If there is one thing that differentiates Rush and O’Reilly – who don’t seem to care for each other, btw – it’s that they rarely show contempt, and if they do it’s not for very long. They don’t stay contemptuous for very long. They’ll disagree, even loudly, with someone. They might call someone “crazy” or worse – but only to a limit, and then they calm down and try to refocus themselves.

This is what I find refreshing about Savage however. I crave that deep seated conviction that the ‘talking points’ folks just don’t deliver on, or often enough.

You make very good points, though some I still may not agree with. I still think the word ‘hate’ is being used to loosely. Calling Obama ‘Hussein’ is not hate. A pointed jab? Sure. So if the left says that’s a hateful comment, then they’re just wrong. In too many cases I think we’re just too willing to throw Savage and Coulter on the stake for what is falsely perceived as ‘hate’. The tone and ‘take no prisoners’ rhetoric that Coulter and Savage wield is hard for many to listen to, I understand, but their style does not quite fit into my definition of hate…

Here in the Bay Area Savage demonstrates to his listeners (people I know) his command of American history.

And he wields his knowledge with great acumen while instructing his audience.

It goes a long way in helping his listeners create reference points that explain the emotional impacts of American politics today. And this clears the way for some sobering realism about where we are headed as a Nation.

After listening to Savage with regularity, that is exactly what I realized that makes Savage a cut above. He goes well below the surface of an issue and eloquently provides many layers of context. Savage and Prager are very skillful at that. Many of the other talk show hosts frankly don’t delve much deeper than the talking points.

I can’t say that I’ve listened to him much since then. It really turned me off. I do, occassionally, find myself stuck in traffic and he’s on.

And I agree with you re: disgust. That is clearly his dominant theme and emotion – and he can be funny with it. The trouble is, it’s hard to stay in that mood and not occassionally slip into hatred.

How can you not hate something that you actively hold in such bitter contempt, all the time? It’s like “the dark side of the force,” if you will. It’s very powerful – and Savage certainly makes a LOT of money through it – but it’s also uncontrollable. It consumes you.

If there is one thing that differentiates Rush and O’Reilly – who don’t seem to care for each other, btw – it’s that they rarely show contempt, and if they do it’s not for very long. They don’t stay contemptuous for very long. They’ll disagree, even loudly, with someone. They might call someone “crazy” or worse – but only to a limit, and then they calm down and try to refocus themselves.

I’ve often thought that there’s a reason why conservatives can operate this way, while liberals often can’t: strength of ideas.

Liberals are shrill largely because it’s all that they have left. It’s hard to argue, logically, why candidates would go on Kos. Had Michelle just capitalized on Juan’s mistake, she would have left him as Bill normally does: wandering for another point, which he would likely not make.

Savage has found a formula that works for him. Like Ann Coulter, he has discovered that “the dark side” can be quite lucrative. The trouble is, for every point he makes, he gives one to the other guys. He allows them to say, “see the Right is full of hate. See? Ann calls Obama ‘Hussein’ because she can’t come up with anything substantive…”

And before Savage or Coulter can then change gears and cream Obama on one of the many problems he has, on the issues, the opportunity is lost: the listener has already listened to that little voice in their head that said “you’re right. they’ve resorted to name calling… ignore them.”

Here in the Bay Area Savage demonstrates to his listeners (people I know) his command of American history.

And he wields his knowledge with great acumen while instructing his audience.

It goes a long way in helping his listeners create reference points that explain the emotional impacts of American politics today. And this clears the way for some sobering realism about where we are headed as a Nation.

For example:

Since 9/11 I have had this sense that our nation has not seen the kind of angry, explosive divided camps that we see today.

And the ridicule heaped on GWB as an imbecile, moron, and evil genius -to me- seem unparalleled except for what Lincoln went through.

(I am not comparing two men, two Presidents that are different from night and day. I am comparing the general public’s disposition toward their narrowly elected President.)

Savage made the same connection one day on his show, talking about what it must be like to be GWB, wondering if he would survive his Presidency. He illustrated his point using the times of Lincoln and the Civil War.

Present day we are in a similar pickle:

We are being exploited as an electorate- a divided nation. IslamoFascists, globalists, banking cartels (Saddam was invaded the first time not because he invaded Kuwait, but because of his defaulting on a $10 billion loan from a globalist connected Italian bank- Banco Lavoro Nationale (?)), rogue shadow corporations, socialists and bolsheviks, and aspiring central planners.

Who is placing it in context *for free*? Who?

I measure the worth of a media “player” by their ability to place the “story” into an historical context (and not just back to the story’s spawning and evolution).

I measure a player’s worth by their distance from the “insiders”. The more the “insiders” disdain a Michael Savage, the more it appears to me the “insiders” are trying to steer things back into the status quo.

I am interested in the point of view that can articulate why Daily Kos has any traction with rational human beings; why anybody would *believe in* Nancy Pelosi; why anybody would keep voting for Babs Boxer.

I am interested in hearing the ryhming patterns of history as they unfold.

Savage shares this passion.

And Brian, love him or hate him, Savage is eminently brilliant, talented, and highly listenable. You should give him a try.

You are known by the company you keep, and if there was ever evidence of mainstream media bias in favor of the Democrat candidates in an attempt to increase their prospects, it is the deafening silence from that august group of “journalists” on the hate that KOS fosters and disseminates with an unapologetic appearance of murderous intent.

As regards to Cheney’s remark to Leaky Lahey, the VP was responding to a man that had slandered him relentlessly in public for shameless partisan reasons, then walks up to him and presents all this fake Senate decorum, “my good friend from Wyoming”, which I must say would have ticked me off too. What two-faced hypocrisy. Good on Cheney for speaking his mind in an honest way. Leaky deserved it, and more. To quote someone we all know, I feel nothing for him, screw him.

Michelle’s comment about Cheney *should have been* “The Vice President expressed his strong opinion one on one with Senator Leahy. He didn’t publish it on a website, and then gloat for all the world to see.”

That’s not a subtle difference. My complaint with Michelle wasn’t that she wasn’t fair and balanced; it’s that Juan was, intellectually, a sitting duck last night. Much like you appear to be right now, if that’s your best argument.

Cheney’s comments were private; Kos are broadcast at a convention that the Dem Candidates flocked to.

And, Schweggie, re: Savage,

How can we forget this direct quote that got him rightfully fired: “Oh, you’re one of the sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig.”

I’m pretty sure it’s about 7 clicks past “disgust” and deep into “hate” when you wish someone dead, and then call them a pig. That’s something you’d expect to hear from a Grand Wizard, not a reasoned debater.

On August 6th, 2007 at 11:45 pm, DesertLover said:
Good job Michelle … enjoyed it as always … keeping people like Juan Williams and Michael Brown on subject and in check and off their Dem talking points is a feat in and of itself …

Just one thing missing … Although you challenged him on his Michael Vick race baiting pontifications I kept waiting for you to throw the gauntlet down about his double standard concerning the “let him have his day in court” statements …

Where were he and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and all the other radical race baiters when the Duke LaCrosse players were being convicted without “their day in court” …

Answer … simple … leading the rush to judgment charge against the now proven innocent young men …

Such hypocrites …

Flip that statement, the same holds true.

There were some people pleading with the mainstream media and others to say that the boys in the Duke case were innocent until proven guilty. Now they are attacking groups and figures who are pleading with the media to defend Michael Vick.

Such hypocrites.

Tell Bill O’ to take more vacations.

Savage, of course, isn’t Michael Savage’s given name. It’s his stage name, and he chose it well.

He has, in fact, referred to Condoleeza Rice as a “token.” He routinely refers to his opponents with verbiage every bit as foul as you will find on Kos. The fact that he can’t and doesn’t curse makes no difference. Savage uses words like “vermin,” “syphillitic,” etc. when describing people.

Sorry, but that can’t be viewed as civil discourse or debate. It’s certainly no worse than what the Dixie Chicks were (rightfully) vilified for. It makes Jon Stewart look like a choir boy.

Consider: Ann Coulter is at her best when she is making hard-hitting, fact based points. Hers is a brilliant legal mind, and I love hearing her use it. When she resorts to calling people “Harpies,” however, it erodes her credibility. Savage is the same, only more so. He actually *does* have some excellent points, and even some of his more extreme ideas have some merit.

But by presenting them couched in the language of hate and contempt, he gives people excellent reasons to ignore him. Hate is a great reason to tune someone out, no?

Any presidential candidate that endorses Savage by knowingly appearing with him would lose my vote.