Posted on 06/12/2007 12:42:17 PM PDT by TBP
Well, well, well!
Brian Lamb is talking about the “Talkers.”
He said the reason they didn’t cover the award presentation is because it was a video that he had mailed in. C-SPAN has offered Savage air time if he is willing to talk in person, before a live audience.
Brian is also reading emails from those who wrote in about the “blacklisting” charge. What a bunch of sick bastards. I have no doubt some of the emails came from those who posted on this thread.
Still reading some of the most disgusting emails.
Brian Lamb said C-SPAN has offered to simulcast Savages program and he has always turned them down.
I never get tired of reading my fellow Freeper's bulls eye analysis of that wack job, Michael Wiener. This thread is typical of that.
I don't believe that. Lamb's a left-liberal.
Seems that we had eight years of media coverage of Hillary's corruption. If she is the Dem presidential candidate, I'm sure she will also be a major media target.
For now, so much corruption, so little time.
I don’t care what sort of ignorant crap you want to believe.
Tell ya what you do. When C-SPAN puts up this morning’s WJ on RealPlayer, watch and listen. I’d really like to know if you identify with the stupid b@$tards who wrote the emails Brian read this morning.
I comforted that you’re not in charge of foreign policy. When foreign policy decisions are made in pique or upon emotion it ceases to serve the national interests. That precise attitude was a leading cause of the Russian mobilization and the Kaiser’s ultimatum that set the match to WW I; both were insulted and felt their honor impaired. If a nation is going to engage in a beer hall brawl it should be because there is a vital national interest at stake that adversely affects that nation’s position of power or influence in the conduct of its own and international affairs.
Here ya go! The stupid emails attacking Brian Lamb are during the first hour and 15 minutes.
http://www.c-span.org/videoarchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&ArchiveDays=100
Washington Journal Entire Program
StudentCam Grand Prize Winners: Zach Chastain, Bryan Cink & Ryan Kelly; Jupiter High School in Jupiter, FL
6/15/2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 2 hr.
Is there some special reason why CSPAN is which is supposed to cover Govt., has to pay attention to Savage.
Maybe it’s part of his court ordered therapy to have no contact with a TV camera?
That is contrary to everything he has said about the war. He's for it mroe fervently than Bush is. He has criticized Bush for fighting a no-win war (starting with urging increased use of air power, a poitn on which he was 100 percent right) but he has never urged that we stop funding the war. (And yes, we do need to crack down on teh gangs in our streets. Do you know how many of them are illegals, BTW?
Weiner said the shooting (at Virginia Tech) indicates our Gun laws are too lax.
Yes, he has said numerous times that we need to be able to find people like that shooter before they do what they do and that a database would be helpful in doing so. Do you object to computerizing records of felons and those who have been referred for psychological treatment so we can identify them more readily?
Weiner used the Virginia Tech shooting to attack President Bush throughout the 1st hour of his show on April 17th, 2007
I heard the show that day and did not hear that. I heard him attacking lax law enforcement, strting with the President and working down. We do need to enforce the laws we have.
Weiner attacked President Bush for not mentioning Jesus Christ when he spoke at Virginia Tech Convocation.
So? That is somehow NOT conservative? Or do you regard AY attack on W as not conservatie? Do you object to religion in public places? I don't, although I certainly object to politics in the pulpit.
Weiner used the massacre to repeatedly attack President Bush and Homeland Secretary Chertoff for their lack of leadership.
They have been guilty of a lack of leadership in many ways. They'd rather ram amnesty for illegal invaders down our thraots than enforce the laws that exist.
Weiner called Prime Minister Blair "Tony the Coward".
For failign to stand up to Islamists within Briatain and for indicating that the Brits might just get out of Iraq. Both of those things are cowardly. Blair has been quite good on the WOT, but he was certainly very weak in those instances.
Weiner called the Republicans running for President in 2008 "empty-suits". Weiner singled out Mayor Rudolph Giuliani by name.
Oh, I see. He's not a real conservative because he doesn't support Giuliani. Got it now.
Rudy was a great -- repeat, great -- mayor of New York, but in some ways, Savage is right about the GOP fild. They don't have the substance and gravitas of, say, Ronaldus Magnus.
Calls for the impeachment of G.W. Bush
Some FReeprs have called for that. Are they fake conservatives too?
I'm not quite ready to go that far, bu Bush has clearly failed to carry out his Constitutional obligation to protect the country from an alien invasion. He has impinged on the Constitution in signing the horrible anti-free-speech law sent to him by McVain. His war strategy is dubious, bordering on a no-win strategy and he fails to stand up for our troops doing their jobs. And even some conservties worry about whether this is a properly declared war.
Weiner actually did support his Congresswoman, Madame Pelosi, when she met with the Murderer Assad before he was against her meeting with Assad.
I have only heard him attakc Pelousy for this. He has been a strong supporter of Israel, one of the strongest in the media. He was just recently warning the Iranians that if they pushed their nuke development, the Israelis might take them out -- "thank God." Again, what you claim he said utterly contradicts everything he's been heard to say.
Weiner hates President Bush, except when he likes President Bush.
IOW, like most conservaties,he strongly agrees with the President on some isues and strongly disagrees with him on others. Clearly, you regard any criticism of the President as evidence that someone is not a "real" conservative.
On his Nov 20, 2006 show, Weiner hosted a love-in with Charlie Rangel.
Is that about the time that Rangel sharply rebuked Hugo Chavez? If so, I was praising Rangel for that too. Hannity has Rangel on frequently (probably more times than Savage has) too and they're very friendly. Is Sean Hannity a fake conservative?
BTW, Savage also had Upchuck Schumer on a couple of times during the Dubai Ports fight (on which he and Sean disagreed with Bush, but Rush agreed with him. I happen to agree with Savage and Sean.) It was the one time in his career that Schumer was right about something. Even a blind bird catches a worm once in a while. Weiner played a clip from some Israeli pot smokers and then extrapolated from this clip that all of Israel have become drug addicts.
No, like his complaining about "RDDBs' here (Red Diaper Doper Babies, for those who don't speak Savage), he was bemoanign teh undue influence of dopers and other decadents in Israel and how it's bringing their society down and making them weak in responding to threats, like America has become too. (He also bemoans the pressure that the State Department puts on Israel not to respond to attacks.)
Weiner said that drug addicts should be executed.
In the tradition of the great Bob Grant, who used to say that welfare mothers should be sterilized and that th solution to the drug problem was to "give them all a free overdose." A bit harsh, perhaps, but certainly not something a liberal would say.
Weiner advocates cutting and running in Iraq.
False statement. Utterly false, and you know that. Nobody on the air has been a bigger advocate of winning the war than Michael Savage has. But he believes that we're fighting a war with a no-win strategy and that we ought either to win or get out. (I think most conservatives would agree with the latter part of that, at least. It's exactly the same criticism we all had of LBJ.) He has called for the use of air power to win the war more quickly. he has sharply attacke dthose in our government who prosecute our troops for doing their jobs, such as in the Pendleton Eight case and has personally donated and raised money for them. He has attacked many of our leaders for being unwilling to do what it takes. Try to get this right next time.
Provides money to a moonbat AG candidate in a border state
Certainly odd and he was wrong to do that, but we've all done strange things from time to time. One contribution does not mean anything in particular.
Twice hosted Chuck Schumer in a blatant attempt to damage the GOP Senate Campaign during an election year.
See above, as I have already discussed this. it was on teh Dubai Ports issue, on which many conservatives, including Hannity, agreed with Schumer's position. Savage had him on to discuss that one issue.
Weiner thinks multinational corporations conspire with each other. Weiner thinks the oil companies conspire with each other
They very well may, alkthough I have seen no evidence of it, but someone always breaks the conspiracy. That is why such conspiracies never work, at least in a free amrket. (In that position, BTW, Savage agrees with O'Reilly.)
Supports the minimum wage
I disagree with him here, but one position does not make a liberal. By that standard, I could make every conservative host out to be a liberal.
Weiner h ates Conservative icons like Rush Limbaugh
He's criticized Rush for wasting time on golf stories and other such matters rather than issues, and for being too cozy with the Republican Party, which Rush has essentially admitted ("I don't have to carry their water anymore.") I've been critical of him on those points too, as have numerous conservatives.
Attacks other Conservatives more than Liberals
Another blatantly false statement. He does attack other conservatives when he thinks they're wrong, but he constantly attacks the "vermin left." Remember, this is the author of Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder. He has called fo rusing RICO to shut down the ACLU.
Now, he does attack Republicans fairly often, but that is because they have either abandoned their conservative principles or never had any principles to begin with. They NEED to be attacked when they do that.
Spews hatred and vile towards our Commander in Chief during a time of war
IOW, he strongly criticizes him, which offends Bushbots.
Claims to be a sort of "Patton" on the War on Terror, but when the Israelis started bombing Lebanon, he turned into Cindy Sheehan
Again, false. He has defended the Israelis. He did express concern that they were hitting the Christian neighborhoods as well as the Muslim ones. I don't know how one avoids that, but it disturbed me too. They need smarter bombs, apparently.
Called Cheney a liar, and said he didn't believe a word he says, ever.
Called Bush a liar.
When? I have never heard him say eitehr of these things.
Said the war in Iraq is purely for profit, get this, so that Haliburton can make money.
Offered that as a possibl explanation of why we're dragging out what he perceives as a no-win war (and has often looked that way, at least until the surge.) If we're fighting a no-win war, then why?
Said there's no difference between the GOP and Dems.
Less and less every day, thanks to the wimpiness of the Republican Establishment. Many of us have been warning about this for a long time.
Said he deserves most of the credit for the ports deal not going through, and since the GOP didn't give him credit, he won't support them in any way.
Au contraire, he has said that the people defeated the Dubai Ports deal ("We beat Dubai Ports, we can defeat the immigration bill"), and that deal is only one reason he has trouble supporting the GOP.
Said it won't be so bad if Dems take over, outside of some minor social changes, nothing else will really change.
So far, very little has. (He also complained that Bush lost the election to the Democrats so he could get his corrupt amnesty bill through.)
Called this a broken nation with corrupt leadership
Much of it, in both parties, is corrupt.
He had a caller who said he was livid with the GOP, but since the Dems are much worse, he pleaded with Savage's listeners to get out and vote... With each sentence, Savage shouted him down.
I heard that. You apperntly don't understand how angry conservties were with the GOP. Dr. Savage is not patient with partisans wasting his air time, especiallky when they want to overlook every bad thing that the GOP has done. That only encourages them to do things like the amnesty bill. They think they can takle conservatives for granted, despitre their loss in 2006. We continue to get all the rhetoric and they continue to get all the action.
He believes that the Clintons and Bush family have developed some sort of consortium and political syndicate together. For the next several years, they will stiff-arm the rest of the political world and alternate family members to the Presidency. Hillary is next, then followed by Jeb.
I've heard Dick Morris asy the saame thing, and I've heard Rsh (exasperated) ask why Bush is being so friendly to the Clintons. So it's not just savage who worries about this. And frighteningly, his "prediction" may be right.
Wow.
You need to give it a rest, pal.
You deserve credit for taking on that post. But you should know that he posts it almost every other day just for fun.
“The List Rules!
I never get tired of reading my fellow Freeper’s bulls eye analysis of that wack job, Michael Wiener. This thread is typical of that.”
Most Freepers are on to Wiener’s game.
All of you conspiracy theorists will be disappointed to learn that there was nothing sinister about the decision not to air his “speech.” The reason Savage did not get any air time was because he did not appear in person, but sent a DVD. If he speaks live somewhere, he’s been offered to get coverage. Interestingly, he has turned down the offer. Wonder why? Sounds like the actions of a big-mouthed, paranoid, hate-filled bully who is hiding in a radio station.
From C-Span transcripts:
LAMB: The decision not to carry the speech was made by our programming department — our vice president of programming, Terry Murphy — and the reason was that Mr. Savage did not appear in person. He sent out a DVD of an 11-minute speech, and we have offered him, in lieu of that, an opportunity to cover a speech that he might make — the same speech if he wants to — if he gives it before an audience out there in the Bay area where his program operates.
[...]
LAMB: He’s upset with us because we didn’t cover his Freedom of Speech Award speech that he was to give in person before the Talkers Magazine convention in — the talk show hosts in New York. We covered some of that, but not all of it, and chose not to cover — rerun his speech. He didn’t go to the event. He sent a DVD in, and we don’t use — we don’t show DVDs of somebody’s speech. We’ll cover them in person, and we’ve offered on occasion — and he’s turned us down — to cover his talk show on television.
And I am sure that C-SPAN did not want to waste the limited time they did have with a “canned” DVD speech from Savage. If Savage had been there in person, I am sure they would have aired something.
Because “They can’t handle the truth!”
Yes, and I see dcatdad has provided a transcript of that portion of yesterday’s WJ.
The realplayer link still works at 329. That first hour of WJ is disgusting and revealing at the same time. I felt bad for Brian Lamb but he read some of the most vile emails on the air. People who attacked Brian and C-SPAN should hang their heads in shame.
I listened to some of Savage last night and it appears he didn’t have the balls to even address yesterday’s WJ.
C-SPAN is paid for by subscribers, not the owners (stockholders?) And what does Ted Turner have to do with anything?
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.