Savage referred to residents of New Hampshire as "drunks" and "yokels"
On the December 12 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing the presidential primary system, Michael Savage asked, "What kind of rubbish is this that New Hampshire -- a bunch of drunks up there -- and Iowa, they're going to determine the outcome of an election?" Savage also referred to the residents of New Hampshire as "yokels" and "stamp collectors" and the residents of Iowa as "corn farmers."
During the broadcast, Savage played a clip from the December 12 Republican presidential debate in Des Moines, Iowa, in which Des Moines Register editor and moderator Carolyn Washburn stated: "We're going to focus on issues Iowans say that still want to know more about. We won't talk a lot about issues like Iraq or immigration." Savage interjected: "First of all, who cares what they think in Iowa? That's number one. Why are we still running elections like it's the 19th century, where New Hampshire determines the election? A bunch of yokels in New Hampshire are going to determine the election as much as my dog is going to determine the election. Or a bunch of corn farmers in Iowa. I have nothing against corn farmers, don't get me wrong. But I'm sick of this 19th century model being used to tell who's going to win the election." Savage went on to say, "[T]he people know that it's all fraudulent and that both parties are part of the same scam."
Later, a caller stated, "I'm just calling to say you're absolutely right about Iowa. I was disgusted when I read in the paper the other day that the turnout of the voting age population in Iowa for the caucuses is 10 percent." Savage replied: "What kind of rubbish is this that New Hampshire -- a bunch of drunks up there -- and Iowa, they're going to determine the outcome of an election? Who came up with that nonsense? That's like believing in Santa Claus. If you believe that a bunch of drunks in New Hampshire and a bunch of stamp collectors in New Hampshire and a bunch of corn farmers in Iowa really are going to predict who the next president will be, that is like believing in Santa Claus."
From the December 12 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Is anybody out there paying attention to these debates? I don't understand it. I'm in the business. This is supposed to be the most important election in the history of the universe, and I think that basically I'm watching Jackass I. Why would I watch a debate where they wouldn't even discuss immigration today? Did you hear what went on? The so-called Republicans initiated a so-called debate with a so-called moderator who said we're not going to discuss immigration. This is amazing to me how they can expect you to come out and vote for them. Do we have that sound bite? Play it if you have it.
WASHBURN [audio clip]: We're going to focus on issues Iowans say that still want to know more about. We won't talk a lot about issues like Iraq or immigration. They're important issues, no doubt, but Iowans say they know where the candidates are coming from --
SAVAGE: Aw, shut up. Just shut up. Iowans say nothing. Shut up. Get her off my show. Iowans say? First of all, who cares what they think in Iowa? That's number one. Why are we still running elections like it's the 19th century, where New Hampshire determines the election? A bunch of yokels in New Hampshire are going to determine the election as much as my dog is going to determine the election. Or a bunch of corn farmers in Iowa. I have nothing against corn farmers, don't get me wrong. But I'm sick of this 19th century model being used to tell who's going to win the election.
It's absurd. It's stupid. It's not a dog and pony show. It's a presidential election in the United States of America circa now, where the people know that it's all fraudulent and that both parties are part of the same scam, which is the "demican" and "republicrat" oligarchy. So we all understand that -- that's why nobody gives a rat's behind about any of it. Do you understand that? Play "Jingle Bell Rock" while I compose myself here. I started out feeling good.
[...]
SAVAGE: WTNT, Steven, you're on The Savage Nation.
CALLER: Hi, Dr. Savage. I'm just calling to say you're absolutely right about Iowa. I was disgusted when I read in the paper the other day that the turnout of the voting age population in Iowa for the caucuses is 10 percent.
SAVAGE: But why do we care about Iowa? This is a holdover from the 19th century, when we were largely an agrarian nation. What kind of rubbish is this that New Hampshire -- a bunch of drunks up there -- and Iowa, they're going to determine the outcome of an election? Who came up with that nonsense? That's like believing in Santa Claus. If you believe that a bunch of drunks in New Hampshire and a bunch of stamp collectors in New Hampshire and a bunch of corn farmers in Iowa really are going to predict who the next president will be, that is like believing in Santa Claus.
CALLER: I agree --
SAVAGE: There's no relationship. None whatsoever. None. And that's why I don't pay attention to these debates or these polls. They're utterly meaningless.
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
I lived in NH for a time, and I think the term Savage is looking for is "schoob".
"I don't have anything against corn farmers, don't get me wrong."
Except that they should have no say when it comes to deciding who becomes President. Other than that...
By the way, how many electorial votes do the powerhouses of Iowa and New Hampshire have?
nice, calling people in New Hampshire drunks, just wonderful. Savage is full of class.
I'm sure you're going to lose sleep about this tonite. No really, I'm sure.
That is not the point, I do not lose sleep over much other than if my Grandkids or daughter are sick and I worry.
Are you saying hateful statements by this hateful man should not be reported on MMFA? What exactly is your issue?
In a nutshell, my issue is that I like to be proud of calling myself a liberal, and give conservatives ammunition like your posts in this thread to add a "bleeding-heart" in front of "liberal".
I really do not understand what your point is, and what liberal or conservative has to do with what Savage said. Its just wrong to smear an entire state. But it seems you want to play word games go right ahead, I really am just not interested.
add: "and your posts in this thread" give conservatives...
And your posts in this thread give Virginians a bad name. I'm sure they're not all pedophiles like you.
That bleeding heart is a prime factor that distinguishes libs from cons. Sorry it is.
And now that you have admitted that 'bleeding heart' is a term only compatible with liberals, you might want to realize that it is not necessarily a good term with positive connotations. I am glad you libs are finding out more about yourselves and the color on your end of the political spectrum.
Tell me please why empathy is not a positive element for an individual to possess in the human society.
Oh heck, just ignore this oaf!!!!
Yeah, that would be the best thing to do. But when I get bored posters like that can provide some entertainment. Also, everyone has something to teach and to learn, so I probe always hoping for something good. Sorry for the distraction though.
There is empathy and there is "bleeding heart". you seem to think that these terms are one and the same, but this is not so. The [dictionary.com] definition of bleeding heart is:
A person who is considered excessively sympathetic toward those who claim to be underprivileged or exploited.
I emphasised the word excessively to point out that a bleeding heart is overly-sympathetic. A bleeding heart is sympathetic to those who CLAIM to be exploited, which does not mean that they actually are exploited and/or underprivileged. A bleeding heart is sympathetic to the point beyond reason, even when they are informed of the utter fallaciousness of the victim's claim they continue to be sympathetic. So when you call yourselves bleeding heart libs you must know it is no compliment.
Maybe he was thinking of an image of religious iconography, depicting the Sacred Heart of Jesus pierced by thorns and bleeding?
Better a bleeding heart than no heart at all. What was that about color on our end of the spectrum? More of your White Supremist racism?
What is even better is having a normal heart which is held in check by reason. Evidently you do not think so.
I am amazed that you made such an obscure connection. Actually i was referring to several abstract ideas. That was not one of them.
Yeah, you were babbling. A NORMAL heart feels compassion and empathy. How much is appropriate is a subjective term. Enough to care, enough to do the right thing even when its hard, that would tend to leave out you conservatives. The whole bleeding heart thing was a term you wingnuts coined in order to frame empathy and compassion as a weakness. Its a sad and pathetic attempt to justfy the ABNORMAL hardness of YOUR hearts.
Can there be such a concept as "bleeding-heart conservative," come to think of it?
Sure, they're called Libertarians!
A Libertarian is merely a Republican who wants to smoke dope.
Yes, a good way to reward Savage is for everyone in that state to vote in the Democratic column and noise it around that it is being done just to show up Savage's reckless statemnts. Now that is more than the way to get even with that hateful guy. He would be whining for months.
This hurts like hell, but I have to agree with Savage on one minor point...the current method of electing our President needs to be revised. Those of us who vote in later primaries usually have no impact. Why not have all primaries on one day? I guess one reason is that the media bobbleheads wouldn't have all that "horse race" crap to bloviate about...they might actually have to talk about something else...like the corruption seeping out of every pore of the Bush Administration.
These extensive, repetitive debates have amounted to little more than one big Media Circle Jerk.
Nerzog I have to agree
Now what Savage said was disgusting and to me the man is irrelevant to anything serious but I have always been concerned that Iowa and New Hampshire have had such a say in who we elect President. Do these states represent our inner cities plights? No. Do they represent the west? No. Reform is needed.
Yes Savage is nothing but a rabble rousing bufoon. On the other hand, this stupid system of primaries does need fixing. But as long as it exists, we can expect some oaf like Savage to try to get into the mix when it is actually none of his business. I had my grandchild with me once when he was on the TV and she said, "Oh, oh Granny, his mama needs to wash his mouth out with soap. He talks nasty." Out of the mouths of babes, I say.
I agree this method is ridiculous and I mean I really really resent that like most of us I don't have a real say into who the nominee is. The current system is rigged in that DC and Wall Street hands us a pair of candidates to choose from. But Savage always has to make an ass of himself and funk up the issue with his name calling and the genuine disrespect he seems to have for most of humanity.
I agree with all of you, and even Savage to a point (despite his usual "humor"). Someone wins a primary in a state with a handful of electoral votes - and that would make them the "frontrunner"? It makes no sense to me. One primary election day countrywide would definitely make more sense.
What percentage of registered voters actually votes in the primaries anyhow? Worse yet, how many have even watched one of these "debates"? You can get more out of a candidate on most any Sunday morning political show than in any of the responses from them at these debates. Most of the nation doesn't watch a single debate until after the conventions - and even then I'm sure they'd rather be watching "Dancing With The Stars".
If I had it my way, we would do away with primary elections as we have them. I could see the need for it 50 years ago, but with the technology we have today we should at least try online polling - beginning with the primaries. There would be a lot of issues to work out - but if banks and government agencies (SSA comes to mind) have means of verifying your identity online, I'm sure political parties could use something similar for primary voting. It couldn't be more corrupt or inaccurate than the way it is now, would sure bring a heck of a lot more voters into the process, and stop the confusion and 6 month roller coaster ride - or "horse race" which Nerzog refers.
This is nice, a topic we can all agree on. I'm glad to see that people can set aside their hatred for Savage and the words he uses and focus on the issue he brings up here....which is important to Americans of all political persuasions. The media-propelled candidates, the lame debates, the out of sync primaries....they don't benefit anyone except the crooked politicians.
See, I told you that everyone here didn't always "hate conservatives" - just some of the things they sometimes say.
Americans have a lot more in common than we sometimes think. Get rid of the flame throwers in the media and we might actually get something done.
dang john, i was going to say that. if he had not made crass blanket-statements we would not have seen this discussion. i know i'll catch flak for this, but i consider savage to be a comedian, along the lines of carlin...(not nearly as funny) but they both make you think by pointing out political and human absurdities in a condescending and pessimistic way. if you can handle being offended for a little while - you come away think about something you normally would not.
... i consider savage to be a comedian, along the lines of carlin...(not nearly as funny)- paleocon
hmmm... do you also consider raw sewage to be prime rib (not nearly as tasty)?
This is so terrible!!! People ought not be able to say such hurtful things. Somebody should pass a law so we can get this criminal off the air before he incites genocide!
I really hope Ripper was being sarcastic.
I'm writing Harry Reid right now. Maybe he can write a letter so we can get this hate monger off the air before the genocide begins against the people of Iowa and New Hampshire.
So you want politicians to have to power to remove radio personalities they don't like, much less waste our time on such lunacy?
Absolutely! The government knows what's best for us.
Save us Harry Reid!
Whatever you say.......
Tommy, you're arguing with a guy who is faking his indignation.
He's a Savage fan who comes around to defend the good Doctor whenever there's a Savage thread.
I know, I feel a little foolish being taken in......forgive me.
You arent bright enough to do sarcasm. Give it up
No, he was being an ass.
There's a difference.
So you support the coming Savage incited genocide?
Ripper - so you're saying you're pro-genocide?
Cute. Feel free to euthanize yourself, do your part for the greater good.
No, it's the hate-mongers like Savage who are inciting and supporting genocide with this kind of language.
I say take his show off the air, and try him for crimes against humanity. Best to do it now before any more innocent Iowans and folks in New Hampshire get killed.
Your attempts at humor are simple, at best.
I think "obnoxious fits his attempt at "humor"
You are really not funny.
I make myself laugh. If I'm having fun, it makes my day a little bit better. Feel free to do the same.
I'm glad someone gave this baby his bottle. Now he can poop and sleep in exuberant slumber now that he's done chasing his tale. I hope he's worn his little self out.
Oh, that was for the little Ripper, not Savage.
So are you for or against the coming, Savage incited, genocide?
You've had your bottle. Now burp like a good boy and go to sleep.
SURE you make yourself laugh. You are a moron thus easily amused. No one with the IQ of a dustbunny would find that tripe funny
Do not fake indignation and make it apparent a long way down the thread. I almost thought that you were the liberal Nazi type. Some of us support savage in a more open fashion. State your actual intentions or people will be confused by your opinions in the future.
Mocking satire and parody are legitimate forms of expression. If some are confused by it that doesn't bother me. That's their problem.
Thank you for your kind words about how I should post, and have a super evening!
Your sillyness was to parody and satire what fingerpainting is to great art. A feeble stab in the general direction and THAT is being generous
How very open minded of you, HaHa. I like it. Complain about about freedom of expression while you tell someone exactly how to properly express themself!
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
Two Savage lovers - the infant clown Ripper and FinIam - the pseudo intellectual, duking it out. Good times.
I was merely trying to avoid future confusion which would result in a waste of time for all of us. I was in no way forcing Ripper to do what i suggested.
Do not try to cover up your authoritarian tendencies.
And that means exactly what it says.
Only YOU and Tommy were confused and Tommy had the good sense to be embarassed about it. You can stop looking out for us liberals we arent as gullible as you are.
You give Savage far too much credit. Everyone accepts that he is a blow hard and he says outrageous things just to incite responses. Amazing how we all tumble to it. He is such crude and hateful guy. Republicans always have loved him. While I was still in the party, they ate up his slime. But his slime only pushes Democrats and even some Republicans like me to change their level of effort against narrow-minded right wingers. It was that ilk in the party that caused me to change parties. That and electing Mr. Bush.
I support him seeking the help he so desperatly needs
I really hope you're being sarcastic, because violating the first ammendment doesn't sound very American.
There is NO first amendment issue that guarantees the Weinerdog a job or a national audience.
Nah, they ought to just give him the Haldol he so desperatly needs. Then a year or so in a rubber room and he MIGHT become a decent human being. Miricles can happen
Ripper your problem was solved. you do not have to listen to him, and if others listen to him it is their choice. Here the true liberal colors get a glimpse of daylight, People such as Ripper want to control what people say if they don't like it, they want to control what others hear just because they do not like it. This is the greatest enemy of free speech.
Savage was making a broad (unjust) generalization stereotyping certain peoples, but this is in no way abrasive to me, i think that you might want to experience some interpersonal interaction to realize not everyone will be delicate with your mind. But then again this is probably why you shut yourself from the outside world.
Lighten up. Ripper is sincerely making fun of us liberals with his schtick.
Ripper is an ignorant con like you. There is NO free speech issue which DEMANDS that the Wienerdog stays on the air.
"What kind of rubbish is this that New Hampshire -- a bunch of drunks up there -- and Iowa, they're going to determine the outcome of an election?" Savage also referred to the residents of New Hampshire as "yokels" and "stamp collectors"
Well I live in Massachusetts and just over the border we have Seabrook N.H. & they've had the long held reputation as being drunks & yodels. Stamp collectors? Well not in Seabrook. They are gun & fireworks collectors. Oh and they've got tons of tattoo parlors & motorcycle shops.
Also the "joke" around here in uppity Massachusetts, perhaps based on some truth, is that Seabrookers have been known to marry their cousins.
I'm not making any of this up.
But now that's just Seabrook.
For Savage to smear the rest of New Hampshire is typical garbage from him.
Is Ghouliani from Seabrook? hahahah...
Every state has it's place that's supposedly full of "hicks and drunks" In New Jersey we call that "South Jersey" rimshot!!!
In Texas it's the whole dang state. Well, okay, just the 59% who voted for GWB, the guy they wanted to have their beer with.
The democrats didn't give us much choice with their flip-flopping frankenstein. No one they're putting up this year is that great either, a bunch of socialists. Hitler was a socialist you know....
In name only. He put REAL socialists in concentration camps and compared to president Gump. Kerry was Thomas Jefferson
We all know that Savage is an idiot! A moron! A racist pig! An un-patriotic America hater! Who hates himself, as his listeners do about themselves, hence, why they listen to him......
With that said and I will always appreciate MMFA's vigilance for exposing mis-information. I wonder if, other than mentioning Savage for the slime he his, if MMFA should even bother with Savage at all?
There is no actual mis-information here but a phychophantic lunitic's opinion about some of our fellow citizens!
Rush, Ann, Sean, or Bill at least will attempt to say lies in-between their rants.......
I'm all for pure and unadulterated free speech, even for a piece of garbage like Savage and any of his sleezy followers.....
Perhaps it isn't such a bad idea that MMFA brings this crap up!
It's not about free speech, it's got nothing to do with that. This guy savage can walk the streets all day and all night, ranting his political opinions on everything political to everyone (and to everything, buildings and trees and whatever).
That's free speech, and this guy savage has it.
But nobody has a freedom to broadcast on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES. An FCC License is required to do so.
Invoking the law and the Regulations of the FCC, in regard to the hatred and the political opinons broadcast on the radio (on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES) by this guy savage, is not a matter of free speech.
I wish people could get this, and stop invoking free speech in these matters of broadcasting, and stop thinking somebody (like savage) has a freedom to broadcast on the radio. He doesn't, no more than do you and I.
WOW!!! The FCC has the power to trump the first ammendment to the constitution? I didn't know that.
Great libraries are filled EXCLUSIVELY with things you dont know. There is NO first amendment right that guarantees the Weinerdog either a job OR a national audience. The problem here, that thing that you ALSO dont know among a legion of other things you dont know is that THERE IS NO FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE INVOLVED. The FCC will NOT violate the first amendment they will NOT arrest the Weinerdog for ranting on a public street or at his house or at a park.
I honestly hate to say this, but what is the point of this topic? Savage says stupid and dumbass things constantly - that's why people tune in to hear him rant. When I looked up the "mission statement" for MMFA, I read the following:
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
So my question is, did MMFA expand the scope to include anything from a conservative that hurts someone's feelings?
Give me a break. The best thing to do with Savage is to simply ignore his ignorant rantings.
They're just adding to the list, so when he actually may get into trouble for something, MMfA can reproduce everything even possibly offensive to support the cause.
Outrageous statements have ALWAYS been part of what MMFA does. We dont CARE if you like that or not, it isnt your call. Are you really saying that since the Wienerdog CONSTANTLY makes such stupid and offensive statements that MMFA ought to ignore them? That if a media moron is offensive enough often enough that buys him some kind of exemption from having nonsense like this exposed? Nah, I dont think anyone in their right mind will buy that one.
I think most of the responses on this thread are hilarious, especially Jeter's, who is usually pretty level-headed. Who cares about some shock-jock's metaphoric statement? Seriously, everybody here needs a nap.
OK, while I nap, you can look up "metaphoric" in the dictionary. I don't think you're quite sure what it means.
Hope your nap was nice, so this won't make you mad, since I decided to waste my time finding the literal definition.
1.a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance (dictionary.com)
So, unless you're arguing that Savage LITERALLY meant that every single NH resident is a drunk, "metaphoric" was a fine term to use.
He was not using metaphoric language. A metaphor is a comparison between two things without using the words "like" or "as." That is the literary definition.
You can also say someone uses metaphorical language when they say something like "He pushed me over the edge."
But what you mean is that Savage was engaged in exaggeration or hyperbole, which is a nice way of saying Savage is just being a jerk again.
When someone makes broad generalizations, they are not speaking metaphorically.
FOOT IN MOUTH ALERT
Using "like" or "as" constitutes a simile, not a metaphor. Funnypants reads this and inserts foot in mouth immediately.
Using the definition I posted from Dictionary.com, by term is just fine. I can see why hyperbole might be appropriate as well. I was merely saying that Savage doesn't literally think and was not trying to convince anyone that EVERY SINGLE RESIDENT OF NH was a drunk, so "speaking metaphorically" was fine.
You might want to read more carefully. Did you miss the word "without?" So now who put the foot in his mouth?
I have and advanced degree in literature, and metaphorical is not used this way. If I call someone a drunk, am I using metaphorical language just because I literally don't mean you are drunk every single second of the day? If I call someone a crook, does that mean I am speaking metaphorically because they are not stealing every single minute of the day?
By the way, I noticed you focused on the word *literal* in your definition without reading the second part, which states that the metaphor "suggests a resemblance." Is that the reason you left out the last part of the definition on dictionary.com:a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, *as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” * (emphasis added)You notice there is an implied comparison: God is a fortress. Savage implies not such comparison.
HE SHOOTS...AND AIRBALL!
Your post would have been brilliant, had it not been for that one qualifier "without" that Funnymanpants included in his sentence.
It's hyperbole, not a metaphor. period. end of sentence. Done. Finished. Fin.
No, for the literary PhD, he said a metaphor was any comparison that wasn't a simile.
Maybe you should put down your shovel. [1] This post doesn't even make sense.
[1] That sentence *is* a metaphor.
Drunks, corn farmers, stamp collectors, and yokels. Sounds like a representative cross-section of today's electorate to me. What's the problem?
Sounds like the Republican presidential debate, to me.
Agreed. Just like his rant yesterday about the Nobel leadership being a bunch of pedophiles and child molesters, makes me wonder why the republicans like Craig are on a team they hate so much! ;)
Jeter, I heard those people from Seabrook say that when they flush their toilets, the results come out in "uppity Mass." ;) And that was before they get drunk.
I think that Dr. Savage actually believes that these rants are going to be helpful to his ratings. However, one day, someone may really take his words literally and go after him. At that point, will Mike Savage be the NUT or will his STALKER be the NUT? Sadly, we may find out someday. I hope I am wrong.
I guess Weiner is jealous that Al Gore got the Pulitzer that should have been his.
Al Gore won a Pulizter? Is there ANYTHING that man can't do???
If you are a liberal and are constantly screaming about a liberal issue, then barriers cease to exist. So is explained the rise of the Gore, from riches to liberalism to acclaim.
And I guess if you are a conservative moronic posts like that one are supposed to make sense
Posts such as that one make sense to those with any cognitive ability. Really, it was not that complicated.
To Ripper, Sssshhh. He (Gore) can't be a mental and moral diminuative like your boy Savage. Otherwise, he's dang accomplished.
When did Al Gore win a Pulitzer? Fantastic! First an Oscar, then the Nobel Peace prize, now a Pulitzer? That's incredible. His infleuence is truly astounding. What an inspiration.
Perhaps it's true that the Lord works in strange and mysterious ways. When Mr. Gore had the Presidency stolen by the oil dons, it opened the door for him to fulfill his life's true destiny of single handedly saving our planet. In my 77 years, I don't think that I have seen a more pure, dedicated, compassionate man.
Yeah, and it's traditionalist like O'Reilly and Savage that are out there standing up for the little man or shall I say "the common folks." At least Bill has declared victory in his War on Christmas. Apparently, the elves are rejoicing - www.politiporn.com
Quoth Mr. "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" "himself:"
Which begs the question of whether Mr. Savage would rather see a return to the good old days of "smoke-filled rooms" and prone-to-corruption Maschienpolitik to decide the next President--let alone constraining electoral franchise to white male freeholders owning real property on clear title.
But why do we care about Iowa? This is a holdover from the 19th century, when we were largely an agrarian nation.
Savage should try reading some recent history. Iowa's importance came from the media, and only after 1976, when Carter appeared. Since then, they dubbed it the first real test and so it goes on and on. It's good for the state economically but no one believes is is representative of the entire country. It's the media that put the caucuses on the map, in that they hope that they'll be able to spot the dark horse and congratulate themselves.
..and a bunch of corn farmers in Iowa really are going to predict who the next president will be,
Guess what... we aren't trying to predict anything. I didn't think that's what the primaries or the caucuses were for. We go to choose delegates, not predict who the candidate will be.
And if anyone cares to look at the demographics, you'll see we have about 80k farmers out of 3 million people. Iowa's population is about half urban and half rural. It seems many on the coasts (in the media) don' t know a thing about Iowa, and they are so surprised when they come out here that we aren't a bunch of hayseeds.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/IA.htm
This is too irrelevant for it to mean anything other than the mediamatters staff and advisors must be from New Hampshire.
I don't know who this creep in the sunglasses is.
Is it mediamatter's little way of calling names indirectly?
Then how moronically juvenile?
Well the Pres is from the midwest. Can't speak about the rest. I believe there's some Bio material about, check that "about us" spot above if your interest is there.
Don't remember anyone connecting the picture choice with your inferrence. Do you know what projection is?
The name calling is usually confined to us, The columnists weight in a few also. Moronically juvenile behavior, yes we do that, hyperbole and the occasional backing up of ones position.
Write, if you get work.
Boy, speaking as a resident of New Hampshire, I have to say that "stamp collector" line really hurts.
Savage's solution is that elections should be determined by radio talk show hosts who's eyes are so blood shot and dilated they need to wear dark glasses indoors.
I'm not a fan of the current primary voting process. But I do think if the people in my state(California) voted for someone that didn't win Iowa or N.H it would help make the later primary voting states more relevant. Unfortunately it doesn't look like that's gona happen
I dont mind him calling them names as long as he doesn't mind when I call him a disgrace to humanity and a jackboot fascist pig that is a closeted homo. You don't mind do you Herr Savage?
My view is that as stupid and arrogant as Michael Savage is, he does have a point. The two most powerful states in the primary season are Iowa and New Hampshire, followed by South Carolina. Those states have a total of about 15 electoral votes. But if you cannot get past them, then you can't really win the nomination.
Now, I actually have a proposed system that would be the most interesting, in my opinion. It would combind the benefit of having staggered primaries, while taking out the front-loading of the schedule. We should have 5 regional primaries of 10 states each (DC would be added to one of these primaries as well), and each primary would rotate each 20 years to who started the process. There would be no way of shuring up the nomination before the 3rd primary. The first primary would be around March 1st, and each one would follow 2 weeks after the previous. This would also rotate by two so that no state was in the last 2 any 2 election cycles in a row.
So, for instance, one potential primary might be the west, which would include AK, HI, WA, OR, CA, ID, NV, MT, AZ, UT. If it went first in 2008, then it would go 4th in 2012, 2nd in 2016, 5th in 2020, and 3rd in 2024.
If there's ONE thing and ONE thing only that I agree with Weiner on, is that all of this pre-election stuff is way too complicated. It is disheartening, looking at the TV here in Virginia, how only a few select states are SO important to win over people in your party. Why not just have a national primary where registered voters in a registered party vote for who they want as a nominee?
However, Michael Savage, as usual, continues his babbling rants and raves and talks about people of states he's probably never been to.