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.
Hahahah! He's got my vote!
I think the disconnect between the members of the Savage Nation, and the inhabitants of the rest of the planet, is that his fans realize that 'Michael Savage' is a character that Michael Weiner portrays for three hours a day, 5x a week. When I realized a lot of the antics were part of the show, I appreciated the show a lot more.
Then how do you react to the comments by Hannity or Limbaugh who also make good comments at times but then do this "lapdog" routine of spinning the latest weak liberal move by the GOP and making excuses for soft, weak, flacid and anti-American moves by the Bush administration? What's the difference? The difference to me is that Savage is far more serious about the serious issues, and tells it the way it is. Hannity would rather giggle about some dumb thing or plug his TV show or book, and Limbaugh has always walked on thin ice with any criticism of the GOP. Savage is the only honest one among the three because he holds Republicans accountable for their leftist ways.
Rush and Hannity and William Bennett, Laura, and all the conservative hosts have been going after Bush for too much spending, poor border control and especially the previous nomination to the supreme court. They don't criticize each other and rarely even mention one another by choosing to focus on their own show. Savage is more a 5th column than someone I trust. I think he hurts conservatism more than helps. JMHO
Savage has been all over Able Danger (highlighting Weldon on his show on several occasions). Where is Bush and their cheerleaders on this important issue?
Yeah, he is a kook, but I'll give him props for this issue.
As mentioned, Bush actually did use the word last month, but I'd have to give that one to Bush. Does Hitchens's trendy journalistic formulation really add much to the discussion?
ya.. I know he's a kook on some issues, but on others, I think he's spot on.
You just described michael savage perfectly.
This is one of the things I don't understand about people who trust their politicians.
I'm from Canada where politicians lie with a staight face during an election and the lies are brushed off with the wave of a lace hankerchief after they are in power.
If a politician lies outright to get elected by saying something then how much worse is it when they lie by saying nothing.
eg.
"I will do such and such even though I have no intention of doing so."
as opposed to
"Some say.....BUT NOT ME."
As far as him versus Rush and Hannity, well, they don't like to fight battles of wit with unarmed men.
Not giving a one minute slobbering kiss of a speech on the House floor to John Murtha as Weldon did.
You are Quoting "New Republic".
I have heard Rush and Hannity cover Able Danger - and probably bring a lot more attention to it than Savage - very thoroughly. Rush was the madest I have ever heard him, when this story first broke. He interview Weldon and spent a lot of time on it. That was before I heard it on Savage. That doesn't mean he was first. I rarely listen to Savage, anymore. He does some things well, but I can't listen to him too long. Maybe, I have too much College education and can pick out a blow hard when I hear him.
Michael.... your envy is showing.
Rush may not be able to recite Plato from memory, but he's DAMN sure good at what he does. Kind of like a pro athlete who skipped college, went straight to the pros, and never looked back. Rush's grasp of economics is better than 99.9% of the general population, and better than all 535 elected representatives of the people who make our laws.
I've listened to both Rush and Savage, and I'll take Rush any day. Plus, Rush is sane.
You noticed who his co-sponsor was the following Monday?
Murtha.
The difference is Limbaugh is a commentator voicing an opinion, savage is a merchant hawking a product.
Savage may be a kook, but it does not change the fact that President Bush is NOT very conservative.
Not hardly, Bushbot.
While I strongly disagree w/ Savage on the drug issue & his Yankee accent is as pleasureable to listen to as screeching fingernails across a chalkboard, Savage us RIGHT. It's nice to hear someone put President Bush in his place & show how much of a big-government internationalist he is.
Don't back down, Michael....KEEP IT UP!
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.