Posted on 10/24/2006 8:56:37 AM PDT by kellynla
America's most fiery conservative talk show host backing liberal Jerry Brown for California's attorney general?
Yes, it's true.
Michael Savage, the nation's third most listened-to radio host (and 4th most influential host according to NewsMax's Top 25 List), confirmed that he recently donated $5,600 -- the maxium allowable -- to Brown's campaign.
Brown won the Democratic Party nod and is facing Republican State Sen. Chuck Poochigian of Fresno, Calif.
"What can I say?," Savage told the San Francisco Chronicle. "I think he'd make a great attorney general compared to the other guy. By the way, who is the other guy?"
Republican Poochigian is currently a State Senator and former assemblyman who has served 12 years in Sacramento.
"You have to make choices in an imperfect world," Savage said. "And this, this Machugian guy (sic). I never heard of him. I don't even know who he is."
"Why bet on a horse that isn't going to win? Why throw your money into the garbage?"
Savage said he respects Brown's decision to start the Oakland military academy and his experience as a politician, regardless of his very liberal past.
Brown, who had the nickname "Governor Moonbeam," served as California's governor for two terms beginning in 1974. A former Democratic presidential candidate, he ran for mayor of Oakland, Calif. in 1998 and won.
"People change. He changed. He has experience," Savage told the Chronicle. . . . "He's moved to the center, which is what this socialist state needs."
As for the conservative Poochigian's campaign, they are not so angry with the Savage defection, bragging that their candidate has the backing of Bo Derek.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I'm on "the list" now? What list is that exactly?
Right On. Then this guy is considered a great conservative. BULL CRAP!
There are two lists. One is a list of patriots. You're not on that list.
I think I know who really needs the meds.
OK. Let's say Mike has a big cut of our military's listenership, today and in the future. Do you think his positions will induce them to vote Rat? Do you think Savage might sway ANY listener to vote Rat? Ever? Not counting Brown here, I mean nationally.
Handing over power to the Democratic Party, at this juncture of its political (im)maturity, or working towards that goal, is constructive treason.
Couldn't have said it better. That's the only thing that keeps me supporting these idiot Republicans, but it is a big one. I've never forgiven myself for helping to get Clinton elected.
Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of governance, with the exception of everything else.
Deep down...Savage is an entertainer not a serious political commentator. I used to listen to him during my commute, (when the Mariners were not playing), and got the impression that he needed to be more consistent in taking his meds.
How many dead Americans are "acceptable losses" for you in the next terrorist attack?
This thread is about the election of the next AG of CA.
Your boy has elected to donate 5K and support Moonbeam.
You can dance around the issue all you like but Savage is a dyed in the wool TURNCOAT. What makes him more despicable is that he took money he received from his CONSERVATIVE listeners and readership to donate to one of if not THE BIGGEST LIBERAL IN CA!
Point, Game, Set, Match!
I just think he does us a huge net favor by daily underlining the implications of Pelosi being speaker of the house.
That alone is enough to scare swing voters to vote GOP, IMO.
Savage is mad. Savage wants revenge. The MSM ignores him. The cable shows won't schedule him for appearances. The GOP doesn't acknowledge his existence. So, the vendictive Savage attempts to get even by undermining our Prez.
He's a traitor.
Apology accepted.
But there was no need of you to apologize.
Michael Savage is the one who should be apologizing.
You are an honorable person.
Semper Fi,
Kelly
[Handing over power to the Democratic Party, at this juncture of its political (im)maturity, or working towards that goal, is constructive treason.]
It's called entrenchment to subjective ideological purity, or 'if I can't have it totally my way, I am taking my bat and ball and going home.' Sadly, the left does not have sole proprietorship of such zealous irrationality. There is no sole 'school of conservative thought' that can claim a majority. The political reality is that it takes a uniting of various conservatives, social and economic, to create a majority.
Even then, at this point in history, those we like to decry as RINOs, aka moderates and independents, are needed by both the left and right to build a majority concensus. Granted, the left needs to draw more of them than the right does, but neither side has a majority without them. That is simple political reality, something that ideologues on both sides abhor. In the end, if either side ignores or writes off the middle and cedes it to the opposition, they will lose the election.
This is the construct that the Founding Fathers envisioned when they established our system of government, the federalism of a representative republic. It is one that does not allow for rapid change that would foment upheaval and chaos. It took democrats over 30 years to implement a socialistic government bureaucracy of entitlement programs that enslaved the public on reliance on the government for their well-being.
What do we learn from history ? It appears ideological zeal turns a blind eye. Reagan began the reform, but, once again, we backtracked, and the Perot movement delivered Bill Clinton, who set back many of the reforms Reagan made, especially military and intelligence. Now, we have started agian to make inroads, but it is not fast enough or ideologically pure enough for some. So they threaten to stay home or vote for someone else.
Will we once again deliver the democrats a victory because of our narrow-sightedness ? Will we set back the gains made ? Will we lose the opportunity to get the one more Supreme Court judge to make a difference ? Will we risk the security and defense of the country we all love ? This is a seminal election, one of great import that will have major ramifications and set the stage for 2008. It will determine who sets the agenda between now and then.
I know this string was about Michael Savage/Weiner. Personally, I am not a fan, besides his ego, he is too angry and panders to that emotion, and that tends to drown out logic and the ability to look at the big picture. Does it matter to me if he endorses Jerry Brown ? Not really, because I make up my own mind. I agree with some of Savage's positions and disagree with others (including Brown - btw he claims to support Brown because he opened a military school in SF, and should be rewarded for that).
What is my point ? If we allow ourselves to be distracted from the big picture goal by individual tunnlevision issues, we risk losing both. While ideological positions can shape the debate, political reality is that it is incrementalism that delivers the end result with our system of government. This is at odds with modern societies desire for immediate gratification and lack of patience, we want it and we want it now. But we forget the lesson of the tortoise and the hare.
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.