Redstate

Even when I'm not at RedState, but I come close when I'm talking about Michael Savage. You are dead on with this post. Every time I listen to his program, I wonder seriously about the suicide rate amongst his regular audience listeners - how could any human being stand that barrage day after day?

He's a ridiculous caricature of what liberals think conservatives are - and what makes him infinitely worse is he is so desperate to separate himself from the rest of the pack that lately all I've ever heard him do is dump on conservatives, dump on Bush, or dump on other conservative talk radio hosts.

What an incredible flippin' weiner (bad pun intended).

Find some place in Atlanta that carries Glenn Beck. He's a Michael Weiner antidote.

I appreciate the talkshow recommendation.

I'm glad to read that I'm not the only one who thinks Savage isn't as colored red as I'm sure his constantly enraged face is.

But maybe it's just as well -- I don't think libs in cali can handle the light-hearted good natured conservative humor of talkshow hosts like Tom Sullivan, or even Rush -- it might as well be in a foreign language. Maybe Savage hooks his San Fran listeners by trashing Bush than feeds them his political views. Oppsite side being, maybe Savage hoodwinks conservatives into his listening to his show when he talks of tightening border security and then feeds them his anti-Bush and anti-GOP rhetoric.

I also don't live in the ATlanta area so can't help you specifically with a show.

I agree with Leon Glenn Beck is a hoot, and he does politics, but he isn't politicized.

Also, I have recently started listening to Michael Medved, and I have to say he does one of the best jobs of exposing the flaws in liberal thinking I have heard on radio.  My only complaint is that he doesn't have the humor stuff that Beck or Rush do, he is more intellectual than humor.

does being on the 'right side of the aisle' entail immediate agreement with the President or Republican Party Platform?

Myself, I won't call Michael right or left.  I think of him as a crude and abrasive entertainer, and one whom I genuinely despise on mose occasions, not a true political analyst.

I also enjoy Dennis Prager.  Now if you're looking for wit and humor I would go with Laura Ingraham.  I never could get any AM reception in my office so I resorted to the better solution - streaming audio from the website.

I recommend WNTP - News Talk 990 from my hometown of Philly PA.

Oh yeah - you'll have to tune out in the evening when Savage is on b/c he does make any sane person want to throw large heavy objects and scream and otherwise make a commotion.

~Big Tom

enough to know where he fits in the political spectrum, he is to foul mouthed and obnoxious for my tastes.

I have no issues with criticism of the administration or the party, when/if it is deserved.  Start a thread on immigration reform, and you are likely to find me pounding the administration pretty badly.

You know, it's late, I just got in from basically a 16 hour day between the software engineering day job followed by a blues gig about an hour from home.  I've had a Jack on the rocks, and I'm about to change into my PJ's, wash up, and hit the sack.

I'm dead tired, but it usually doesn't affect my mind all that much.  You never know, however.

Michael Savage a liberal?  Am I hallucinating?

Sorry folks, he's all yours.  We don't want him.

And, as an aside, what does the fact that he's Jewish (if he is, in fact, Jewish) have to do with anything?

Cheers -

On certain issues, he's extremely conservative.  On others, he's extremely liberal.  You might be tempted to say 'libertarian,' until you'd notice that he's probably their exact opposite.

The man's a bit hard to pin down, and I think part of that is that he's paid to rail and rant, not think clearly.    I'll never call in.  I have no desire to actually speak to him, as he simply badgers his callers without grovelling obeissance on their behalf.

Even Rush occasionally has a point.

To Boortz back when I could listen to a radio during work.  I generally enjoyed him, but, I'd say most across the board conservatives will have some problems with him.  He's a pretty good posterchild for libertarianism.  So that should give you a decent idea what to expect anyway.
-bro

that MS is trying to drive people away from the republican party by caricturizing conservatives.

He sure doesn't speak for me.

But on the other hand, I am always drawn to his show--it's like a car wreck.  Wasn't he predicting that we were going to blown up by 20 suitcase nukes across the US today (or soon?).

If so, I'd like to say my fond farewells.

I cannot stand him and you hit the nail on the head.  He is such a pessimist it's a downer.  He never has one positive thing to say about anyone or anything.  Even when Bush does the right thing (according to him of course) he waited too long or didn't do it quick enough.....

I have a friend who loves him, but I can't stand him.  He does more harm than good to the conservative movement.  I would actually argue he is borderline facist.

Albeit Morton was of Irish descent. Anyway, Savage is unlistenable.

Speaking of Irish: Woke at about 4:30 a.m. this morning. BBC at WETA had a chat show on about religion in Kenya, so I turned on WMAL, and that Coast to Coast freak show was on. Patrik Heron, an Irish author,  was talking about pyramids. A caller asked whether he knew anything about the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses being involved with the Illuminati. Well, duh. Everyone knows that.

Red State connection? Give me a couple of links and I can get to Henry Wallace's pernicious influence the Democratic Party in the 40s. Start here.

Anyway, Heron's brogue soon lulled me back to sleep. A troubled, heavy sleep.

I've never listened to Michael Savage, but Sean Hannity is HUGE in the Shanendoah Valley. Confession time: Last year during the elction I was a big Hannity fan, mostly because Rush was over by the time I got out of school. Soon after Nov, however, I saw Hannity for what he is; an intellectual lightweight who is incapable of carrying on an intelligent political debate and who lacks any oringinal ideas.

If he attempted to post here, he would be shot down in debate or banned as a troll.

You're right about one thing: we don't want Savage. Personally, I can't abide the man. He does nothing but scream, like a liberal. Like a liberal, he is continually descending to gratuitous, nasty namecalling. What little substance Savage has I can get, and much more, from Boortz or Rush.

And don't get me wrong, I respect people who think for themselves and don't follow the party ticket...I'd be a hypocrite to criticize him for criticizing Bush and the RNC-->because I follow and vote for my political beliefs, not for a party. But he called Rush a party ticket man -- last I checked, Rush will criticize Bush and other Republicans.

So really it's his attitude and the WAY he criticizes more than just the criticizm itself.

That's related to the fact I'm trying to figure him out -- pick out his identity.  This man is held up as an example of why conservative talk radio is just extreme and out of control after all.

Hardworking Jewish New York neighborhood guy who is a super duper HARDLINE CONSERVATIVE - and ha ha ha how funny -- He's in California and he's been living there for years and he's a Berkeley baby too.

puhhhhhleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze.

Hannity isn't disciplined. He indulges in ranting/raving/generalizations without stopping to back up what he says and really descends to dogma.

Rush is a skilled orator -- he is extremely deliberate and careful about his speech. If he descends to crazy outrageous statements -->there's a catch, there's proof and he's guiding his audience into a direction he wants them to land before showing the article/proof/soundbite etc etc.  He's also extremely good at CYA. So you might think you've caught him in a mistake, but he's got that backup soundbite from 6 weeks ago -- unless you listen to his show 100% as well as record it, you aren't going to catch his mistakes, at least not well.

Olivia -

Savage strikes me as just an angry loudmouthed guy with an equal opportunity policy as to targets.  His audience, probably a similar profile.

I think jannelsen's comparison to Downey is on the money.  Is Downey still alive?  Have he and Savage ever been seen in the same place at the same time?  ;-)

Cheers -

My problem with Medved having listened to show off an on for the last few years is that his idea of a "debate" is to invite the most wacko-fringe of the Far Left onto his show and let them self-destruct.  He doesn't really discuss ideas so much as try to steer the "conversation" back to his talking points (look at how he'll cut off his callers when he doesn't have a pre-packaged response to a question).

In contrast, Prager tries to invite the strongest proponents of the Left onto his show (not some ignorant protester/conspiracy theorist) and gives them a pretty fair opportunity to state their case.  He's generally very cordial to his callers including those who disagree with them and pretty careful about not misrepresenting their arguments (although he sometimes over-generalizes but not intentionally IMO) and gives them an opportunity to clarify what they're saying or correct him if he's been unfair to their POV.

Seriously I think he's just a guy who is either (a) suffering from some serious emotional problems or (b) doing shtick for his audience and laughing all the way to the bank.

I've glad that pretty much every Red Stater who has mentioned him has rightfully denounced this ignoramus and wants nothing to do with him but I do not think that we can rightfully say "we'll he's actually on the other side . . ."

He's not on our side because we don't want or accept him.  Neither is he on the other side.

He's alone.  Screaming at his radio and the lonely souls who have nothing better to do than call in.

and it drives me insane.

I like somebody who is willing to be more honestly critical of the party/party leaders when it is earned.

Half of his content seems to consist of him sucking up to his guests and/or callers and hyping his book, website, television show, or saying "when are you and I going to get together again?"

Not very interesting, at least for this former listener.

BTW: is there a nationally syndicated conservative talk show host who doesn't have a book out?  

he's floating somewhere in the sky, far far from earth and reality and political rational thought.

He's that crazy uncle who everyone roles their eyes over who screams "I knew it! I knew it the whole #$ time!"

MS spews just enough rational thought to tie you in, cites his doctorate as proof he's rational, then spews his crazy ideas at innocent bystanders like a teenager after a drinking party.

I guess that's why he has an alias of Michael Savage -- he attempts to be as Savage as possible with his schtick that gets him lots of attention from an audience and therefore advertisers.

He probably feeds off negative attention -- everytime he says homosexual-this and those homosexuals-that ... in San Fran he probably drives emotions super high and therefore gets more attention.

But it still takes me back and makes me wonder...is this man truly a political social conservative? Or is he selling his true liberal background for money and fame?

"You should only get AIDS and die, you pig"

When Savage said that to a homosexual caller on his TV show, he lost my as a listener forever. We don't need that kind of vitriol on the right.

As far as Glenn Beck, he's OK, but he has a tendency to interrupt, cut off, and generally not allow to speak callers who disagree with him.

but then there are people out there buying the books, so they write them.

I haven't listened to Hannity on Radio-he has never been in my market.

We used to have a really good local guy on here in the afternoons that I liked, but he left (not sure why he was here and then he was gone) and they hired a libertarian who is just a bit too wacked for me-he makes Boortz look like a GOP partyline man.  

is an ignorant moron.  He also vacillates from position to position without realizing it.  He may even be bipolar (OK, I don't really know that, but his mood swings would seem to indicate it).  I tried listening to him once, but I can't do it anymore.  There. Now that's out of my system.

Instead of a one dimensions liberal grid, I like to think of the talk show hosts on the liberal-conservative scale, but also on what I would call the Elitism-Demagogic scale. I would call Savage a conservative, but he's ranks high on the Demagogic end of the vertical axis.

Doesn't always fit, that's true.  Though I would say folks like this talk-radio guy are probably on the "more government intervention" ends of both the economic and the social axes of any grid.  In that sense, unlike the original title suggests, it's not that he's "so right that he's left," it's more that his positions on the issues require gov't intervention in every area of life and not just those preferred by either group that is conventionally referred to as right or left.  He's sort of the opposite of a libertarian.

He once had a TV show but got thrown off it and cancelled when he cursed out a gay caller on the air, calling him a sodomite and hoping he would die or something. He is mostly angry and, as I listen carefully to him (less and less with Hegh Hewitt against him) a certain amount of insecurity. He does not, in my opinion, have the strength of his convictions, since if someone dares to say they don't agree with them, he will just shout them down. I worked with a guy once who was highly educated, ambivalent about his roots, claimed to be a conservative but would literally shout so loud in rages we would leave his end of the office. Savage reminds me of that guy. He ended up losing his business, his wife, his friends.

Savage is not a patriot so much as a nationalist. He wants everything to sit still and be orderly: he thinks langhuage should not move, he thinks demographics should be fixed in place. His basic, nonenraged opinions are interesting: language border culture. But his self absorbed bitterness detracts and diverts from those opinions. His ego, instead of being just large and secure is huge, petty and very insecure. He is actually a very accomlished man, but instead of seeing that those accomplishments offset the challenges and disappointments he has, like everyone had to face, he just gets madder on the air.

Compared to Rush, his resume and udecation is tremendous. All Rush has ever done is radio. Rush is formally very ineducated. Yet Rush never berates even those who call to strongly attack him even a fraction as strongly as Savage does those who dare to say they only mostly agree with him.  

During the election he was on message. But very quickly after the election, he started in with loud demands to carpet bomb cities, to make life unlivable for illegal immigrants with no plan as to what to do with the illegals here, and no idea of a consequence to harsh changes. He started in with second guessing and villifying W, the Republicans, other talk show hosts, any conservative who dared to disagree, etc.

He seems a guy who is not so much conservative as  truly and deeply self-obsessed and enraged. He cut off his excerpts of Blair's post bombing statements saying he was useless, weak and soft on terror. Even as, in my market, Hugh Hewett was playing the same excerpt at nearly the same time and pointing out how strong a statement it was.

Savage is a guy who has some ideas that are very good but his failure in anger management has hurt him before and is very likely to soon hurt him again.

You know, I actually know someone who I think could very seriously be considered, especially since he has said so himself, to be so far left that he has ended up on the right. The truth of the matter is that he's actually just mostly on the right, but doesn't realize it. But it speaks to a larger point.

I happen to believe that politics is circular. There comes a point when the extreme left and extreme right meet each other and more or less conglomerate into one big mess of extremism. In Internet community terms, consider the similarities in behavior between Democratic Underground and Free Republic.

I think you'll find, if this is true, that there's a point where actually the ideologies are the furthest apart. When you have mainstream political debate pushing towards those points, not the farthest to the extreme mind you, that's when you have real divisiveness.

You have the MoveOn.org/Daily Kos crowd on the left, and you have the Christian Coalition/The American Cause crowd on the right. They are all cannibals of some sort, though I must admit that MoveOn.org is pretty good about not ripping into other Democratic candidates, and they represent basically the "mainstream extremes," which is to say that they represent those points of view that are diametrically opposed to one another and, in circular politics, are the most distant.

We have a lot of folks who are subscribing to those kinds of opinions these days, and so politics appears more shrill and divisive - perhaps moreso than it has ever been before. Could Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill be friendly after 5 PM in the political world of 2005?

Ask yourself this - could George W. Bush and Nancy Pelosi, were she Speaker of the House? I seem to find it unlikely; not because Bush hates Pelosi, but because Pelosi seems to genuinely dislike the President, and the President's supporters would rip him to shreds were he to befriend a San Francisco liberal like Pelosi.

For a long time, politics really did exist mostly in the mainstream. The candidates always seem to be somewhere near the center, where most politics takes place at least in the Beltway. Their supporters, however, used to come from wide swaths of the population. They were not extremists.

That has begun to change. Extremists are going to the polls and voting in primaries for candidates who, in previous years, might not have ever received the time of day. Truly, what business does US Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin have in running for President in 2008? A divorcee and unabashed liberal, in previous elections he wouldn't be able to raise any money, or maybe even get on ballots. But in 2008, he might have a legitimate shot at the nomination - not because the time is right for his ideas, but because the time is right for extremists to get another nominee in the mold of George McGovern in 1972.

Republicans have the same problem. Will they nominate someone like US Sens. Sam Brownback of Kansas or Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania? Both could be considered mainstream extremists of the Free Republic variety, though Brownback has the ability, unlike Santorum, to think before he speaks. What of Tom Tancredo, a militant opponent to illegal immigration? No other candidate is likely to take up his cause in 2008, and he may stick with it Pat Buchanan-style up until the nomination, then give a rousing, and probably offensive, speech to the party convention.

Could 2008 be a matchup between Democratic Underground and Free Republic? No, probably not. But it may be a matchup between Daily Kos and the Christian Coalition, trading barbs about who is evil rather than who is best for America.

For the sake of our country, we have to take politics back from the extremists who can be found lurking behind the scenes, agitating and causing the degradation of our political culture. It's not a coincidence that things have gotten so bad in Washington over the past decade. New, alternative media like blogs and talk radio have given extremists on both sides an opportunity to be heard loudly.

When professional writers comment about the "echo chamber" of blogs, they are usually trying to snipe at one particular blog or another where it's suggested that there is no difference of opinion. These are usually Republican blogs since, as everyone knows, there is less disagreement and dissent on the surface within Republican communities. But let me make the statement, quite authoritatively in fact, that the true echo chamber exists within the blog community itself.

In the blog community as a whole, profanity and extremism are considered the norm. RedState.org is a fine example of keeping politics respectful and professional, by and large, and it ought to be commended for doing so. On the left, MyDD is my favorite blog, replacing TPM Cafe which I can no longer use due to my new Mac causing display issues with posts, because they too tend to forego much of the extremist, profane, and offensive banter.

We ought to be doing more to try to make the mainstream media realize that Daily Kos, Free Republic, and Democratic Underground do not speak for us, at large, as bloggers. The fact that Markos Moulitsas was invited to the FEC to speak about the freedom of bloggers, along with RedState's own Mike Krempasky, shows that he is considered one of the more prominent bloggers on the web. Why we, as members of the larger blog community, have allowed ourselves to be linked with this man of questionable decency, I do not know.

I have to say that hands down my favorite talk show host is Laura Ingraham . Strong conservative, extremely intelligent, and very funny.   Atlanta listings can be found here enjoy!

P.S. has anyone ever come across this site before? very disturbing

Yes I know the site is a joke

gave me a good laugh before I have to go mow the lawn.

Even the copyright was funny:

©* 1917 - 2004 Communists For Kerry, Ltd., Politburo and Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party, Ministry of Truth, Comrades of Armed Organs, Young Pioneer Organizations, Komsomol, Society for Sport and Technology, Society for Advancement of Secondary Sexual Characteristics, and other groups and collectives of our great Socialist Amerikan Motherland.

____

* People's Property notification (known as copyright in the degraded non-socialist economic region of dying capitalism)

Ha!  No kidding.  And I thought I was the only one who felt that Free Republic is sort of a DU-bizarro world.  Your post is fairly close to the truth about the uber-extremes.  Free Republic is supposedly a "conservative" forum, yet collectively, it reminds me a lot of Michael Savage.  Posts often get deleted if they go too far to disprove the orthodoxy of the day.  Disagreements are often answered with either obscenities or referring to the dissenter as a "Yankee" (I'm assuming this is supposed to be some sort of insult?).  Catholic-bashing abounds.  There was even a woman on there who claimed that the South was secretely planning a new Civil War and that this time, naturally, it would win.  Thank goodness I now live in Virginia!

The point is, Free Republic is no more "conservative" than DU is "liberal."  Both are basically comprised of largely irrational revolutionaries who would prefer this country be structured far differently than it is now, both culturally and politically, both socially and constitutionally.  Whether it be the DU dreams of a socialist utopia or the Free Republic ideal of a Christian Democracy, both are populated by folks who don't really care for what America was, is, or will become.  And I am certainly glad that these folks represent only the margins of political thought.

Clever as a log that is.

I think his biting ironic nickname for the Democrats was "the Demoncats" which sounds more like a little league team than a menace.

I've always liked listening to Michael Savage.  What I like most is how he puts things into a historical perspective.

I always try to compare what is currently happening with the way things have been historically.  I also try to compare how events are perceived now with how these events would have been perceived even 20 years ago.

Take perceptions about homosexuality for example.  The modern meme is that it is an inate condition that its practitioners have no control over.  Therefore, any type of discrimination against gay people is similar if not the same as racial discrimination--because the victim's of the discrimination cannot avoid it.

I don't accept that view.  To me, all people are pulled by various factors that weigh into their decision-making.  But individuals always have free will.  I don't think that it is helpful or honest to try and pretend that anyone's decisions were pre-determined by factors outside of his control.

There spawn of the racial civil rights movement of the 1960's is the ongoing modern movement for ignoring physical, sociological, and other differences between men and women.  I think that this movement to treat women as men and boys as girls will ultimately fail.  It has never been accomplished historically and this incarnation of it, while impressive compared with past attempts, will eventually fall short of establishing a society where gender differences are ignored completely.

Michael Savage is the only talk show host who's show is broadcast in Southern California who does not accept any of the modern assumptions about gender, ethnic assimilation, and sexual preference/orientation.  I find his program refreshing in a talk radio atmosphere where most radio talk show hosts need to know what the party affiliation (and race) of the involved individuals is before they can decide (1) whether to talk about it at all, and (2) what their opinion is.

Just shows you how far left the republican party has gone the last few years for a republican to suggest Savage is an "extremist". While I agree Savage has a caustic personality, most of his political philosophy is similar to that of republican campaigns during election cycles. For example, Savage discusses a strong national defense, protection of the borders, cutting taxes, and cutting the size of government. Unfortunately, the republican party often times disappoints the base of the party on these issues, which Savage represents.

Particularly important, though I only breached the subject in my initial post, is what Savage has to say about ethnic assimilation, or, as he would put it, "language, borders, culture."

There are reasons to be concerned about too much demographic change in too short amount of time.

Language is particularly important.  Peter Brimelow wrote an intriguing book on the subject of ethnic assimilation and the prospect of multiculturalism.  Entitled, "Alien Nation--Common Sense about America's Immigration Disaster" (1995), it has generated a fair amount of controversy.  I have only read a seven-page excerpt of the book, but it had a poignant position on multiculturalism.  To be specific, Mr. Brimelow suggests that the barriers between immigrants and natives may lead to future conflicts if immigration is not slowed down to a sustainable level.

The Republican Party's leadership has become pro-immigration out of its desire to stay in power.  It is up to true conservatives like Savage to blow the whistle when both party's are afraid to challenge politically-correct notions regarding immigration.

You are correct, Savage constantly talks about the immigration issue, yet neither party does much to address it. As noted elsewhere on this site, Bill Frist has delayed meaningful reforms until at least next year. And then next year will come along and nothing will get done anyway. Meantime another couple million illegals will cross the border into the US.

the opposite of libertarian that is?  Authoritarian maybe?

I admit I haven't listened that closely to the views he espouses mostly because he is just too filthy and mean to appeal much to me.

he doesn't have a lot of formal education in the world of politics, he proves that if you take the time to read and listen it doesn't matter.  Rush can be very thought provoking, I also think he isn't nasty to his liberal listeners, because he finds them more amusing (in a poor guy doesn't really understand) sort of way, so even if he doesn't convince them, Rush simply believes they believe that way because they don't know any better (patronizing might be the right word, but he doesn't always sound that way when he talks to them).

Rush also seems to have an understanding of politics and how politics works that some radio people don't always have.  Not to mention everything is done with a sense of humor and is meant to be entertainment with an educational bent.

freerepublic.  It is hard to follow at times, and it just seems like a bunch of people screaming past each other rather than considering what is being argued.

It is almost like everyone in the same room screaming their opinion and the guys who scream loudest must be the ones who are right.

He is solid on some ideas, but he is a wackjob, controlled by anger. he is bitter about something he doesn't speak about too well.

Maybe this is just for his radio presence, but that is all we have to judge him by.

Whether his politics are mainstream conservative, his emotional life as he portrays it is seriously disturbed to the point that it effects his politics negatively.

There is a saying my daddy taught me: Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make angry. Savage is very very angry.

I honestly don't think the problem is the level of immigration.  Go back 100 years and you'll find hoardes of Irish and Italian and other such immigrants entering our borders (and some of my ancestors along with them) and, just like every other wave of immigrants, they've made our country stronger in the long-run.

Here's the problem with today's immigration.  Because so much of it is coming from Latin America, where everyone speaks the same language (excepting Brazil, of course), Hispanic immigrants are able to arrive in our country, settle in insular communities, and never effectively learn the English language.  That prevents them from moving outward into native communities and undergoing cultural assimilation.  Couple that with white liberal guilt refusing to force them to learn English and you end up with, well, what we're seeing now in many major cities and in the American southwest.

When my great-grandparents came over from Italy, learning English wasn't an option, it was a survival mechanism.  My grandfather is full-blooded Italian, yet growing up, I never heard him use more than two Italian phrases.  I've talked to children of immigrants from other countries and they all say the same thing: learning English was essential, their native tongue was not to be spoken outside of their home, if at all.

The thing is, once immigrants are forced to learn English, they no longer have a need for insular communities closed off from their neighbors.  And as they begin to live their lives surrounded by natives, assimilation gradually occurs.  Third generation immigrants are traditionally fully assimilated.

English-only is the key.  I would support increasing levels of legal immigration in exchange for linguistic assimilation and militarization of the borders.

I have no problem with the concept of immigration.  I'm a realist, not a fanatic.

I realize that people are going to come to this country as long as there are great opportunities here.  And there have been great opportunities here for the last 200 years and probably will be for a long time to come.

But using Italians and Jews as an example.  What parts of their culture did they give up when they came across and what parts did they hold onto.

They held onto many of their religious traditions, but recognized the fact that they needed to speak English to get by in America.

So they learned English.

They branched out from the big cities.  They became a part of mainstream America.

When America goes to war, no one worries about whether "the Italian community" will support the war, or even whether "the Jewish community" will support the war.

To an Italian American or a Jewish American, if you hate America, they hate you.  Sure they love their family roots.  But they are Americans.  Not just foreigners living in the U.S.

Most of the Latinos I know are like the Italians and Jews.  The problem is, when too many of one group come too quickly, pockets of foreign-language communities crop up in the big cities.  Then you have crime problems associated with the fact that many of the foreign-language community know that they can get away with certain types of crimes because their victims do not trust American law enforcement to enforce the laws.

This creates big problems.

Americans are used to having things a certain way in their schools, their communities, etc.  Too many immigrants arriving in a short amount of time is going to cause some very serious frictions.

And only people like Savage, Pat Buchanon (and Jon & Ken in Southern California) have the guts to say anything about it.

I must disagree and this is why:

He's on conservative radio shows for a reason -- because he does have some conservative ideas.

He discusses reduced taxes -- that is a very conservative idea ---->of course that's also an oldtime Democrat idea too!  It was the socialist movement in the democratic party that took them away from Kennedy's example. And a lot of oldtime democrats are voting republican because they don't  recognize their party anymore.

MS has said many things that remind me more of a social-conservative democrat because much of his solutions suggest changing the nation through the government and law rather than individual liberty. There's a way of living and doing things that he feels the whole country should be pressed to doing.

I certainly have MY specific ideas on how everyone could live -- but I operate on conserving what I have now, not seeking to change and revamp anyone else' life or lifestyle to conform to my beliefs.

Savage isn't 100% wrong about the immigration issue and language: HE does have an audience, and he DOES get played on conservative radio stations so he speaks to some conservatives. SOME conservatives. But his abrasive histrionics do not represent the republican party, or the libertarian party.  I think he speaks more to the social conservative union type democrat from longer ago...the ones who have lost their voice in the democratic party and have been pushed to the republican party and are feeling a little out of place.

but I don't think you can critizie Medved for stifling debate in any way.  He does bring on the wackiest of the Left at times, but he has some very intellegent converstations with those that are not on the fringes as well.  And he dedicates 2/5 of his show to people who disagree with him (Disagreement Day on Thursday and something else, I can't quite remember, on Friday)

I do agree that Prager is brilliant at political debate...

with being a huge Hannity fan before the election, mainly due to the timing of his show.  He stays on top of the news quite well..

Lately though, he gets on these kicks about the "missing girl in Aruba" and Michael Jackson and all the sensational stories... It makes for TERRIBLE talk radio and I can't stand how he talks about these terrible stories so often.

And yes, in a debate, he is a huge lightweight

great summation of the Rush show.

I think to sum it even further you could simply say that his entire show is set up to educate conservaties and poke at liberals.  Take his latest "Club Gitmo" T-shirts thing...

I am surprised to read that most of my fellow redstate bloggers above don't think much of Michael Savage.  It could be that you are taking him too seriously.  For one thing he is a story teller and sometimes a very good one, about his childhood in the Bronx, about the different restaurants he eats at, stories about his dog Teddy and the various physical ailments Michael has had.  Years ago in NYC there was a great radio story teller--Gene Shepard-- and Michael is in that tradition, only he has added politics and scatalogical humor to the mix.  

As has been noted, he doesn't always support the Rs, like on immigration, lax border enforcement or free trade, but so what. I don't always agree with him, but he is definitely entertaining.  He also talks about things the other talk show hosts don't:  from diet ideas to the bath houses in San Francisco that conributed to speading aids, there are lots of topics he takes up.

Why he bothers to criticize the other radio talk show hosts, I'll never know--then they don't let him on their shows to plug his books.  As has been noted he does appear at times to represent the old democratic party union workers--patriotic and middle class.  What's wrong with that?  Someone has to speak for them--since the Democratic party won't anymore.

Great, great points.

I remember the first time I ever heard his show, I started out thinking, "Yea! He's got it right!", within a half-hour I was feeling like this guy has no optimism what-so-ever. I listened semi-regularly for a few months, but after that I was just weary of him. I still tune in occasionally to see what he's up to. A few years ago he used to make predictions about his future, guaranteeing he would be the biggest radio talk-show host in America, and he never talked about his conservative competition while mentioning them by name; but it seems he has taken this up recently. To me, that just makes him look desperate. It reminds me of something that happened here in Minnesota about 10 years ago:

Howard Stern came to our airwaves and immediately started trashing the #1 rated morning radio show in the area. Trashing the main host, his wife, his children, everyone else on the show, etc... Many of you know that this is Sterns M.O.. But the show he went after never acknowledged him - not once. Stern could not make a dent in their ratings and was off the air here in about 6 months (Thank You God).

Savage is beginning to remind me of that. I listened to him a couple weeks ago and he was openly criticizing Rush, Hannity, Medved... Then he started talking about his ratings and had to talk about obscure aspects of his ratings to make it look like he was still on the "right track" to be the biggest in America. He is not quite as boastful as he was a few years ago, but he has made up for it with his near constant criticism of established conservative radio professionals.

I laughed aloud when I read your wondering about the suicide rate of his regular audience; I have honestly wondered that myself! He wants everything to change yesterday, and since it hasn't, we're all going to hell in a hand-basket! He may have SOME good points, but I just can't take the rest of his ranting.

I think it is totally appropriate that he made Bernard Goldberg's book: "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America". He's kind of like our version Howard Dean!