Savage compared Rep. Wexler to Nazis over questioning of Gonzales during hearing
On the May 11 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage denounced Rep. Robert Wexler's (D-FL) questioning of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales during a May 10 congressional hearing about the firing of nine federal prosecutors, saying, "The last time I saw a politician scream at someone like that was in Nazi Germany in the kangaroo court trial against people who conspired to kill Hitler." Describing Wexler as a "schmuck" and a "moron," Savage went on to say the congressman "has more hatred for Gonzales than he does for Osama bin Laden and the Islamists."
Referring to the investigation of the firings of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 as a "fake case," Savage also called Wexler a "low-life skunk" for "ripping into poor old Attorney General Gonzales."
During the hearing, Wexler repeatedly asked Gonzales to tell the House Judiciary Committee who had provided Gonzales with a list of U.S. federal prosecutors recommended for termination, including former New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. According to a transcript of the hearing posted on Salon.com, when Gonzales claimed not to know who had compiled the list, Wexler asked, "It's a national secret, isn't it?"
As Media Matters for America has documented, Savage has a history of linking Democratic politicians and Nazis. On the April 23 broadcast of The Savage Nation, Savage described as "Hitler dialogue" a speech made by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) in opposition to the April 18 Supreme Court ruling upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003. On the May 2 broadcast of his show, Savage called Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) a "Nazi" and accused him of seeking "the final solution for conservatives on talk radio" by supporting the proposed Media Ownership Reform Act.
The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the May 11 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: You know why we're being outwitted by the Islamists? Because we have nitwits running the country.
CALLER: But don't you feel --
SAVAGE: We have nitwits who have no wits. All they have is power, no wits.
CALLER: So, you feel --
SAVAGE: What can we do about it? I don't know. Maybe you can write your congressman. Ha ha ha ha! Who are you going to write? Who's that idiot down in Florida, that moron who attacked our poor attorney general yesterday? That schmuck, Wexler. Did you see Wexler go at him?
CALLER: Yeah.
SAVAGE: That low-life skunk, that schnorrer, Wexler, ripping into poor old Attorney General Gonzales on a non-case? That Wexler's the biggest schmuck. What was he, an ambulance chaser in Brooklyn before he went to Florida there and got the old-age vote?
CALLER: I would just like to encourage you, Michael. I seem like you seem a little down --
SAVAGE: No, no. Call Wexler up. He's a brave man. He's very brave to attack Gonzales. See if he'll go and investigate [unintelligible]. Big old Wexler, that lousy phony. Another liberal fraud from Brooklyn.
Wexler. See him ripping into Gonzales. A fake case if I ever saw one. Screaming at him. The last time I saw a politician scream at someone like that was in Nazi Germany in the kangaroo court trial against people who conspired to kill Hitler. Wexler really went crazy: "Oh, the tough guy." He has more hatred for Gonzales than he does for Osama bin Laden and the Islamists.
Congressman Wexler has been very supportive in the fight against al Qeida and bin Laden. This is nothing but more hate from Savage. Savage is the type of garbage that if he had his way people like me would be in his concentration camps.
Why does MMFA bother wasting the time to type about Michael Savage? He's a man that, while passionate about his love for America, says some of the craziest stuff you can find on the air. It's his right to say it, but why the heck does MMFA consider it worthy of reporting here? It's akin to quoting Eric Cartman for gosh sakes...
why do you waste the time typing your post when you already know the answer?
Cannon, the difference is that Cartman is a fictional character whose creators made him for laughs and outrageousness, Savage's comedy is completely unintentional/
Why ask why?
Posting the Savage Weiner's words both in print and audio shouldn't be upsetting to anyone. But what's become evident as of late is that Savage Weiner and the other radio hate jocks like him live in fear that they are being quoted correctly.
This is not akin to quoting Eric Cartman. Cartman is a fictional cartoon character who is clearly not intended to be taken seriously. The Savage Weiner is a real racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted chickenhawk, who has real fans who really take him seriously (my own cousin being one of them, the poor bastard).
Nope, Savage is not a bigot. He's not racist, sexist, or homophobic. As far as gays go, he only opposes their agenda.
How is he a chickenhawk? He actually opposed Bill Clinton's terrorist acts in Serbia. How can he then be a "hawk"?
In the last Savage board, I forgot to mention another issue in which Ted Kennedy is absolutely full of crap. That issue is immigration. He is in lockstep with President Bush (What does that tell you if someone agrees with Bush? If someone agrees with Bush, he has to be wrong, right?) on granting amnesty to illegal alien vermin who came here primarily from Mexico. Kennedy had the utter gall to say that this ridiculous immigration reform bill, which should be filibustered, is strong on border control. What a doubletalking, lying idiot! How is granting amnesty to illegal aliens "tough" on illegal aliens? What a fat idiot! God bless Michael Savage for opposing Bush on this immigration garbage when no Democrat will. Democrats probably agree with Bush more than Savage does.
Comparing Michael Savage, a genius with a Ph.D., to Eric Cartman is insane.
Awesome, when his weird logic can be followed, he's right. When he's thoroughly indefensible, "Why do you bother with quoting him?"
"Congressman Wexler has been very supportive in the fight against al Qeida and bin Laden"
Do you have any proof of that? It seems to me that most Democrats don't believe that there actually is a War on Terror.
WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE THERE'S A WAR ON TERROR???
" So I don't know where [bin Laden] is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you."
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
---George W. Bush
Pete, so? Bush is a liberal. That's why Michael Savage has called him the worst president ever. No wonder Bush doesn't care about Bin Laden. Please give an example of a conservative who doesn't care about getting Bin Laden.
Who said that Al Queda shouldn't be fought? That's different from the "war on terror", which includes invading countries. It's a question of methods, not intent.
Oh, there's definitely a war on terror. The problem is that we've squandered the majority of our troops and equipment fighting envy combat. And our national guard is busy with the battle of sorrow. I think we need to divert more resources to the global struggle against enmity, then we could truly live free.
"War on Terror." Very pretty. If it's a War on Terror, why aren't we fighting terrorists all over the world? Why aren't we fighting state-sponsored terrorism to the South and the West, and only focusing on the Middle East?
Semantics? Bush & crew are always up for some antics, so long as there's profit in it.
We democrats believe that America was attacked on 9/11 by terrorist supported by Ben Laden. We democrats believe that we should be in Afghanistan and the borders of Pakistan looking for him "dead or alive". We democrats don't buy the "talking points" line "war on terror" because it does not serve any purpose except to rally conservatives and the uninformed that they need to get on the "talking points" band wagon. When you engage in war you should have a defined enemy not a phrase because war is the most important decision that a President makes. War is not a talking point to be used whenever you need to bolster your base. And war should be waged against those who wage war against you, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia not Iraq. Didn't Blair just say that they would no longer use the "war on terror" theme.
We are suppose to be spreading democracy or at least that's what junior & co. has said for the last 4 years but somehow they don't understand what democracy means. It does not mean that I can't love my country but speak out when I think that the government that is running my country is wrong. If not agreeing with how the people who are running my government and presenting my country abroad makes me either a "traitor" or not supporting the "war on terror" theme why try to spread "democracy" but silence it at home.
They imply that previous administrations weren't fighting "the war on terror" before 9/11. If that's the case, and they had a problem with that, then why didn't they fight it 'better' themselves before 9/11?
Previous administrations were fighting the war on terror. The Bush Administration fell down on the job, perhaps allowing 9/11 to happen, but certainly not doing enough when intelligence reports were talking about tons of chatter and 'hair on fire' warnings. After they fell down on the job before 9/11, they then succeeded with Afghanistan and failed miserably with their invasion of Iraq.
We could hardly be doing a WORSE job in fighting the war on terror than what Bush is doing right now!
When Clinton lobbed cruise missles at Bin Laden the refrain from the Rethug congressional leadership was "Wag the dog," screamed at every opportunity to every camera in sight. Not one had the moral gumption to call this traitorous cry that Clinton was trying to divert attention from the oh-so-important bj what it was - treason. By making it politically impossible to fight our sworn enemies when Clinton tried to do it and ignoring it entirely when they had all three branches of government, they enabled Atta and his psychotic thugs.
There are fascists anongst us - they were running the whole government until the 06 elections after stealing two consecutive presidential elections and who knows how many others. They have plans to render future elections meaningless and they have their propaganda spewing enablers like Savage who employs the techniques of the nazis while seeking to render the term meaningless by calling the very people the nazis would have slaughtered nazis.
If it weren't for his Jewish ancestry, Savage would have been very comfortable in Nazi Germany - demonizing homosexuals, leftists and anyone who wanted equal time in the media with the fascists (like he does now) while promoting the fascist/corporatist agenda.
The "War on Terror" is a pretext - an excuse to steal Iraqi oil and our liberty. The 06 election was the most important in the history of our government. Now the 08 elections assume the same or even greater importance. If we are to save our country - and our Democracy - we need to keep up the pressure to restore the Fairness Doctrine and eliminate "magic box" voting machines.
Uneasy, I'm sorry, but what Clinton did was a "wag the dog." He never cared about getting Bin Laden.
The Dems won in 2006 because the conservative base stayed home on election day. We conservatives are fed up with our liberal President Bush. He's expanded government. He has supported illegal aliens. He's fought a pc war in Iraq. The election was not a mandate for liberalism.
Hopefully, with Savage as the nominee for the GOP in 2008, liberalism will be finished for good. Savage can't be linked to Bush, since he has called Bush the worst president in history and actually disagrees with Bush more than the liberals do.
A President Savage would have an approval rating of 85% during his entire presidency. He'd end the budget deficit in one year. He'd deport the illegal aliens. He'd win the war on terror. America deserves his leadership. Savage in '08!
Un, the Fairness Doctrine will never return.
Savage has more hate of Democrats and the GLBT community than he does for Osama bin Laden and the Islamists.
SavageforPresident sayng that he does not hate gays and Democrats more than Al-Qaeda coming in 5...4...3...2...1
Hey wait, didn't Savage say something about how "God was speaking" on 9/11, because of transgender surgery and homosexuality and lesbian fertility clinics. So wait a minute, according to that logic, if God wanted that to happen, and we are fighting the people who did it, then we are fighting against God and his will, and America will go to hell!
Wait, Savage also sympathized with the point of views of the Islamic extremists, saying, "Don't you understand how [Muslim extremists] see the world? I do, which is why most of them listen to the show and love me." He then began to speak from the point of view of a Muslim extremist. Savage said, "The enemy himself probably listens to this show and says, 'My God, if more of America was like this guy, I probably wouldn't even want to overthrow the country. I'd have nothing to overthrow. I'd be proud to be part of it. But the country that he rails against, the things going on in this country that this man rails against, are the very things that disgust me.' "
I'm afraid Michael Savage should speak for himself right there.
Michael Savage is probably the most extreme advocate on the airwaves for military action against Muslim countries and Muslim extremists. The remarks cited in this article should be understood in that context.
Okaaaaay...
But he's talking about Wexler grilling of Gonzales, he's not talking about attacking another country.
You're right. I was responding to Tmans' post on his previous statements regarding Muslims.
But the whole Nazi theme is connected to his fear of Muslims in that both the Nazis and extremist Muslims were or are threats to his people both here and abroad.
This article documents his disdain for a member of the tribe who he views as less than appropriately patriotic to the fatherland. What better a way to verbally assault him than by reffering to him as a Nazi?
Wexler is grilling a man who allegedly, with much evidence, fired attorneys for partisan reasons, then tried to cover and it up and whose testimony had no less than 30 "I don't recalls."
People who commit such acts (firing U.S. attorneys for partisan reasons) are not patriotic. And merely questioning a man at the center of the scandal is Wexler's job. He has every right to do that. And comparing him to a Nazi, a person who willingly murdered 6 million Jews and 6 million other homosexuals, gypsies, Jehovas Witnesses, etc., is wrong. I don't think any conservative or liberal should do that.
"People who commit such acts (firing U.S. attorneys for partisan reasons) are not patriotic."
I meant patriotism towards Israel.
"I don't think any conservative or liberal should do that."
In the world of "should", perhaps. Until there is a change in laws dealing with slander people will take advantage. I'm personally in favor of a return to dueling but I don't how this could be accomplished.
"I meant patriotism towards Israel."
Well, Wexman is an advocate for Israel. So you and/or Savage is/are wrong there. Why don't you tell me, because you seem to be Weiner's spokesperson.
[link to www.israelpolicyforum.org] [link to www.wexlerforcongress.com] [link to wexler.house.gov]
Israel has NOTHING to do with the attorney scandal anyways.
Not strong enough an advocate for Israel would be Savage's point.
"Israel has NOTHING to do with the attorney scandal anyways." ---TMAN
Yes, but it was you who brought up the Savages' past statements regarding Muslims, to which I originally replied to you about.
(And I have no connection to Michael Savage or MICHAELSAVAGEFORPRESIDENT except as a listener and MMFA reader.)
So, he's not a big enough advocate for Israel, so it's okay to call him a Nazi?
I don't think you're a big enough advocate for humanity. So I'm going to call you a serial killer and compare you to Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer, 'kay?
I think it's different when members of the same group interact. Like how Blacks can get away with calling each other N****r. It's understood what someone really means in part by who and what they are.
"I don't think you're a big enough advocate for humanity."
I'm not an advocate humanity first. I'm an advocate for my country first. After that, I worry about the rest of humanity.
So you admit being a baby-eating, serial killing racist?
Wow. I fail to follow your reasoning within this thread, unless it's just to insult an anonymous poster. I don't take offense, but I feel bad for you, and liberalism, if you really are on the level and are at all representative of liberals.
Doesn't support Israel = Nazi
Doesn't support humanity in general = serial killer
The whole point is that the logic is absurd. But it's the logic of you and your man, not me.
So, Jews go around saying, "What's up my NAZI?" Or "What's crackin Hitler?"
Oh, so Weiner was complimenting Wexler? Old buddies? Oh! Okay. Wow, makes so much sense now!
"So, Jews go around saying, "What's up my NAZI?" Or "What's crackin Hitler?"---Tman
Obviously not. The point of my analogy is their commonality. They share a common heritage as Jews, including the WW2 experiences. I thought I was being fairly clear, but apparently not clear enough.
I see much disparagement of the relative intellectual capacities of those who tend to vote Republican here. I wonder sometimes though. I used to think the same way myself, but less so after starting to read this site months ago.
I wonder sometimes if there are people who post as liberals in such a way as to discredit liberalism.
We understand your point. That doesn't mean your point isn't highly moronic.
"Oh, people disagree with me, that must mean I'm morally and intellectually superior. I'll post patronizing blanket insults to demonstrate."
Clinton fired every single U.S. Attorney for partisan reasons when he took office in 1993. In my opinion, this is a non-issue. This is wasting everybody's time.
"This article documents his disdain for a member of the tribe who he views as less than appropriately patriotic to the fatherland. "
Hmmm ... isn't Germany der fatherland?
So if he's not patriotic to der fatherland wouldn't that put him squarely against the Nazis?
And by that train of logic, wouldn't someone attacking him be in the Nazi camp?
Very good. I did mean Savage's fatherland, just to be clear.
Keep digging.
What the hell does that mean, "Savage's fatherland"?
I was under the impression that the eminent Dr. Weiner was an American.
If he's not, I feel much better about being one.
I meant Israel. The theoretical basis on which Israel was formed is dependent on it being the fatherland of the Jews.
If you're so big on the idea of a "fatherland", why don't you go back to where you came from?
Those of us who are proud to call ourselves American (and let's never forget those who, one day, will call themselves American) will take care of the place while you're gone.
I was trying to explain where I see Savage coming from. It seems to me many don't get him. I doubt if most of his listeners agree with him on everything or even most things. I know there is a portion who are mad at him for not towing the GOP line. I personally agree with the thrust of his message regarding borders, language and culture.
I was trying to explain where I see Savage coming from. It seems to me many don't get him... I personally agree with the thrust of his message regarding borders, language and culture.
Oh great, more bs from the Weinerdogs.
Listen: stop rationalizing his hate speech. It's NEVER okay to call someone a Nazi. Not even if 90% of your show is about "Borders, Language, Culture" (which sounds like jingoism to me, but I digress). Weiner has a long track record of hate speech, this is the tip of the iceberg, and I'm sick of his defenders who wander in here so they can show us how to stick our heads in the sand.
OK, leaving aside for the moment the good for this country I see him as trying to do on the immigration issue alone, I think the English he puts on things is bad for society. He doesn't need to be so shocking to make his points. I would imagine he does so for the ratings.
I'm not at all opposed to people objecting to him as I do often myself. But it's preferable to understand what you are objecting to as much as possible.
As far as reinstitution of the fairness doctrine, I'd be for it. I'd view Savage as an unfortunate casualty of it. The country overall would be better served if the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity had to be concerned about the veracity of their comments. The've done great harm over the years thru the misinformation the've disseminated.
OK, leaving aside for the moment the good for this country I see him as trying to do on the immigration issue alone, I think the English he puts on things is bad for society. He doesn't need to be so shocking to make his points. I would imagine he does so for the ratings.
So, you agree with me? I don't care how it's rationalized in your or Weiner's mind, that's irrelevant. Unless he misspoke (which he hasn't, considering he's had plenty of time to clean up his act), there's no excuse.
One correction: "Fatherland" perhaps read something about Israel and the requirements for automatic citizenship. Fatherland is a little off...I'm just saying.
I can go there because of my mother's mother (i.e. grandmother).
And just off the top of my head the vast majority of the Jewish community might consider your choice of wording odd. Especially considering the last country to use that word to describe itself.
Michael Savage is probably the most extreme advocate on the airwaves for military action against Muslim countries and Muslim extremists. The remarks cited in this article should be understood in that context.
So, what's it called when someone pretends to be an advocate of one thing, then turns around and pretends to be an advocate of the other position? A flip-flopper? A hypocrite? I thought Weiner got big props from his fans around here for not being a Bushbot, and here he is defending a man who fired nine attorneys for "incompetence", yet can hardly remember a thing about the whole process.
Oh, and they're called "Muslims", not "Islamists". Unless they're working for bin Laden, in which case they're called "al Queda".
He has critisized Bush for his apparent general incompetance personally (he does it regularly) and for the apparently incompetant people he's appointed, including Gonzalez. The lack of professionalism particularly gauls him. The problem may be contextual in that if you don't listen, you won't know what else he'ssaid besides what's been on a site like this.---no knock on MMFA which is doing a great service for this country IMO.
Savage called Gonzalez the "poor attorney general." Didn't seem like he was criticizing him.
You libs can't have it both ways. You can't say on one hand that Savage actually likes the terrorists and then on the other hand that he wants to kill a hundred million Muslims.
Savage has said numerous times that he prefers America with its gay rights, porn, alcohol, and abortion to the Islamic fascist nations.
Savage also said: "[T]he lion of the desert says, 'I'd rather die, I'd rather blow myself up than ever see my son Ahmed marrying the other guy's son, Mahmoud, and doing these despicable acts to each other.' " Savage further stated: "And then he sees loud-mouthed, foul-tempered women in high places bossing men around; foul-mouthed, foul-tempered women in high places bossing men around," in reference to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
At this point, wouldn't it be easier for everyone involved if Dr. Weiner published a list of who ISN'T a Nazi?
Might be easier and quicker, King, but Weiner would have to come up with some new material. I don't think he's up to the task.
I think you're right, I don't think he's up to it. He's getting too old for slapstick, and competing with Colbert and Stewart while maintaining originality results in stuff like "the half-hour news hour" or limpaugh jokes.
I like the way he's gracefully transitioning into playing the straight man for the gang of weinerphiles who post here, an excellent strategy from what I've read. Their stuff is so hilariously ridiculous, I am often brought to tears. And he definitely displays a talent for it.
I hope he continues to mark the twighlight of his career with the same dignity we see today.
At this point, wouldn't it be easier for everyone involved if Dr. Weiner published a list of who ISN'T a Nazi?
Great idea. And...
MMFA could just create a single thread for Savage that reads:
Savage calls every Democrat, every Liberal, everyone who has ever agreed with Democrats/Liberals, everyone that's ever even spoken to a Democrat/Liberal, & basically anyone else that doesn't see things his way... a Nazi.
Same song, second verse, a whole lot louder and a whole lot worse!
I'm a Hitler, You're a Hitler, we're all Hitlers,
If you drink the kool aid you're a Hitler too!
Be a Hitler, drink Dr. Hitler!
Be a Hitler, drink Dr. Hitler!
randi rhodes actually played the clip of wexler. based on gonzales's answers, he shouldn't be attorney general. he claims not to know who said what or did what. come to think of it, he's perfect for the bush administration.
I heard the clip too, and it reminded me of conversations I have with my seven- and five-year-old daughters.
Me: "Did you do this?"
Daughter: "No."
"Did your sister do this?"
"No."
"Was it the dog?"
"The dog can't reach the sink."
"Then who was it? It wasn't me."
"Well, it was someone in this house."
Kind of ironic calling Wexler a "Nazi" considering Gonzales' non-responses reminiscent of old "Schultzie" from Hogan's Heroes:
"I knoooooow nothingk!"
So now Robert Wexler is Roland Freisler? I know comparing anything liberal to the Nazis has become de rigueur for Savage and his ilk, but the sheer scale of Savage's historical illiteracy is simply embarrassing. I've seen some of the footage from the general's trial after the July 20 plot against Hitler. Freisler histrionically called the defendants "scum" and "vermin" from the bench. It's ironic, because if I was going to liken Savage to a Nazi, the name-calling Freisler would be one of my first choices (or possibly Ernst Roehm for, ahem, other reasons). Freisler's rhetoric sounded more like Savage on any given day than anything Wexler had to say to Gonzales. Freisler was also one of the principles at the Wansee Conference at which the plans for the Final Solution against the Jews were formalized. Savage's comparison of him to Wexler is so overwrought and historically vacuous that it would be laughable, if only there weren't so many people who listened to him as some kind of authority.
Back in the old neighborhood, Dr. Weiner would be described as a "fruit loop."
It's actually sort of painful watching Michael Savage... the guy is so obviously off his rocker, it's like watching a train wreck. I may not have a crystal ball but I don't see a happy ending fo this guy.
It's not that Denocrats don't want to go after Osam Bin Laden and the those who attacked us on 9-1-1. we do. The problem is that members of our own government seem to be more interested in making this President and his administration the sole authority and sole head of the country, the uniterian head of state. This is what we oppose. We did not remove a King in our passt to "elect" a new king. Nixon tried to tell America "If the President does it, it is not illegal". We did not accept that view then and won't accept that now.
We have three co-equal branches of goverment in this country. With each branch responsible for specific duties. Each branch also acts as a check and balance on the other two. This administration is trying to act as if they have no legal responsibility to enforse those bills passed by both house of Congress. They do. If the President doesn't like them, then veto the item and move on.
Well spoken...
Well, to all you people who are complaining about the Administration ... don't forget that our President needs to first excise all the things about our culture that annoy the Islamofascists. That means getting rid of civil rights, equality, freedom, privacy, protection for anyone who's not heterosexual and male (and preferably those of racial backgrounds other than white), getting rid of scientific discourse, and any sort of non-religious governing factors. Then, he has to create a dependence on their products (Oil). Once that's all done, he can probably depend on the entire Middle East to produce Osama Bin Laden for him without wasting any more American lives.
See you silly lefties? Just give his plan a chance to work! If you keep asking questions and thinking for yourselves, and not letting the talking heads control your brains, it'll never have a fair chance!
You really seem to be, but wow, I hope you're kidding with this. You start out sounding so serious and standard blind righty.
He's kidding. I know it's often hard to tell, but this time it's pretty obvious. Plus, I've read red's (haha) comments before.
Thanks, I'll be a bit more clear in my satire next time, but it is a bit chilling to produce something that seems (to me) to be so absurd and yet is considered serious ...
What I want to know is... What problem does the Savage(ly Small) Weiner have with Brooklyn, anyway, that he always needs to point out when a liberal comes from there? I suspect it's envy... ;)
Really, though, I want him to find more liberals from Brooklyn to say such things about, so that I can add it to my podcast's collection (we have "the Commie from Brooklyn" and "the freak from Brooklyn," thanks to his rants on Sen. Sanders).
Hey, Mike... Sen. Boxer graduated from Brooklyn College!
It's especially interesting considering that he chooses to live in San Francisco.
I don't know how Savage came up with "our poor attorney general" it isn't everyday that a guy gets rubber stamped into high places like Gonzales did.
In this current administration it's not experience that counts it's the loyalty factor. Although working for Bush does mean having to give up a clean conscience.
i had no idea dr. savage was that old, or had actually been in the courtroom, when the conspirators were tried.
also, is he possessed of a crystal ball, or he is a mind reader, able to tell us exactly what others are thinking?
hey, people want to know!
He said Wexler was interrogating Gonzales like a Nazi. ...Ok........ who cares? Why does Media Matters try to take mundane comments like this and make them look controversial? This is a nonstory. But he did mention something that's actually important: ISLAMBERG! But of course to you the story is a stupid insult Savage used.
I just hope this is some kind of Colbertian satire, the likes of which Redrighthand made a few posts up.
"He said Wexler was interrogating Gonzales like a Nazi"
Takes a Nazi to know a Nazi. Projection anyone? Yeah Weiner knows EXACTLY how the Nazis interrogated people.
Except for the specifics of what group he wants to use as a scapegoat, Savage seems as close to Nazism as anyone around. He embodies contempt for the constitution and seems to see no role for congress except to enable a central executive that has plenary power to do what Savage wants done.
Actually Savage loves the Constitution. How is he against it?
Yes, we should talk about Islamberg.
Michael Savage is a provacative bomb thrower. He may be entertaining at times but his over-the-top comments bar him from consideration as a serious commentator