Posted on 11/04/2004 1:09:49 AM PST by conservativeimage
George Bush has been reelected, no thanks to Michael Savage. Through all the very not niceness of the Kerry campaign, the last thing I needed to hear was Michael Savage (on Conservative News Radio) bad mouthing the president. The Savage Nation use to be my favorite political news show. But then the election got closer and the influence of Michael became very sour to me. One day he would be saying he's not voting for Bush because he's not tough enough on gay marriage. The next day he would say he'll never vote for the Democrats because what they said or did that day against Bush was horrible. Another day he would say that he's not gonna vote at all because both candidates are indistinguishable. Then he complained that if he heard the president say, "bring them to justice" one more time, he would loose it. He didn't think Bush was strong enough on the war. More than once he called Bush a bumbling fool who can't go a sentence without tripping over his own tongue.
Coping with the liberals attacking Bush and conservativism was hard enough. But then the Savage Nation became another unnecessary source of frustration for me. It's ok to press the president on issues you disagree with, but it is strategically unintelligent during an election to continually attack one candidate who you have a problem with who would keep the worse candidate out of office. If Michael didn't want Kerry as president, then he should have supported Bush and stayed off the negative side until after reelection.
Michael Savage is unrelenting on his positions and demands on government leaders. But he offered no solution in this election. Bush, he said, is not conservative enough, or not even a real conservative. And Kerry was out of the question. He balked at suggestions that he should run for president. I agree with the goals of the Paul Revere Society. But all Michael accomplished in this election was to deter conservatives from George Bush, or cause people like me to grow up and turn his show off. Michael Savage's take on liberalism is invaluable. It actually helped me in interpreting my ballot. But once you learn what the liberal agenda is and how to identify a liberal idea, there's no where else to grow in the Savage Nation. Michael is emotionally unstable by evidence of his outbursts and shifting voting positions. His passion and righteous anger is attractive, but it is not healthy to stay angry. And it is irresponsible to project that instability and anger onto a nation wide audience.
I also was upset for some time about the lack of strong response from the Bush Administration to accusations made by John Kerry and amplified by TV news. But then I figured it out. George Bush and his administration were setting a historical example of moral character, leadership and class. Bush even treated Bill Clinton with kindness when they visited earlier this year in the White House. George Bush didn't return the vicious undermining that the previous administration has given him. It was perceived by Michael Savage and by most of the nation as weakness, because it is behavior foreign to this generation. It is conduct seemingly lost to history, but it is being displayed before us now. I came to understand this not from listening to the Savage Nation, but from listening to the Hugh Hewitt show. Hugh never explained this directly. He showed it through example; by how he controls himself and operates his show with integrity. The Hugh Hewitt Show is much more desirable with it's academic approach to law and the political process.
Another thing that the Hugh Hewitt show cleared up for me was confusion over how the war was being fought in Falluja and Najaf; a subject that Savage is rabid over with Bush. Michael thinks that Falluja and Najaf should have been wiped out within 78 hours of warning those cities that we would bomb them. However, Hugh Hewitt said a few months ago when those conflicts were brewing that Bush isn't fighting a "sensitive war", but that the shrine that Al Sadr was hiding in was a sensitive target in a brutal war. I now understand that the tactic of the U.S. was to destroy everything outside of the shrine and grave yard one day, then let the Iraqis move into the sensitive areas the next day and clean up the rest. Then the Iraqis can deal with Sadr themselves. The same approach was used with Falluja. We didn't wipe the town out after they mutilated four U.S. noncombatants. We decided to leave the city alone until the new Iraqi government could decide what to do themselves. Don't you see that this way Muslims can't argue that America is fighting a war against all Islam? Now I understand Bush's position of cooperation with progressive, non-militant Islamic groups. I realize that if the War Against Islamic Terrorism would be fought the Savage way, America probably wouldnt survive. It is in America's best interest to work with progressive Muslims against terrorism. Bush is fighting the war in a sensitive manner.
I decided to stop listening to the Savage Nation a couple months ago. My little brother asked me what took me so long. Listening to Michael Savage makes people mad. It causes family members to become worried for the one who's listening to that show. On top of the overwhelming Bush / Christian hate from the hippy news channels, Michael just makes people madder. I want to be happy. So I don't listen to him any more.
Every once in a while I will tune Savage in to make sure my opinion of him is correct; and I am always reconvinced. I rechecked again tonight, November third. Savage was saying that his show actually helped reelect Bush. I got angry and turned him off. Michael Savage is no role model. He was no help for the Christian agenda in this election. He needs to go up on a mountain and get himself focused. If he wants to be a prophet, he needs to get filled with the Holy Ghost and get balanced.
I've listened to Michael Savage from the day he got his start in talk radio at KSFO and the most important fact to learn about him is that while he may be a populist, he most certainly is not a conservative.
And his populism might almost be tolerable, were it not for his on-air self-destructive behavior and his almost neurotic need for attention and approval. After a while you come away with the distinct impression that this guy really doesn't like himself very much, nor the people in his audience.
--Boot Hill
Michael Savage probably has a genius IQ,but people up in that stratosphere tend to be more erratic than us 'normies'.
However,he takes on all the hard subjects and fires away,
unlike some of the conservative radio talk hosts(Rush,Sean,
Rusty,etc.)who shill too much for the GOP.He does need a
course in anger management,but his base is still expanding
at a respectable rate,so maybe most people can tolerate him.
Nevertheless,his insights on most subjects are superb.
I enjoy Savage, but as entertainment. He's interesting. Usually not boring. And there really isn't much else on. I'm not a big Mark Levin fan. Long drive home everyday. Can't be picky about it. I would NEVER refer someone to Savage for political reasons. I wouldn't want him to represent me politically. But I find him entertaining and different. He's a strange person.
But what drives me nuts is his complete lack of humor. It seems that every other talk show host manages to intersperse their opinions with good-natured humor, even if things aren't going well. Savage just comes across as a grouch.
I find radio talk shows depressing to listen to.
Ditto
MSavage is a one issue person. Unfortunately every issue is different for every person and every issue is treated with the same degree of animus. Therefore, he's never "for" anyone because there's enough to be "against" that person, i.e. nobody's perfect. That's why I find him depressing and always negative.
I totally with you. Towards the last 6 weeks of the election I tuned him in to hear what direction he was going to take that day. As soon as he started his negative attacks on the President, I found myself quickly tuning him out. If I wanted to hear that crap, I could just turn on Air America. At first, I was glad he was on in NYC during the evening commute, but more often than not I found myself switching to his competition before the first hour was out. At least Mark Levin is consistent and unwavering in his support of the President and the military.
But, more importantly, he is leading the pack in incorporating the alliance between conservative talk shows and blogs. This will be the next "big media".
Ditto2
Grow Up, Then Listen To Michael Savage.
Me too!
:-)
Sorry but I can't agree with you on that.
I think the author of this aricle is dead on. I have listened to Savage in the past and gave it up for exactly the reasons he gives. Michael Savage may be a very smart guy but he was hurting the cause during this election.
There are times when you have to pull together with people you may not totally agree with to defeat a common enemy, in this case the liberal-socialist elitists. Michael Savage very clearly does not agree with this principle based on his conduct over the last year. Stick to Medved and Hewitt, they are way way better.
That was clever!
Savage was about 99% praise for Bush on 11-1-04 "a great man with some flaws - like all of us".
The efforts of the SwiftBoats were vital - period. In this light, as Barry Goldwater stated, "Extremism in the Defense of Liberty Is No Vice." The Michael Savage's have their place with us. Without them to help combat the overly biased MSM, we would all be wearing our funeral attire while mumbling President Kerry with tear-smeared Katie Couric mascara.
Savage does the conservative movement far more harm than good, indeed, he is somewhat the right wing counterpart of Michael Moore.
Brilliant !
Thank you for saying it so VERY well.
Savage is the political equivalent of Howard Stern. Both are despicable, and each can be entertaining.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.