Posted on 11/28/2005 5:03:33 PM PST by mastercylinder
Edited on 11/28/2005 5:07:49 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Al Franken and the other liberals are probably still wondering why they had such little luck in their efforts to start a talk-radio network to bash George Bush from the left. They didn't consider the obvious explanation. George Bush has his left flank nicely covered. It's on the right that he's weak.
That is the theory of Michael Savage. Savage is the most right-wing of the right-wing talkers on the national airwaves at the moment. He is based in San Francisco, but he can be heard in the New York area on WOR in the evenings. He is a welcome change from those Karl Rove clones Hush Bimbo and Sean Vanity.
"Hush Bimbo" and "Sean Vanity" are the names Savage has pinned on Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity of WABC. In doing so, he has sparked a war between the members of his "Savage Nation" (slogan: "Borders, language, culture") and the so-called "Bushbots," that sizable number of gullible Americans who can be convinced that whatever policy Bush adopts is a conservative policy.
"What makes Bush a conservative?" Savage asked when I got him on the phone the other day. "On the economy, Bush has got more governmental workers than anybody before him. He's ballooned the government."
As regards the so-called "war on terror," Savage points out that you can't win a war when you're afraid even to name the enemy.
"He's never mentioned Islamofascism," said Savage.
No, he hasn't. Even the French have been more willing to defend their borders, language and culture than Bush. He's a multiculturalist and a mushy one at that. Instead of reducing the reach of Islamic fundamentalism, Bush has managed in Iraq to get 1,700 Americans killed in a war that will create yet another Islamic republic. Just yesterday we learned that the new constitution in Iraq will incorporate sharia, Islamic law.
That's why we right-wing commentators believe the Iraq war has been the biggest blunder in America's military history. As for Bimbo and Vanity, if I may employ Savage's labels, they are simply too uneducated to realize that the Iraq war represents a failed liberal exercise in nation-building.
"There is no college in Rush. There is no college in Hannity," said Savage. "He's a high school dropout. It's like listening to an uneducated, unthinking man on the radio."
Savage has a Ph.D. from Berkeley in epidemiology, an extremely challenging field. That makes him a bit overqualified for the verbal pro-wrestling matches that make up talk radio. But it also makes him interesting.
The Bushbots don't think so. On their Web sites, they call Savage a bigot and a racist, two terms the employment of which generally indicate that the speaker is losing an argument. Savage is a hero on those Web sites that attack Bush's open-borders approach to immigration. "Rush Limbaugh is a direct link to his president, El Traitor, Senor Bush," wrote one blogger. "The invasion by illegals has been going on now for a long time."
"You are 100 percent correct," said another of Limbaugh and Hannity. "They are nothing but blind, rubber-stamping followers of El Presidente Bush."
All of this is a lot of fun if you don't take it seriously. I certainly don't. But I do find talk radio to be a good barometer of the nation's mood. And the nation is slowly figuring out that the Bush-neoconservative-Troskyite- internationalist view of foreign affairs has not worked out so swimmingly for the good old U.S. of A.
"Bush is melting down our borders and making us into a polyglot nation in which no one speaks the language," says Savage.
Savage hears a lot from people who say that any criticism of Bush is a mark of disloyalty to conservatism.
"I can't stand listening to people who want me to be a lapdog for Bush," he told me. "We're supposed to be watchdogs, not lapdogs."
As for the rest of the radio talkers, "They may as well work for the Republican Party. There's nothing interesting if you can predict what a man's going to say by just going to the GOP Web site."
He's certainly got that right. Listening to an endless rehash of Karl Rove's talking points, leavened by a few Teddy Kennedy-is-a-drunk jokes, is not very entertaining.
As for the Al Franken approach, how can a nation-building, internationalist multiculturalist get any traction by criticizing another nation-building, internationalist multiculturalist? John Kerry had that problem as well, you might have noticed.
When you attack the Bush-Rove spin from the right, however, you realize that the neocons' grand social experiment has been tried most visibly in Iraq and has failed most visibly there. People are starting to notice. Eventually even the Bushbots may get a clue.
So Weldon's pushing of Able Danger should be ignored?
Dane, you are such a little political whore.
You have to understand. At bheart, Savage is a Nu Yawka, like myself. Many in flyover country simply on't get certain things that you consider extreme which are really not in a native Nu Yawka's eyes like a guy from da Bronx.
LOL! Jealous of Savage?
Savage is mentally ill: obsessive-compulsive, with bi-polar disorder.
Yes, and that towering intellect that calls his rivals "Hush Bimbo" is to be respected. Please. And to degrade his more succesful rivals because they have no college degree? Really, how petty must you be?
I don't disagree with everything he says, but when I listen to him, it's like listening to a mental patient.
A man who thinks that minimum wage needs to be a "living wage", thinks price controls are a good thing, and has no control over his emotions is no intellectual my friends.
I think Bernard Goldberg was on Rush's program once, and I heard Rush say that "this Savage fellow sounds like he's unstable". He prefaced it by saying that he hadn't listened to his show. I think Goldberg was saying that Savage made it into his book of "100 people who are Screwing up America".
Rush is entertaining, I disagree with him occasionally but rarely. He is a much more adept master of the English language and phrasing than Savage can ever hope to be. But above all, he's always in *control*, and is a master at sparring with hostile callers even if is against every fiber of their being. Hannity bores me, and I don't find his show entertaining one bit. For a small dose of vitriol I'll occasionally listen to Levin. I dislike a lot about the Bush administration, but Savage's vitriol is so over the top that he probably should start a forum like DU!
Jealously is a dangerous word to use in relation to savage. From his constant ranting against people like Limbaugh and Hannity it's easy to see how ate up he is with it.
If you don't like his accent, remind yourself never to call me. lol.
I think Tancredo should get Savage as his running mate.
Your posts reek of the same disorder.
I am not anti-Savage by any means. Stridency can be a virtue, and his contempt for the disingenuous ways and smug condescension of liberals is admirable. He is way ahead of the curve with regard to fighting lax immigration enforcement and multiculturalism. Like Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schafly, he has placed himself in the Greg zone between mainstream conservatism and the farther store of politics where dwell conspiracists, neo-Confederates, and authoritarian wannabes. In the 1970s, Schafly almost singlehandedly defeated the Equal Rights Amendment, effectively pushing the political agenda against feminism to the right. Savage's persistence against lax immigration enforcement has helped to focus the nation's attention on this problem. Even President Bush discussed the need for better border controls.
Nevertheless, Savage's factual errors and sometimes erratic behavior detract from his effectiveness.
LOL......well I don't live in fly over space and I question his methods....as many have said here....regardless or where he is from, his mean spirited, vitriolic speech only appeals to a select few and detracts from his otherwise intelligent grasp of the issues.......I grew up in Oakland Calif....I know about "bad boys"....and extreme circumstances for sure......
As Plutarch says, Savage thinks that gasoline price controls are necessary. He says that the war is a lost cause. I don't accept that he is conservative. Strident, kooky, and vicious, yes - but I don't see how that makes him a conservative.
Savage doesn't think the war is a lost cause. He thinks conducting the war the way it has been conducted so far is a losing bet.
That makes twice in a row that you used dangerous words. Reek and you go so well together.
Sometimes I get the feeling that he and some friends were sitting around trying to come up with a cooler surname than "Weiner," and someone said, "It has to be something bad . . . something wicked . . . something savage--" and then Michael jumped in and yelled, "Savage! That's it!"
Savage is wrong.
I also think Rush is a genius and entertaining. Sean is -- well, Sean... could use a little less ego and a different spiel once in a while.
So was Churchill considered a Kook (your word) before England figured out they could not survive without his leadership. There are many of us Savage Nation types our here! Come join us!
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.