Why Talk Radio Heavyweights Will Never Come To The Defense Of Michael Savage

hotairpundit ^ | 5/20/09 | talkradio03

[Talkradio03]

Why Michael Savage should expect nothing from the leaders in talk radio.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

He is really thin-skinned. Instead of wearing his UK ban as a badge of courage, he screams day after day that he’s such a victim. It is what it is, I’m sick of his commentary about it.

[gaijin]

Mik-tionary:

1. “Golfer” - rush

2. “Wall-banger” - Hannity

3. “Leprechaun” - O’Reiley

Note: Mike thinks that...

1. The term STEREOISOMERS denotes really exotic chemistry

2. The F-151 [sic] is a daunting figher in the US arsenal

3. The USAF should “take out Kim Jong-Il’s ERECTOR SETS” [sic] (mobile missile launchers..?)

PS - Unless you agree with EVERYTHING that “Bronxus Ethanolus Maximus” has ever done —like going skinny-dipping with Alan Ginsberg— then he probably thinks you’re a Bush-bot or a “NOTHING” —take your pick...

[RatsDawg]

Conspiracy radio host Alex Jones, (yes I do listen to him from time to time, to see what kind of outrages stuff he spews) defends Savage on this 100%.

[RatsDawg]

Why does he call Hannity the Wall Banger, I haven’t figured that one out.

I know he calls BOR Leprechaun because he is Irish.

[Chickensoup]

I think Hannity used to hang sheetrock

and of course it is a play on the obvious words.

[gaijin]

Before Hannity was in talk-radio, he worked construction. Banging is the sound of working people hammering nails.

So Hannity is a wall-banger.

See when Savage worked as a life-guard or in an ice-cream factor, that’s GOOD —it means he has a common touch, but when Hannity did it, it means that Hannity is a foolish goyish putz who lucked out, see?

note - The fact I know ANYTHING about Hannity (never have heard his show) would mean to Mike that I’m some stupid yokel thrall from fly-over country who thinks a brisket is a salty wheat cracker.

That goes triple if you know anything about Rush.

PS - The unfair way Mike slams Rush is by (correctly) pointing out that Rush has no kids.

[genghis]

I am a pretty tolerant person, but i find him too obnoxious.

[nathanbedford]

Why should talk radio hosts of all stripes support Michael Savage? Because they are in the talk business which means that they are in the free speech business. Free speech cannot depend on the popularity of the speaker or on the popularity of his point of view.

Why should we support conservative talk radio hosts in their battles to keep their microphones? Only because we agree with what they say? Or because we know that if they can shut down one man's free speech they can shut down our free speech?

I am appalled that the writer of this article, as well as our posters, never even addressed this issue. I cannot think of a more smarmy individual on the radio than Michael Savage-or whatever his real name is-but his right to speak does not depend on whether he is a nice guy. If Great Britain can shut down free speech to pander to the limey versions of Al Sharpton, it will not be long until the contagion crosses the seas. Come to think of it, it already has. It is already here and under the same banner: curtailing free speech to avoid giving offense to a favored group. In America we are going to call this "diversity" as we shut down the Sean Hannitys and the Rush Limbaughs.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

British Ambassador Sheinwald attacks Dr. Savage; 20 May 2009; San Francisco KQED

If Ambassador Sheinwald had the guts to say that the violence would come from the radical Muslims protesting Savage it wouldn't be an insult to Americans or Dr. Savage.

That did not happen.

The discussion starts at around 19 minutes. The host (Michael Krasny) described Savage as a demagogue, hate monger, and "toxic waste." Then proceeds to say that banning him is not in the spirit of free speech and states that including Savage on that list of really bad people is unfair.

The ambassador countered by saying that their law prohibits extremist rhetoric whether it be related to terrorism, race, etc.

Terrorism? Now that sounds like an admission that the Brits fear the reaction of radical Muslims. But of course they are afraid to state it publicly.

Savage, unlike other talk show hosts who I am familiar with, takes on the radical Muslims directly. There are no tepid comments on the Savage Nation about the war to defend against Islamists. It's W.W.II Greatest Generation, "nothing less than total victory" talk.

[Talkradio03]

Nathan, you make good points, but the article is more of why conservatives won’t come to the defense of Savage, he could have changed this situation with such little effort but he remains pointing his finger calling Limbaugh a fraud even tonight,...This is Micheal’s chickens...coming home..to roost...

[DIRTYSECRET]

I first knew that there was something about him in the weeks after 911. Bush and Rumsfield were building up our forces on the other side of the world and as I remember in those dark days there were 2 ‘grandstanders.’ One was John McCain shouting ground troops and Mr. Savage ranting on about how we should start bombing even b4 we were ready. As I saw it we were in good hands and would react accordingly. Not good enough for those two.

[DIRTYSECRET]

I first knew that there was something about him in the weeks after 911. Bush and Rumsfield were building up our forces on the other side of the world and as I remember in those dark days there were 2 ‘grandstanders.’ One was John McCain shouting ground troops and Mr. Savage ranting on about how we should start bombing even b4 we were ready. As I saw it we were in good hands and would react accordingly. Not good enough for those two.

[DIRTYSECRET]

I must add though that when it came to the criticism over Abu Graibe(the prison torture) it was Savage that was having none of it. The others were too busy making excuses and ‘explaining’ what was going on and the proper reaction. Savage just bitch-slapped them back. There are times when we don’t need gentlemen and how many GOP types are willing to take it to them?

[nathanbedford]

Let's see, on one side we have the First Amendment. We have Constitutional issues precious to the very survival of democracy at stake. On the other side we have petulance and pique.

Which side enhances the credibility of conservatives on talk radio?

[Talkradio03]

You think Savage would ever come to the defense of someone critical of him? If Mark Levin was in trouble, would Savage put away differences to help because of free speech? Not on your life...BTW England does not have a first amendment, and Michael said he had no intention to travel there, and that he’d been there once, but it was 25 years ago..

[period end of story]

Because they all like talking about themselves, mostly. And Mikey? Well, he takes the cake on that count.

[period end of story]

Basically Savage has no class, and mafia folks would probably strangle him with piano wire.

Ha! I can see that.

[nathanbedford]

You think Savage would ever come to the defense of someone critical of him? If Mark Levin was in trouble, would Savage put away differences to help because of free speech? Not on your life...BTW England does not have a first amendment, and Michael said he had no intention to travel there, and that he’d been there once, but it was 25 years ago..

When you abandon principle in favor of popularity you have abandoned the rule of law for the rule of men.

[period end of story]

There is only one rule in talk radio: keep them listening, or die.

[nathanbedford]

There is only one rule in talk radio: keep them listening, or die.

You are quite right but that rule cuts both ways. In other words, it is naïve to think that talk radio will ever truly elevate principle over profit but it is equally true that these guys have the hides of rhinoceroses despite their flagrant solipsism and would support Savage if they felt that were in their interest.