Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Austin Hill :: Townhall.com Columnist
...But At Least Clinton Was Willing To Say It
by Austin Hill
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Who won Tuesday's presidential debate?


Given the circumstances, no other three-word combination would have sufficed: “How Dare You?”

That was part of the response from former President Bill Clinton, when confronted by hecklers at a Hillary 2008 fundraising event in Minneapolis.

The story went like this: after making a late start with what turned out to be his approximately fifty-minute speech, Clinton was rudely interrupted by several hecklers in the audience who began shouting at him, and over him, and claiming that the terrorist attacks of 2001 were a “fraud.“

Even if you haven’t seen the video, it’s not difficult to imagine how this could have played-out. Our former President could have easily ignored the hecklers, or could have easily remained silent for a second or two, and allowed them to be cleared away by security officials - - and then could have continued right along with his remarks.

But instead, President Clinton chose to confront the hecklers head-on.

In the face of the “fraud” claim, Clinton confronted them directly. “A fraud?” No it wasn’t a fraud!” he shot back, as the crowd began to cheer him on. “I’ll be glad to talk to you” Clinton stated, trying to bring closure to the interruption, “if you shut up and let me talk.”

As he then attempted to continue with his address, another heckler shouted at President Clinton, claiming that the terrorist attacks had been an “inside job.”

“An inside job?” Clinton retorted, with indignation in his voice. “How dare you. How dare you! It was NOT an inside job!”

After these brief few moments, the hecklers were indeed escorted from the facility, and President Clinton continued with his speech. But by choosing to confront the malcontents, rather than ignoring them, Clinton accomplished something noteworthy.

In a matter of a few seconds, former President Clinton used a spontaneous moment with rude people in his midst to communicate to a fearful, skeptical American people. What was the message he conveyed? That the worst suspicions about our country and government are not to be tolerated, and certainly not to be believed. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Austin Hill is a Talk Show Host for the Fox Newstalk Radio Network, and a frequent guest host for 630 WMAL / Washington D.C. and 1080 KRLD/Dallas. He is the author of "White House Confidential: The Little Book Of Weird Presidential History," and is a local columnist for Arizona's East Valley Tribune Newspaper.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Subject: Oh geez, more BS
"for a former president to SLANDER (slander is spoken defamation; libel is broadcast - Carter did BOTH) a CURRENT president is treason!"

libel - published, not broadcast.
treason - you should have consulted the Constitution, which defines treason as waging war against the U.S, or giving aid or comfort to its enemies; slandering or libeling the President is by definition not treason. Of course, I don't think Carter's done either of these things. Care to cite otherwise?

BTW, you got "polemicist" wrong.

"Carter's TAXES on the oil industry shut down marginal wells, if you don't believe me..."

State specifically what taxes were raised when. First you said gas tax, which I've shown was BS. Now you're saying something completely non-specific. If you'd bother to look, you'd find that Carter didn't do half of the things your talk radio heroes say he did.

"Also, the reason we imported more oil was because he made it impossible to 'OFFSET' shut-in wells and produce marginal wells. He practically ceased the exploration of NEW wells domestically.”

No. The economics of the Nixon price controls are unavoidable. The fact that domestic oil was stuck at less than $24/bbl while world oil prices were $32-40/bbl from '74 and '78 (when Carter began the gradual end of the controls) reduced production in the US until the late '70s, when the end of price controls and a spike in world crude prices combined to make thousands of marginal wells profitable. Meanwhile, imports continued to increase dramatically, from less than 3.5M bbl/day in '70 to 8.8M in '77, and then fell during the Carter presidency, to 6M bbl/day in 1981, mostly in reaction to rising prices. Meanwhile, US production was fairly flat, ranging from 8.2M bbl/day in '77 to 8.6M in '81.

So you see, Carter didn't have the impact you think. In fact, his free-market reversal of Nixon's price controls set the table for the boom in oil around '80.

.

Latest BS from Straightjacket
I watched your propaganda videos; did you? There's not one statement in it to support your claim that the Clintons pay the news media. How pathetic you are; you don't even know what's in your own citations.

I did see some claims made by John Armor (Republican candidate for Congress), that simply are not supported by the video. But I don't think you're capable of parsing the video to see that there isn't much of a connection between the charges made and the evidence presented.

So let's take a little closer look at Peter Paul. Why do you suppose the video doesn't mention his indictment or guilty plea on securities fraud charges related to the manipulation of Stan Lee Media's stock price? Why do you think it glosses over the fact that he went to Brazil just after Stan Lee Media's stock price fell to $0.13 and the company fired almost all of its 150 employees? Why do you think he stayed in Brazil and refused to return to the US after being indicted six months later? Why do you think he fought extradition after being arrested a few months after that? Why do you think Stan Lee hasn't spoken to him since 2001?

"Remember 'Whitewater?'"

I do. Do you? What was the Clintons' crime related to the Whitewater investment? Right - there wasn't any.

"Then Slick Willie... was DISBARRED for FIVE years from practicing law in Arkansas and he feared being barred at the National level, so he resigned."

Let me continue your education. There is no "National level" of law practice. States (and DC) are responsible for licensing and regulating the practice of law in each of their jurisdictions.

"Also, he was impeached but refused to leave office."

You don't even understand impeachment, which is the equivalent of bringing an indictment. It's not a conviction. "He refused to leave office"? You know nothing.

Continued...
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.