness (They are just south of KS, after all.)
This is a verse I like to use with the Young Earth Creationists to explain how literal 6 days etc. can be reconciled with the slightly longer time scale that science presents. (The 6 days actually seem to be on a logarithmic scale.)
The Monster on June 23, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Except that if you extend out the time, you come into a logical quandry.
If God is infinitely powerful, He could.
If God is infinitely good, He would.
If He would and He could, then He must.
If He must then He did.
Why would an infinitely Good God create death? Scripture says that Death is the curse caused by Man. So even if you take that the Creation story is allegorical, you still have to explain why Scripture would soooooo screw up the issue of who caused death, and why God sees death as a bad thing, when he actually used it to “crete” man.
The real issue is not the facts, it is the interpretation of the facts. Material Monists have taken their unjutified priori and found data to fit it, rather than to find the rational world view and then interpret the facts.
Tim Burton on June 23, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Clinton isn’t anti-free speech, simply anti-anything contrary to her gaining more and more power speech.
Neo on June 23, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Comment pages: