Hillary/Boxer Spokespeople Flatly Deny They Talked About "Legislative Fix" For Talk Radio
Drudge's banner headline right now:
The shocking headline links to a "Breitbart TV Exclusive" -- Andrew Breitbart is a "collaborator" on the Drudge Report -- saying that GOP Senator James Inhofe says he overheard Hillary and Boxer saying they want a "legislative fix" for talk radio.
Except that...they didn't say this. Or so their spokespeople claim.
"Drudge flacking false tale" has become a dog-bites-man story at this point -- nobody even raises an eyebrow at it -- but it's still gotta be done every time.
Here's a statement sent to me from Natalie Ravitz, Boxer's communications director:
"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."
And from Hillary spokesman Philippe Reines:
"Jim Inhofe is wrong. This supposed conversation never happened - not in his presence or anywhere else."
No sign at all that Breitbart TV bothered contacting Hillary or Boxer's office for any kind of comment.
Advertisement
Drudge relying on Inhofe. What a surprise it's a misrepresentation or just plain made up.
June 22, 2007 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Inhofe is basically the least credible member of the Senate. Listen to what he says about global warming. He hired a former Rush Limbaugh producer and sent him to a UN climate meeting to do some global climate change denying.
June 22, 2007 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it would be interesting to look into drudge's relationship with breitbart...
June 22, 2007 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another case of projection, perhaps. It was actually Republican Senator Trent Lott who was railing about talk radio last week, because Rush Limbaugh et al. had been campaigning against the immigration bill (my bolding):
June 22, 2007 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing piece by Larry Sabato - who basically called George Allen's demise .
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=LJS2007062101
Surprised TPM doesn't highlight this
June 22, 2007 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg. Exactly. Breitbart is the shadow Drudge who wants the spotlight now. I tracked some of his handy work recently when he was pushing the story that the Secret Service contacted Rush Limbaugh about something that Bill Maher said but good ol' Rush defended them!
So I wondered, why would the Secret Service contact RUSH in order to see if Maher was serious.
Wouldn't they have contacted Maher directly? So I called Maher's office and asked if they had be contacted about the incident in question. They said no.
So who pushed this most likely made up story about Rush defending Maher to the Secret Service?
Andrew Breitbart.
What was venue to push this story? Our good friend Melanie Morgan. (Morgan talked about this conversation during her "reporting" of her adventures at CPAC.)
Spocko. Author of www.spockosbrain.com
June 22, 2007 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, a suggestion: Why don't you call Inhofe's office to see if they will confirm or deny his involvement in this?
June 22, 2007 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Inhofe's brain is a little scrambled because of all the reading and studying he's been doing on global warming.
June 22, 2007 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Drudge almost always highlights the stories that am talk radio drones will wail about all day. And when the "story" is about talk radio, that cinches it.
Surprising then that he is bringing this sort of story out now. The talk radio crowd is already hyped as hell to run against Hilary Clinton, they already hate Barbara Boxer, and they are already worried about a return of the fairness doctrine if the Dems win the White House.
I wonder if this isn't distraction from Lott's comments or more likely some attempt by the GOP to reign in the talkers on immigration generally.
June 22, 2007 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imhofe? The guy that heard God say there was no climate change or evolution? Now Drudge is reporting what he "heard" Clinton say? Drudge has found his perfect partner. Let's just let them fuck in peace.
June 22, 2007 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
seems he's quoted directly in the segment...
June 22, 2007 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just read it and you are right. It is an exceptional piece of analysis.
June 22, 2007 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hasn't the Drudge Report established itself at this point as little more then a hack tabloid and thus warrant about the same amount of attention and it's own place in the checkout lines of grocery stores across the land? The more "breaking news" stories that ooze out of Drudge the more that is exactly the impression I get.
Come to think of it I get a similar queasy feeling from most talk radio. They appear to simply be outlets for slander, misinformation and various forms of fiction. It's goal appears to be to whip the polar extremes into a frenzy while simultaneously muddying the waters for everyone else. These are people that buy a ticket for the first showing of a movie and then run from theater to theater shouting FIRE all day long.
June 22, 2007 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
My secretary's neighbor's college roommate's drycleaner overheard Matt Drudge pining for Ken Mehlman's sweet man love last week. Since Drudge hasn't offered any proof to the contrary, I assume it's true. Can TPM please give me credit for this story when it is proudly run?
June 22, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If inquiring unintelligent minds want to know....goto Drudge for the best smudge in town.
June 22, 2007 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it rather offensive.
The muted reactions to the two new books on Hillary Clinton by Carl Bernstein and Jeff Gerth & Don Van Natta, Jr. suggest that voters have already absorbed the embarrassing fundamentals and factored the scandals into their fixed perceptions of the Clintons.
In the real world, Jeff Gerth's reporting of every hit piece put out by the anti-Clinton mob lost credit with the public long before Bill Clinton left office (his approval ratings were something shrub can only dream about).
I prefer John Edwards to Hillary, myself, but this is dishonest.
Edwards was an unimpressive Senator and nominee for Vice President in 2004 who has been unable to shake his image as a "pretty boy."
That'd be because Larry Sabato and every other media slave to right wing talking points can't repeat it enough. What are they so afraid of?
June 22, 2007 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I took the article as political analysis and I found two of Sabato's observations salient. The first is the speculation on the inherent weakness of a Clinton presidency owing to the size and virulence of her opposition. Sabato suggests and it is worth considering that Clinton would immediately confront a well established cadre of opponents which would diminish her ability to move past the divisive politics of the last decade and successfully pursue a new agenda. Whether or not this is a self-fufilling prophecy, it has merit as a political observation in my opinion. Corollary to this are his comments on the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton problem.
Regarding Edwards I see him as very much a Jack Kennedy type. I see a lot of potential but like Kennedy, his political resume is not compelling. His personal history and activities are the parts that make him attractive to me.
These are concerns that I have so perhaps I just like seeing my own ideas in print. As to offensiveness I won't defend this or any other political discourse as civil. These are difficult times and as much as I would like to see it I'm afraid that commity is not in any of our futures. For what it is worth I do value comity.
June 22, 2007 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, thanks.
June 22, 2007 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink