Savage suggested Voting Rights Act reauthorization will "put voting machines in crack houses"
On the July 27 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Michael Savage suggested that the purpose of the recently passed 25-year extension of the Voting Rights Act is to "put voting machines in crack houses." Acknowledging that "I don't really know what they mean by reaffirming the Voting Rights Act," Savage nonetheless asked whether the extension would ensure that there is "a chad in every crack house" and voting machines in "prisons."
From the July 27 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: I don't really know what they mean by reaffirming the Voting Rights Act. Do they mean they're going to put a chad in every crack house? What are they going to do -- spend 10 billion dollars to make sure they have voting machines in crack houses?
[...]
SAVAGE: What is this Voting Rights Act reauthorization? What is this big deal? If you're an American over a certain age, you can vote. What are they talking about? What is this nonsense? What does [Rev. Al] Sharpton want, what does [Rev. Jesse] Jackson want? A couple of hundred million dollars to put voting machines in crack houses? What does he want? I don't get it -- and prisons?
Palin, the press, and her "no más" moment
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
Republican-style! Racist, clichéd, and, as always, irrelevant.
Its' racist claptrap.
It's time to paint a bullseye on this dinosaur and hang a sign around his neck, "Meteors! Strike here."
Yup, satire Republican style, and as usual its target is those who already have the least power. Apparently, it's hilarious to kick those who are already down.
By the way, what's wrong with putting voting machines in prison? Why shouldn't they be allowed to vote? I guess it's such an established fact of fascism in the US that everyone here thinks it's alright to strip people of their most basic right as a citizen.
By the way, what's wrong with putting voting machines in prison? Why shouldn't they be allowed to vote?
Because more than likely it would be a waist of money! How many of them do you think would vote? I bet most would not. I have know a small share x-cons, and none of them gave a rats ass about politics.
... civils rights is a waste of money?
You know, North Dakota is just so damn underpopulated, putting voting machines there isn't very cost-effective. Let's just skip that and have them be represented by a few blocks in NY City instead.
By the way, they wouldn't even neeed voting machines in prison - they could do it by mail.
By the way, they wouldn't even neeed voting machines in prison - they could do it by mail.
However..... I was just answering the question above regarding voting machines. I still feel it would be a waist of money to spend on crack heads, murderers, and child molesters in jail.
(Waste. Not waist.)
There are some extremely bright people in the prisons who would probably vote a lot more intelligently than half the free people. (By intelligently I mean reseearching issues and caididates' positions.)
You're forgetting the fact that convicted felons lose the "right" to vote the second they are convicted of breaking the laws of this nation. Why compare convicted felons to residents of North Dakota? Do you think there is something wrong with the residents of N. Dakota?
So, at least half the prisoners can not vote and the other half would not vote. If they can and they want to vote, let them vote like everyone else, either by absentee or on election day. But, I don't see where spending millions to make sure they DO vote is a wise thing to do. Personally, I wouldn't let any of them vote. They obviously have no clue how to make a proper decision, why risk putting the fate of our nation in the hands of criminals. After all, Gore could claim that the nations prisoners didn't have the opportunity to vote for him and that cost him an election. And then that "certain" political leaning internet site would have to say that the right caused another election blunder that caused another illegal election and put the wrong person in office. Oh... the inhumanity of it all!
Felons only lose the right to vote in certain states, because they broke state law, not federal law. In most states felons who have served their time can vote.
" In most states felons who have served their time can vote. "
Yeah, but they still don't need them IN prisons. What happens after they serve their time isn't the point in question.
Can anyone provide evidence that Congress even wants to put voting machines in prisons and/or crack houses?
If Savage said it, it must be true.
Is what again? Or did you pull this one from your vast rectal database where you seem to find most of your baseless assertions.
As usual, Savage isn't just an unabashed racist, he's also a blithering idiot. People in jail for misdemeanors and those awaiting trial already vote by absentee ballot.
He specificly said, "Voting Machines".
but he knows that it's a civil rights statute, which gives him all he needs to equate minorities with crackheads and criminals, slam government spending, and invoke the moron conservatives' favorite racial boogeymen.
I swear Dr. Weiner must have the easiest job in the world - just riff on the same two or three themes, endlessly. He's like the old bluesman on In Living Color who always played the exact same song, just with slightly different words.
"I did so many drugs in the sixties, I can get high off the residue!"
I have no clue, or interest fankly, in whether Savage is a racist or a bigot or whatever. But to paint a broad brushstroke by slamming all conservatives or Republican's in with his remarks is unfair, if that is what you were doing by saying "invoke the moron conservatives' favorite racial boogeymen".
As anyone else, he speaks solely for himself as do you and I. If he says something stupid, it's on his head, nobody elses.
Especially in media. If you are by and large identified as a conservative/Republican, then you will be a representative of ALL of them. Same thing for democrats. The reason they ARE so successful in the first place is precisely BECAUSE they represent their group - if they only represented themselves, what would be the point?
That's why it's so important to not defend someone who represent "your side" if they say something you don't agree with, but instead show your disapproval. And NOT by saying "he doesn't represent us, he only represents himself", because you and I know it's not true.
If Michael Moore, who I personally can't stand, says something you don't agree with, would you say "Well, he only represents himself, so it's not important what he says, and it's certainly not any indication of Democrat policies"?
No, you are not correct. People in the media speak their minds on television because they are either paid to do so, like pundits, or they are brought on because of their expertise. They do not speak for anyone else.
Now, politicians or elected officials represent specific districts or areas, and arguably they may speak for other's and should consider as such when making statements. If we don't like what they say, or how they vote, we can vote them out.
I don't give my freedom of speech rights to anyone else who can misuse it for their purpose. I would hope you feel the same. I am perfectly willing to screw up and hold myself responsible.
"People in the media speak their minds on television because they are either paid to do so, like pundits, or they are brought on because of their expertise. They do not speak for anyone else."
And why do you think they're paid to do so? Because people are so interested in hearing one person's opinion, that does not represent anything else, and has no meaning at all except as a bunch of sentences coming out of their mouths?
Of course not. They are speaking because they represent the OPINIONS of a large group of people. That is what they are paid for.
Of course you are not technically held responsible for what anyone else says, but it's eaually obvious to me that if these people represented nobody but themselves, they wouldn't be popular.
Face it, Savage's opinions represent a large group of people. Not you, perhaps, but many, many of those who voted the same as you did (I'm making an assumption here about how you voted) have these opinions, and that's why he's paid to say what he says.
But keep defending him by saying "oh, that's just his opinion" if you want to. We all know it's not true anyway.
You are confusing someone who may share the same opinion with some TV pundit, as that TV pundit speaking for that person. They are two totally different things.
They don't even preface their remarks by saying, "Now, I speak for this person or that group.............". That would be ridiculous. Of course, many agree with them and many do not.
Let me ask you, whenever you open your mouth to speak to anyone or any group, are you speaking for yourself or somebody else? Unless you have that "somebody else's" authoriziation, you only speak for yourself.
I said "represent" not "speak for". Big difference. Representing something means that they symbolize something, associate themselves with something.
I don't know how you can say that those in the media who are continually representing a certain viewpoint held by a large group of people are NOT representing that viewpoint in the eyes of others, and how you can complain when people criticize that group in general, when someone who is always associating themselves with that group does or says something.
But sure, if you mean "speak for" you're of course correct. Everyone speaks for themselves, exept elected politicians perhaps. But that's a given, so I didn't even think that was relevant.
If you want to distance yourself from the right wing nut cases, show them your disapproval. After all, they tell us that they are talking for you. Many righties get their best arguments from these assclowns. You carry more weight with them than we do--givemhell.
I'll remember that next time somebody (invariably conservative) throws around Nielsen ratings and viewership statistics to justify O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hannity.
That's why I said "moron conservatives" and not just "conservatives."
Why not just "morons", instead of "moron conservatives?". No reason for the specificity. Just asking.
the people who throw Sharpton's and Jackson's names around in a derogatory manner are always conservatives. People who know they can score some cheap points with their mouth-breathing audiences just by saying "Al and Jesse." Frankly, I've never known of a conservative who didn't hold those two men in utter contempt, but I qualified my statement with the word "morons" just in case. I mean, I don't know for sure that leprechauns don't exist either.
What's your point?
It would be like me saying "they are acting like stupid liberals", instead of being more specific and less inflammatory and say "they are acting like stupid people".
No need to put liberal in there for their ideology has nothing to do with their statement. The only reason you would put conservative there, along with moron, is for affect and to make a broader point.
All in all, it's no big deal and probably not worthy of argument. It's just a sublte jab at conservatives, in my opinion.
It was not intended to be subtle.
(slapping hands). No decent liberal would make such a distinction.
The only conservatives who could possibly be offended by my characterization are the ones (1) for whom Al and Jesse are indeed racial boogeymen, and (2) who hate being called morons. Certainly none of our conservative posters here fall into that category, so I'm not sure why my original statement bothers you so much. Oh well, can't please everybody all the time.
1) I wouldn't call Al and Jesse the racial boogeymen. I just disagree with their interpreting nearly every event they involve themselves in as having a racial component, when often times it does not, yet they infuse it in there regardless. That is deplorable. 2) And I don't like being called a moron, I much prefer unparalled genius.
I just disagree with their interpreting nearly every event they involve themselves in as having a racial component, when often times it does not, yet they infuse it in there regardless. That is deplorable.
To paraphrase your comments in the "Hillary authenticity" thread, Tommy, they're just stating their opinions - not a big deal.
Yes, it is their opinion. However, they purposefully enflame situtions with an unfounded racist charge and not only is it cheap and disgusting, but it negates the effect that real and substantive situations where race is an issue - the whole cry wolf syndrome. That is a major disservice to everyone, regardless of race.
So, you're right - their opinion and I don't get too worked up over it. But everyone has a right to call them or anyone on theirs. I think Al and Jesse are more concerned with Al and Jesse's well being far more than anyone or any group.......despite their lofty claims. But just my opinion,
Should have been unparalleled. If I demand to be called that, I should spell it correctly.
----"But to paint a broad brushstroke by slamming all conservatives or Republican's in with his remarks is unfair"----
Tommy doesn't seem to mind when Savage paints not with a brush but with an extra large roller, however.
I said his comments were stupid, hardly a ringing endorsement of what he said. Would you be happier if I joined in on the insulting Savage name calling parade that many other's are marching in?
You never said Dr. Weiner's comments were stupid, but it's good to know that you think they are.
As anyone else, he speaks solely for himself as do you and I. If he says something stupid, it's on his head, nobody elses. - tommy / Monday July 31, 2006 01:40:12 PM EST
***********************************
I was speaking of Savage specifically here, but the comment speaks to everyone in general.
Not to get too picky, but you made it a hypothetical - "IF he says something stupid." As if Dr. Weiner had not tossed out a big fat meatball of stupidity that is the topic of this MMFA item. Nonetheless, I do applaud you for finally refuting Dr. Weiner's blatantly racist, inflammatory comments.
If I left the impression that I didn't think they were stupid, I should have. They were, but my bigger point was they were HIS stupid remarks. Savage lives off publicity like this, sorry to say.
I don't think he can afford to buy a 45-foot yacht from the money he makes from MMFA readers. I doubt the pinheads who buy Dr. Weiner's "books" do so because of the publicity he gets here at MMFA. Maybe they do though, who knows.
--"Savage lives off publicity like this, sorry to say."--
Savage lives off the fact that he has a radio show that is advertised by the network and draws a considerable number of misguided but like-minded fans and admirers. He was around before Media Matters and regrettably will probably be around for awhile-Media Matters or not. Though perhaps MM can make a difference in what Savage says and what advertisers he draws. That kind of "publicity" Savage doesn't need or want.
What you're saying above is simply a clearly disingenuous attempt to squelch criticism of Savage by saying it somehow helps him.
---"If he says something stupid"---
"If"??!
You reserve your real condemnation for the rest of us. Savage pretty much gets a pass.
I dont for a second believe all or even a majority of conservatives are racists. I think it obvious Savage IS.
most white racists prefer to be euphemistically called "conservatives"
As anyone else, he speaks solely for himself as do you and I. If he says something stupid, it's on his head, nobody elses. - tommy
-------------------------
how come only retarded right wing nutcases get paid to open their piehole on national mainstream media?
Let me see if I've got this right: if a demented wingnut makes blatently RACIST remarks to a vast radio audience... that's a matter of complete indifference to you. But if a poster on this website slams CONSERVATIVES... now, THAT'S GOING TOO FAR! Do you think that maybe you've got your priorities just a tad askew?
See, I would think that a foaming-at-the-mouth racist like the Savage Weiner's ability to spray his hate-filled opinions & furious ignorance into the public discourse would be an issue of concern to ANY thinking person. Hate speech has always flourished when met with such indifference. We are all members of this same community, after all, & opposing the forces of hatred, ignorance, & intimidation are a communal responsability.
Well, you did begin your statement by saying that you didn't have a clue, & admitting to your own cluelessness is the first step in recovery, Tommy.
the male Crazy Annie Coulter . . .
...he actually may have something here.
At least, there will be some voting machines available....unlike in Ohio in '04. ;)
If there was ever a more appro named mouth it is micheal savage...and he is supposed to be educated as an anthropologist. A Doctor no less. He claims he became a conservative after somebody beat him out of a tenured position. I don't buy it. Such hatred and mean-spiritedness doesn't happen overnight it is cultivated like a vile flower. Him and Coulter are the worst of a toxic crew, and if they actually represent conservative Republician opinion... I wouldn't vote for one as dog catcher.
Don't bother actually READING the Voting Rights Act...
Don't bother telling your braindead audience what it contains or what it's about...
Don't bother telling your brainded audience the kind of problems it's intended to prevent...
Don't bother having both sides represented in a civilized discussion of the issue on your show...
Simply read the headline, then blame Sharpton and Jackson. While you're at it, throw in some stereotypes like "crack houses" and "prisons" for maximum effect. After all, we've got lots of proud whities to entertain.
(sarcasm key 'off')
"I don't really know what they mean by reaffirming the Voting Rights Act."
Then why in the name of all that is Holy, which you profess to believe in, are you opening your mouth?
Quite frankly, I don't really know were Savage hides his brain before his show but someone find it and give it back to him.
If you are American Citizen, then there should be no question.
I dont understand why we even need the act. If you are American Citizen, then there should be no question. - evillib1727
-------------------------------------------
Tell that to Medgar Evers. O wait you can't, a white conservative murdered him for asserting the right of black people to vote.
Why we need to reaffirm the voting act?
Read all about it in Congress' own words, under Sec. 2, "Congressional Purpose and Findings": [link to www.usdoj.gov]
you need to show some sort of goverment id to vote? If it does not, then I agree it needs to be revised.
you're not a citizen unless you have an I.D. from the government?
need an ID to be a citizen. However you do need to prove that your a citizen so I think a form of government ID is the best way to achieve that. I guess we could just take everybody's word for it though when they step up to the voting machines.
I don’t understand your argument. In order to be registered to vote, you must prove you are a U.S. citizen. If you can’t prove you are a citizen, you won’t be registered to vote. The hoopla over non-U.S. citizens voting is bizarre.
How many times do you have to prove you're a citizen? You have to do that when you register. Then your polling district polices the voter rolls. There is no need for a photo I.D. requirement.
all citizens are required to have some form of goverment id. That is bull...... ID IS REQUIRED BY LAW!!!!!
Where a San Diego man kept being stopped by police and arrested when he refused to produce ID. That said US citizens were NOT required to have identification nor to produce ID on demand.
All citizens are NOT required to have some form of government-issued I.D. Where did you get that idea?
it is a dark, dank place where the Sun never shines
I called into Savages show last friday night. I got so aggravated and he cut me off and never let the debate carry on. I wrote him a letter with his email address posted on the site here, and got an mail undelivered, unknown user. If anyone knows his email address I really want him to see this:
Michael,
This is Jim. I got through to your show last night 7/27/06. I live in Lakeland , FL. But the station is WDBO, so I came in as Jim from Orlando. I got put on with no time to talk to you. I know why I was put on 2 minutes before the hard break. That way its easy for you to dump me. I was ready to debate you on how much force would be acceptable to use in Iraq and Lebanon. My point is, if you don't think there is enough force currently, than what would you like to see? Total devastation, glass parking lots? You were able to sidestep me cause of the hard break. I would like to continue the debate with you. If you and your fellow hawks think aggression and war is going to solve the thousands year old conflict in the middle east, you are sadly mistaken. It's acts like what is happening now that only contribute to the continuation of it.
It disturbs me to hear people who proclaim to love God and be Christians to be so quick to promote war. THOU SHALL NOT KILL. I suppose I can give a pass on killing islamo fascists who have already killed others, but what about all of the innocents, the woman, the children for Christ's sake who are stricken? I would never send my children or anyone elses children to kill. I wonder how you and Rush and Sean and others would feel about sending their flesh and blood to war. If I was Bush, I would send my ass over there to talk to Saddam, Osama, whoever. Crazy? Unorthodox? Stupid? Maybe. The leaders from both sides need to talk face to face to each other. How do these men send our boys and girls to harms way? It seems awfully ignorant, self serving, and cowardly. Course you will never have to make that decision.
(for that matter all of you radio talk show hosts never have to make any decisions about anything, all you do is just sit there and tell others what to do and not to do. What a gig! Real easy to just be a critic. Hell, I can always tell someone how it should have been done or how to do it better if I don't have to back it up. Wheres the accountability for your statements? There is none. Zero. But I digress, that's a different topic.)
The current aggressions will not ever solve this, and the blood of innocent people forever stains the hearts and minds of you and your fellow hawks. I don't pretend to think I have a better answer for this, but surely I know yours is wrong.
Perhaps you would feel better if there was a complete and total victory over islamo fascists and the lands they live in?
sort of like the native American genocide that our European ancestors perpetrated upon the natives of north America when they came here 500 years ago.
ready to talk about this on the radio?
or are you a coward?
sincerely
Jim
sure that I heard you. I could be mistaken however.
I tried to add "sure" in there and posted it twice. Sorry. Of course I am just making it worse by posting this.
could we maybe get enough voting machines in ohio this time in democratic precincts so people don't have to wait six hours or have to walk away.
Finally Ann Coulter will be able to vote in the correct location.
The last Prez-election in my neighborhood was a nightmare. Normally I walk down to the fire station after work and dinner, about 7:30, and there's 2 people in line.
2004 there was gridlock. I don't know if it was gay marriage, or scary Arabs or what, but huge SUV's with fish stickers and piles of kids were all over the street. I had to wait behind 50 people.
For all the complaining I do about low voter turnout, I sure shut up when the soccer mom Jesus patrol mobilized.
I bet a nice crack-house would slow them down!
...so he can be put to sleep.
Maybe voting booths could be install in meth labs so his listeners could vote GOP while getting high at the same time.
Chances are Savage never sees the east side of any town. The only people of color he runs into are restaurant servers, maids and landscapers. He avoids the east sides for good reason. If caught there, he would be toast. Southern Conservatives opposed the extension of The Voting Rights Act, and they still want to use their Jim Crow tactics come November. Watch the use of your cellphone this year to photograph jackboots on the ground- you might get charged with obstruction of justice. Republican legislation is riddled with racism. One example-they got their bankruptcy bill rammed through by using the 'welfare queen' menace.
It is amazing to me what passes as intellect in today's morally and ethically bankrupted world. Michael Savage having a radio talk show and followed by so many conservatives is one example. He pretends to be oblivious to the importance of the voting rights act, and then makes a racial slur about chads in crack houses and prisons. 38 + million blacks are not amongst the 675,000 blacks in prison. There are almost 3 million black vets and many of those saved Savage's relatives from Hitler's gas chambers. 30% of the military is black and those men and women now face the government's move to allow Nazi's, without restriction, to join and kill blacks through friendly fire, a phenomenon that has never ceased in our so-called noble military. My father was one such casualty. I could go on and on but suffice it to say that the author of Emotional Intelligence has it right. Emotional IQ is much more important than so-called IQ and savage has the emotional maturity of a child. He stirs up racism and hatred of blacks, using the tired and old strategy of beating up on the scapegoat and makes it harder on himself, in the long run. I do believe in the law of retribution and he will have much to answer for. It is becoming so common place now to hear this and that about black people, even from blacks themselves. Social constructs and subjective perceptions are everything. I say reason is impossible for such people. What is important is that the word goes out from those with honest hearts and minds to those who may be swayed by the evil ilk of the Savages in this crazy world. In my opinion he is a sort-of terrorist:a radical who employs terror as a political weapon, according to the online dictionary. (terror - the ability to instill intense fear). He uses the stereotypes of blacks to instill fear in the ditto heads that listen to his rantings and hyperbole. We ARE living in the dark ages.
Surely Savage can't be suggesting the possibility of a fair election everyone can actually believe in? Imagine, the greatest country in the world, the "champion of Democracy" having elections where all votes are counted at every level. Even if it takes a couple million here and there.