Never? I heard Laura Ingraham doing it on Monday.
Yeah, pretty obvious. Why would they come to his defense when he’s crapped all over all of them. His big-ass ego should be able to take care of himself if he’s even half as good as he claims to be.
He bags on the others all the time.
He has the right to do so.
But why whine when they don’t have your back?
Savage has also made several references to Rush's addiction to pain killers and makes him sound like was a heroin addict.
I'm surprised Rush hasn't repaid the kindness.
Oh. Wait a minute. He has.
Savage can be amusing.
He does have guts.
However, he is also NOT a team player.
If you don’t play for any team, it is hard to rally the team!
Savage tells it like it is
prior to the 2004 elections, Savage was all over Bush declaring him to a phony conservative, when at that time Bush was almost universally loved by conservatives
Savage was against the other radio hosts because he felt they were just being lapdogs for Bush instead of for conservatism
it turns out he was right. Rush admitted that he was carrying water prior to the 2006 elections
Because the quote is “...defend to the death your right to say it,” not “...defend to the death your right to be a complete jerk and behave pratishly toward everyone and their dog.”
Savage is great, but why defend a guy who takes such relish in kicking around others? I’m not just talking about radio competitors —I’m talking about people who WORK FOR HIM, and in some cases people in his very family (ok that one is a little old).
Savage got kicked around, and now he goes kicking around others, not just people who richly deserve it, but often really **innocent people**.
Savage is talented, funny, and really, REALLY unfair.
Basically Savage has no class, and mafia folks would probably strangle him with piano wire.
Savage also has a bad habit of some really gratuitous cases of kissing liberal ass, too. Schumer, Gavin Newsom, others, yeah....And I’m not just talking about being “independent minded”, nope..!!
sorry!!
And why should they? You don’t crap on people, refer to them in unflattering ways and expect them to support you when you’re in trouble.
Every time I listen to Savage, he spends half the time whining how tired he is and he cannot do his job anymore. And those fake interviews he has that are clearly prerecorded are awful.
Savage isn’t to my taste, but the idea that he (or Geert Wilders) is a danger to Britain makes a mockery of UK security concerns.
He is also very thin skinned, he was really bothered when he did not get invited to the White House when Bush brought in the big wigs of talkradio before the 2006 mid term elections
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%.
I am a pretty tolerant person, but i find him too obnoxious.
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.
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.
Because they all like talking about themselves, mostly. And Mikey? Well, he takes the cake on that count.
But I do believe strongly that they should mention the issue in light of the danger that it presents to all -- especially them.
As for Savage's attacks on America's enemy, they have noticed and are reacting.
Iran gets in on the Michael Savage bashing.
Wow, the leading cause of terrorism in the world, the Islamic Republic of Iran, has taken offense at Michael Savage!
That may 'splain a lot.
What other talk show host has been so outspoken? He's put his family and himself in real danger.
Now England is helping the enemy shut him up -- one way or another