Savage: CNN's Blitzer and King "would have pushed Jewish children into the oven"; "curry favor with the turbanned hoodlums"
Michael Savage declared that CNN hosts Wolf Blitzer and Larry King "look like the type that would have pushed Jewish children into the oven to stay alive one more day to entertain the Nazis."
On the August 7 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Michael Savage declared that CNN hosts Wolf Blitzer and Larry King "look like the type that would have pushed Jewish children into the oven to stay alive one more day to entertain the Nazis." Savage remarked that Blitzer "will do the astonishing act of being the type that would stick Jewish children into a gas chamber to stay alive another day. He's probably the most despicable man in the media next to Larry King ... a close runner-up." Savage opined: "The reason they curry favor with the turbanned hoodlums is to gain access to the turbanned hoodlums, domestic and foreign, for their news shows. They need more turbanned hoodlums to build ratings."
Savage has previously called Blitzer "the type who would have let children into the gas chamber in order to stay alive an extra day," as Media Matters for America noted. Savage has also accused Blitzer of being "anti-Semitic ... anti-Jewish, and pro-Arab" because he "doesn't want to appear too Jewish ... and too pro-Jewish." Savage also incorrectly claimed Blitzer is "Israeli originally," a claim he repeated here. Blitzer was born in Buffalo, New York, according to a September 7, 2005, article in The Hill. According to Blitzer's bio on CNN.com: "He began his career in 1972 with the Reuters News Agency in Tel Aviv. Shortly thereafter, he became a Washington, D.C., correspondent for The Jerusalem Post."
As Media Matters has also noted, Savage previously stated that "it's people like" philanthropist George Soros "who brought about the Holocaust" and labeled former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright a "brisket maker."
From the August 7 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: The reason they curry favor with the turbanned hoodlums is to gain access to the turbanned hoodlums, domestic and foreign, for their news shows. They need more turbanned hoodlums to build ratings.
CALLER: Yes. I agree with you, and --
SAVAGE: That's why the department store dummy named Wolf Blitzer, a Jew who was born in Israel, will do the astonishing act of being the type that would stick Jewish children into a gas chamber to stay alive another day. He's probably the most despicable man in the media next to Larry King, who takes a close runner-up by the hair of a nose. The two of them together look like the type that would have pushed Jewish children into the oven to stay alive one more day to entertain the Nazis.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Evil:
You are either not as familiar with Savage as you claim to be or you are intentionally soft-soaping his comments to minimize his vileness...
"Yes he did say that, and follows up by clarifying his views on "Libs being a mental disorder", being those that are sooooo far left, anything goes. Are you one of them? He does not consider all Liberals to be such."
I love this. Savage writes a book called "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder," rails against liberals unceasingly on his show, and then one of his apologists shows up to say that he is really only talking about the extreme, fringe left. Is Jimmy Carter soooo far left that anything goes? Carter is by most definitions a centrist Democrat (center left at most) who Savage idiotically compares to Hitler (weird, since Hitler was far right).
[link to mediamatters.org]
"That we should kill one hundred million Muslims and other psychotic remarks on every subject."
"Here again he is referring to the Islamo Faicsts. Not all Muslims."
No, he has proposed randomly nuking an Arab capital.
[link to dir.salon.com]
That must be one special nuke that can kill Islamo "Faicsts" while leaving everyone else alive.
The man is insane and evil.
Its really sad.
As usual, Tommy comes out and does a pre-emptive attempt att minimize criticisim against the right-wing radio hosts.
.."att" with "to" and it will make more sense. :)
Now that is rich, is that what you got from what I posted? Wow, that is amazing. Did you even read what I said about Savage's remarks? But that wasn't good enough, now was it? Unless they are saoked in insults and invective name calling, just like his, they are just way too wimpy, or something.
Why are his insane remarks any worse than your responses to them? The fact is, they aren't. Look in the mirror, many of you are exactly like him, only on the other side. Moral equivalency no doubt.
"Did you even read what I said about Savage's remarks?"
Yes, you urged everyone to state their criticism as devoid of emotion and anger as possible. I call that trying to get people to minimize it.
How you can equate someone who has a nationally syndicated radio show with posters on a message board is beyond me. What exactly, other than the fact that both express opinions, is the similarity?
Did you even read what I said about Savage's remarks? But that wasn't good enough, now was it?
How you described his remarks was, indeed, "good enough". But you couldn't leave it at that. You had to try to control response and righteous outrage, you had to try and frame it as though any offense taken at Savage's words could only be expressed as "inappropriate" and "out-of-measure." You tried to claim the high ground, and like most self-righteous controllers, you slipped going up, and coming down.
Why are his insane remarks any worse than your responses to them? The fact is, they aren't.
The fact is, this is not a fact, but an opinion. Anyway, your scale must be whonky, to equate Savage's remarks with the responses I've seen here. Who here has come anywhere near the vitriol and hatred this man evinces? And moreover, Savage has a national platform; he has a duty to wield that responsibly.
too bad most of this thread got the axe. oh well.
Certain "concern trolls" take up far too much space around here.
I like to see them get smashed and discredited, what can I say?
is a Independent Conservative talk show host with no strings. He is not owned by the right-wing media like you all think. He says very harsh things, no doubt. But to cast him in with the foolish Bush Admin is plain silly. It shows no one hear listens to his show. Aside from the name calling, he is brilliant.
"Aside from beating his wife, he was a great husband"
I have listened to Savage many times, and you're right, he is often not agreeing with Bush & Co. He often wants to murder and kill much more than they would ever want to do.
Weiner is brilliant in the same way Coulter is Amish. That is to say only in a delusional fantasy
Say he is a democrat if you want…it doesn’t change any of the comments posters have been making about this disgusting person and his hate spewing diatribe. The man is not brilliant. His comments are inane ramblings of a borderline sociopath. He has no human empathy or concept of right or wrong. He is totally lacking in the ability to interact with civilized society.
Aside from the name calling, he is brilliant.
I listen to him occassionally.
Just tonight he said," Lebanese Muslims should be put behind barbed wire before they get a chance to blow up our children. And put the ACLU behind barbed wire with the terrorists. that's the kind of country I want to live in."
He's ill. He's paranoiac and accusatory and divisive. He's not brilliant.
Why dont they speak out against this filthy &&*^$^&%$ instead of keep whining on about a drunk Mel Gibson who has since appologised?
The so-called "Jewish leaders" showing outrage when a Jew is murdered in cold blood in Seatle?
[link to www.signonsandiego.com]
[link to www.usatoday.com]
[link to www.jpost.com]
There is no real Jewish leadership in America. Michael Savage actually reported the murder by the Pakistani Muslim wanting "revenge" because he is mad t Israel.
This man is obsessed.
Can he go ONE DAY without saying somebody would have "gassed the Jews" or "pushed people into ovens."
The man is the epitome of Godwin's Law.
The link to Wikipedia's "Goodwin's Law" is
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
the prior link has a typo and will not connect.
Weiner is clearly out of his mind. His ridiculous vitriol is echoed by the likes of Horowitz and many others who, by the way, take Weiner's rhetoric very seriously. If you chance to visit the political chat rooms and /or blogs, Weiner's words are repeated verbatim in those venues.
Weiner uses the disclaimer of 'one man's opinion' yet, to the contrary, knows full well that sick and twisted minds will mimic him. How you can see any value in him is beyond me. It seems these days that being critical of Israel, the Bush regime, or capitalism automatically implies that, had you lived in 1942, one would have joined the Nazis and killed your fellow Jews.
Reasonable and civilized human beings never descend into such hubris. Savage is a barbarian with a microphone who lives up to his chosen commercial moniker. Nothing more.
...but being a religious Jew (who is not pro-Savage), I know that if you are against the apple of G-ds eye (Israel/the Jewish people), then by default you must also be against G-d.
That of course does not mean that you cannot criticise the Israeli government. I criticise it for supressing freedom of speech (of right-wing Jews), being racially biased (in favor of Arabs), and being a (socialist, anti-religious) dictatorship.
Michael Savage is clearly a fraud, and only in it for the ratings. On many issues I do agree with him, but he is not someone I listen to for political rhetoric. I listen to people who are not well known in the political spectrum, and I get along just fine.
"Stick to what these people say and criticize it appropriately, don't stoop to their level - we all could live by that."
cause bending over and taking it worked so well in 2000 and 2004. John Kerry, a veteran of the Vietnam War, who traveled to Southeast Asia and was in danger of being killed, was trashed by chickenhawks for months leading up to the Nov. election and no Democrat got legitimately, emotionally angry and turned it back on the neocon scum that did it.
One thing the Dems have done poorly in the past decade is show true backbone. I know they have it, they just consistently are forced to take the high road and the American public, legitimately concerned about a more violent world, are duped by neocons that "act" assertive.
to that--and they're still spineless
the true evil of hatemongers like Savage, Coulter, etc is their ability to bring one down to their level. that is their power.
As the pendulum of power swings back to the left, folks like Wiener will be the first to fall off the table. It's simply amazing that any advertiser wants to be associated with him. The clock is ticking.
He didn't say they "would have pushed..." he said they LOOK LIKE THE TYPE. BIG difference, and do not accuse me of arguing semantics here. You can say someone looks like the type of guy who'd beat his wife, but that is a far cry of accusing a man from beating his wife. You aren't outright accusing them or saying they WOULD for sure do something, but you are implying it seems like they would probably do such a thing. BIG difference.
MMFA Smears - 0 Savage - 1
For you to have any case at all you have to ignore what he said before the "oven" remark, "...Wolf Blitzer, a Jew who was born in Israel, will do the astonishing act of being the type that would stick Jewish children into a gas chamber to stay alive another day." Nowhere in that remark did he say that Blitzer only looked like he would have gassed Jewish children, he says that he is the type that absolutely would have; there's no way to say that "he is the type that would do it" is different than "he would have done it," both are hypothetical and both slander exactly the same. Then we move onto the "smear" that you mention. You try to defend this clown by stating that he said they merely said that they look like the type of guys that would push Jewish children into ovens. Since he is quite clearly arguing their character rather than physical appearance, which is implied by what he is actually talking about rather than that small quote not to mention calling them the two most "despicable" men in media, it becomes clear he was using a common figure of speech. Your analogy is horrible at best:
"You can say someone looks like the type of guy who'd beat his wife, but that is a far cry of accusing a man from beating his wife. You aren't outright accusing them or saying they WOULD for sure do something, but you are implying it seems like they would probably do such a thing. BIG difference."
This might be good if the he hadn't said that Blitzer WOULD BE THE TYPE THAT WOULD DO IT. Nowhere does he say, "I think that he may be the type of guy that might do it" he says straight up he would. Moreover, it implies again that he is talking physical appearance rather than their character.
"BIG difference, and do not accuse me of arguing semantics here."
You are arguing semantics (and poorly at that) because you have to ignore everything he was talking about to believe that he meant what you say he meant. His entire rant would have been little more than "I don't trust them because they look like the type that may or may not do something" if what you say is true; but anyone with more than one functioning brain cell can see he went off on a tangent in order to slander Blitzer and King. And I'm aware that the teaser headline drops the "looks like" crap because the article is here to be read beyond the headline.
and im just talking about the main headlin here, its a teaser - a false teaser at that.
when savage's ratings sink low and he blames Wolf Blitzer for that as well...
Here we have yet another example of the right calling the left Nazi's, yet Bill O'Reilly can't seem to find one single example of the right smearing the left. But according to them, the left calls them Nazi's all the time. Hypocrites is the only logical response regardless how people like Tommy or Evillib think we should respond. Apologize for them what you want, but I'm done playing nice. It's an eye for an eye time!
is obssessed with sticking Jews into ovens. Why is that, Dr. Weiner? Why the preoccupation with sticking Jews into ovens?
Blitzer used to work for AIPAC. He's Israel Lobby.
violation of Godwin's law.
As a new poster, let me get this straight: we are arguing over the appropriateness of comments made by a person who is *paid* to say wildly inflammatory things and basically make a spectacle of himself on the airwaves?
We might as well be arguing over whether Madonna really has talent, whether "Snakes on a Plane" has artistic merit, or whether Jerry Springer has pioneered a new paradigm of clinical social work!
In general, I don't believe in conspiracy theories -- it's hard enough to get people to agree on what to order in Chinese restaurants -- but I do believe in marketing and sales strategy. The goal of these performers is to make both their supporters *and* their opponents watch them by stirring up ever more controversy. Higher viewer ratings and a higher Google rating mean high fees for advertisers.
Though I consider myself pretty conservative, it seems to me that all sides with a dog in this fight are making a mistake by taking Savage, et. al., seriously as political commentators. If you want to de-fang outrageous punditry, simply do what professional wrestling did: re-classify it as entertainment.
If you like that kind of entertainment, you should focus on the performance or the performer ("Is it just me, or does everyone like Ann's hair a shade darker?" or "I dunno. I thought Michael was more convincing when he compared Julie Andrews to the Nazis ..."). And if you *don't* care for that kind of entertainment, you can guiltlessly get your political opinions elsewhere and go back to Madonna, "Snakes on a Plane", Jerry Springer, or a really kick-ass needlepoint project.
That worked well -- for conservatives.
This is basically the Ostrich-Head-in-the-Sand, "ignore-them-and-they'll-go-away" strategy. You are basically suggesting that because his positions are inflammatory, they can be dismissed. Wrong. The very fact that his statements are inflammatory and wrongful should be brought to light, and exposed for what they are.
No one should, from a resounding silence, infer that the positions which Savage espouses and the lies which he uses to promote them are acceptable.
"Entertainment" can have a profound impact on public opinion and shaping the public discourse: It, too, is subject to critique, analysis, and judgment. This has been true since early political plays such as Shakespeare's "King John" or "Richard III" (And before, but these are two of my favorites).
The Right, generally speaking, are often greatly offended at "Entertainment" (mean old liberal Hollywood, devil-worshipping Harry Potter books, the list goes on forever...). They reserve the right to critique and expose it.
So too must we critique and expose "entertainment" such as Savage, who bases his "Entertainment" on vicious, hateful attacks. A casual listen to his show usually reveals more than one caller who thinks Savage "has the right idea for America", and that we should all "try to be more like the Savage Nation." Those listeners should be exposed to an opposing viewpoint, should know that Savage's comments are innacurate and unreasonable, should have an opportunity to compare maniacal rantings to true, thoughtful discussion and consideration.
Thankfully, this board provides a place for that to occur. Your premise that such analysis and discussion is futile and trivial suggests that you do not fully understand the concept of such consideration, or that you do not understand the impact of lies and vitriol on the public welfare. I urge you to reconsider.
I agree that even that which we brand "entertainment" should be exposed to critique in both its form and content. But we're not engaging in studied critique here. It's simply an "is not"/"is so" yelling match.
Turning this into a Left versus Right debate, is, IMHO, sadly naive and mistaken. It's more about what behavior we as individuals are willing to allow in our living rooms, dens, etc. What do I care whether the offender's politics veers to the Left or the Right?
And, yes, it's definitely true that entertainment has long been used to influence public opinion. But there's an equally long history of an entertainment-based response to ideas and policies that displease us: satire. Unfortunately, creating satire involves real labor and intellect, and most of us are simply not up to it. It's easier to yell. Not to mention that the kids in high school who thought "A Modest Proposal" was really a call to genocide have gotten no wiser as they've gotten older.
Tom Wolfe has branded the 21st century as the "somnolent century", suggesting, among other reasons, that the sheer volume of public discourse will drive much of American society into a fortress-style mindset, holed up in their homes, fiercely guarding whatever values they hold against the perceived onslaught. I gotta admit: it sounds not so bad!
Rightwing misinformation and outrageous statements if you dont LIKE the very concept of doing this exactly what brings you here? Feel free to NOT partake of what MMFA does if you dont think it is in anyones best interest but coming here and arguing that their very existance serves no purpose is frankly dumb. Dont like MMFA the exits are clearly marked
Based on the comments, I can say unhesitatingly that not only is Savage a deranged idiot and but shows all psychopathic tendecies. Savage' characterization of Wolf Blitzer, who typically plays by GOP play book on most issues, is laughable. For his own sanity, I would recommend that he check into a mental hospital.
I would like to see an Arab newsperson emerge on one of the networks to at least give it a semblance of fairness. Why do they give us all these Jews?