Savage's abrupt "Wake up": CAA reportedly dumps radio host following Etheridge smears
Hollywood's Creative Artists Agency has reportedly dropped its representation of radio host Michael Savage two days after announcing that it had signed him as a client. CAA's dumping of Savage followed a rant on February 26, documented by Media Matters for America, over singer Melissa Etheridge's Academy Awards acceptance speech, in which she thanked her wife. Savage said, "I don't like a woman married to a woman. It makes me want to puke. ... I want to vomit when I hear it. I think it's child abuse."
On February 27, Media Matters noted Savage's comments, along with CAA's announcement that it had signed him. On March 1, the website TMZ.com reported that CAA had signed Savage and noted Savage's smears, linking to the Media Matters item. Later the same day, TMZ.com reported that, according to E!'s Planet Gossip blog, CAA had dumped Savage as a client and that "CAA confirmed to TMZ that Savage is no longer their client."
Etheridge, who is a CAA client, won the Oscar in the Original Song category for "I Need to Wake Up," from An Inconvenient Truth, the global-warming documentary featuring former Vice President Al Gore.
The weblogs Towleroad and Pam's House Blend both spotlighted Savage's smears of Etheridge.
Little Weiner: You're gay! Just admit it and you'll feel so much better...
Me thinks he doth protest too much!
What's your spin, Weiner?
Are the CAA liberal-loving gays, or are they merely easily manipulated by liberal-loving gays? I'm sure you'll make the point that you didn't need them, anyhow!
I'm glad to hear this, personally, although I bet the CAA was motivated more by money than by the sheer ethics of having someone like Weiner in your organization.
I bet the CAA was motivated more by money than by the sheer ethics of having someone like Weiner in your organization.
That would certainly explain why he hadn't been dumped before now.
from the story, they had just taken him on, probably based on numbers and carefully selected recordings. Not everyone keeps up on the lunatic right like we do :)
It's all about Savage's numbers... apparently he does have impressive enough ratings to be signed cy CAA. But they don't look at the numbers as kooks, bigots and other morally retarded people. As I said in my post below, as an Oscar winner Etheridge has a lot more commercial value than Michael Savage. CAA can't promote an Oscar winning gay singer and a gay basher at the same time. To Savage I would say: "Sorry, Savage, you gotta go, pal. That (insert insulting slur for lesbian) has more stroke than you." What poetic justice... I love it.
the quicker hw becomes negative to everyones bottom line, the quicker the average IQ in the meadi will go up a tick
Is this all you pansies care about? Maybe Mike is right when he says this is a gay site.HAHAHA!!!
Are you a moron? Oh, yeah, of course you are.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Ye shall reap what ye sows.
Now this is a great story.
"reap what we sow"
You got it. Very fitting for the purported 'moral' righ-wing hate-monger.
Yes, I'm sure Savage will be crying himself to sleep tonight.
No, I doubt that he will, but he may be beginning to learn the lesson all puppies learn in the first six weeks: don't $#!T where you eat.
He can't help it, it's his favorite food.....
I know, isn't this comment offensive, "I just don't like homosexuals, if you ask me they're all homosexuals in the Pudding. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia". That infinitely worse than what Savage said, the irony....it was Al Franken. Starngly enough you never hear about this
www.gaypatriot.net/2007/01/18/al-frankens-anti-gay-past
Ever heard of sarcasm?....God, where is your sense of humor?....you PC conservative are all the same, can't take a joke etc.
Sound familiar?
Oh, yeah. The Franken quote is 30 years old. D'ya think maybe he has matured since 1977?
Nice website though. Talk about seriously emotionally damaged people. Gay conservatives?
Thanks for driving my point from yesterday home. This is just me pointing out hypocrisy. Yesterday sarcasm was not a valid argument but on that quote it IS. Interesting.
Don't know what you are taliking about. Haven't read any of your posts since our exchanges wednesday.
I was citing common Republican defenses for outlandish rhetoric.
Well, yesterday I deended Glen Beck's "sexual harrasing, sexist statements" as sarcasm and was tols by magnolia lover and rustyshackleford that that argument didn't apply. But, lo and behold, the sarcasm defense works when it is applied to libs.
Sorry 'bout the typos, work + blogging = horrible spelling
The point that everyone seems to be missing here is--Savage wasn't being sarcastic, he was actually stating that he hates gays. If he were saying this as a joke, it would be in bad taste, yet it would still be a joke. This idiot isn't joking.
It's people like you who are too stupid to see the way they play you. How does it feel to be a sucker for these liars while they care about nothing but increasing their ratings and book sales, making millions off of you?
Hey Rick,
Savage basically sounds like a lunatic 99.9% of the time.
But I gotta tell ya, his not liking homosexuals, or expressing that two woman being "married" sickens him is his right.
It's his opinion, and he should be able to express it without being punished.
I'm starting to really get worried about this slippery slope to censorship we seem to be on.
No, I disagree.
No one is advocating that Weiner be jailed for his comments. People are merely pointing out, rightly IMHO, that they are hateful comments that ill-befit someone who benefits from access to the public airwaves.
All societies have certain speech that is considered "beyond the pale." For instance, a man has a "right" to go out in public and extol the joys of raping children. Such a man would not be "censored," but I guarantee you that he would be roundly denounced for espousing such a noxious viewpoint.
Now, I use an extreme example to make a point, but it's just a question of where we , as a society, want to draw the line. I assume, Jeter, that you're not a lesbian woman. Don't you think you might draw that line differently if you were?
Hey Val,
Not gonna argue that Savage often expresses himself in a rather offensive way, but my point was should he be punished for that?
He didn't suggest violence. Only that 2 woman married & raising kids sickened him. Some might wince at his opinions, some might be offended, some might agree... but he should be free to have them without reprisal. To do otherwise enlists the PC police to start regulating free speech.
What if he had said:
I hate the French. What a bunch of lily livered cowards. A bunch of Terrorist appeasers. We saved their sorry butts during WWII and they thank us by spitting in our eye. They make me sick. They make me wanna puke. [how'd I do with my Savage imitation?]
Should the CAA have dropped him for a rant against the French?
Now of course if the CAA doesn't want him as a client that's their business....BUT I'm just wondering where the line should be drawn? Does the CAA have a PC criteria for clients they'll accept?
I think it's a reprehensible opinion. He has the right to say it, and people have the right to be offended by it. I am really not that concerned about whether or not people who espouse hateful opinions have a hard time getting paid for it or not. Right now, it actually seems like a good career move.
This "PC thought police" canard is tired, Jeter. People just get offended at things that don't bother you much, and isn't that part of the beauty of our society?
People just get offended at things that don't bother you much, and isn't that part of the beauty of our society? ...by valentinian
Yup couldn't agree more. While you are repulsed at someone being sickened by 2 woman married & raising kids. I understand that it might offend some but not others. I also know that it is an opinion, and not everyone agrees with it or disagrees with it.
I can think of MORE reprehensible opinions.
I simply pick my battles. This one isn't the hill I would choose to die on.
Sorry if the PC thing annoys you. It annoys me too. BUT for different reasons...
This opinion is not "the hill I want to die on," either, but neither do I think it is just "PC thought police" as you said in an earlier, dismissive comment.
J2 - I don't see the censorship. Who said he can't express his opinion?
Hey Rusty,
My mention of "censorship" was merely me wondering how far we might eventually go in stifling free expression...vile or hateful as it might be. Savage's remarks about 2 woman married & raising kids sickening him, as insulting or offensive as that might be to some people does not advocate violence.
Is it hateful? Certainly it is to some. Others might agree with him.
While the CAA can refuse to represent anyone they want, does someone ranting about their disgust about a particular behavior now disqualify them?
If it does, then that's where I was going with my slippery slope....
I really don't think we have a problem with insulting and offensive opinions not getting enough airplay, Jeter. If the slope is slippery, it is on the other side...
I doubt CAA would have dropped him just for saying gay marriage disgusts him. I'm thinking he crossed the line when he called Melissa Etheridge, and essentially anybody who engages in or believes in gay marriage and/or gay parenting, "scum-sucking vermin."
Yes, perhaps it would have been more politically correct to say it's a 'scum sucking lifestyle'. Would that please you more? That way he doesn't insult the people, only the lifestyle. But, if he can't offer an opinion without being reprimanded for it, then there is definately some hypocrosy happening. Especially by all of you cheering and demanding more be done. It seems you speak as much, if not more, hate speach directed at him as he does directed at gays. Doesn't that make ALL of you who do the hate speach against Savage just like Savage?
Dissecting "Proud-Christian"
Yes, perhaps it would have been more politically correct to say it's a 'scum sucking lifestyle'. Would that please you more?
Yes, not that that's the point. The point is that there is an implicit barrier that a person using the public airwaves should not cross when it comes to personal offensiveness. Savage and others of his ilk either ignore that line, pretend to be joking when called on it, or claim (incorrectly) that the liberals are as bad at it if not worse.
That way he doesn't insult the people, only the lifestyle. But, if he can't offer an opinion without being reprimanded for it, then there is definately [sic] some hypocrosy [sic] happening.
Goodness, learn to spell, will you? You may be proud of your religion, but no one could be proud of your grasp of the English language. Furthermore, no one's opinion is beyond reach of criticism, and certainly not someone who thrusts his opinion upon so many. There's no hypocrisy here.
Especially by all of you cheering and demanding more be done.
Spare us the strawman argumentation, please. What do you mean by "more be done," and who exactly is "demanding" it?
It seems you speak as much, if not more, hate speach [sic] directed at him as he does directed at gays.
If it really "seems" that way to you, I doubt you can be reasoned with. If you are attempting to present this as a fact, I will simply deny it, and now it's up to you to prove it.
Doesn't that make ALL of you who do the hate speach [sic] against Savage just like Savage?
Hmmm. Are you admitting that Savage is guilty of hate speech? Or, are you just building on the flawed premise of your previous sentence?
That refutation was a thing of beauty. Good job
I don't recall advocating censorship. I advocate freedom of speech, and I'm doing just that by speaking out about it's vile remarks.
If it's taken off the air because of the hateful things it says, it then has recourse under the first amendment. In the meantime, I choose not to listen to this vile disgusting piece of dog dirt, and I will pass the word to try to influence others to follow my practice, as is my first ammendment right.
It's amazing that the Dixie Chicks are treated as scum because they saw through W's lies and said they were ashamed he was from their home state. Yet, this excrament PREACHES HATE daily on OUR airwaves for a paycheck, and the right thinks that's okay. Perhaps it's because they agree with it.
Hey Rick I wasn't suggesting that YOU were advocating censorship. That was ME wondering how far things might eventually go.
BTW I like the Dixie Chicks and thought the uproar over what they said and the censorship of their music on Country radio was reprehensible & unfair.
Thanks, I appreciate that.
" I like the Dixie Chicks and thought the uproar over what they said and the censorship of their music on Country radio was reprehensible & unfair. "
Why would country radio censoring the dixie chicks be any different than caa censoring Savage? Both choose their opinion and base their business on that opinion, Savage is censored by caa and applauded by this site. While country radio is called unfair for expressing their opinion on the dixie chicks. Hmmmm, that reeks of hypocrosy.
are you really that dense? nobody has taked Wiener off the air or conspired to block his broadcast so your comparison is false, misleading and amounts to a lie. supposedly againt your religion, yet you keep on doing it.
it sure is his right to feel that way, but he has no right to get paid for it, or to representation by an agent. Those folks have their rights too, ya know.
there is no censorship here, jeter. his comments have merely been judged in the court of public opinion, according to one of the oldest barometers around... money. CAA decided, as is THEIR right, to side with Etheridge, who produces better income than Savage. Perhaps the CAA is censoring themselves, but it's hard to make an argument that a company shouldn't do that in their own interests.
No this isnt censorship. He has every right to say what he wants, when he is sent to jail for saying such things you will have a point. I have every right to say I dont like the idiots who stand by the railroad tracks and photograph trains. If I were to flip them off my company would have every right to fire me, my union wouldnt lift a finger to stop them because what I do on the job reflects on them as a company. This is the same thing.
"It's his opinion, and he should be able to express it without being punished."--jeter2
This isn't really a question of punishment per se. CAA represents many artists. They apparently decided that representing Savage may cost them other talent in the future. I imagine these contracts are voidable by either party. CAA just decided they didn't want to represent Savage for whatever reason. It is their choice.
Savage will likely end up with some other representation that doesn't care about what it's other clients think or whatever. This doesn't hurt Savage in any way other than it is a PR problem for a week or two that I can see.
If Savage was fired as he was at MSNBC, I would probably agree with you more and even defend the rotten jerk. I don't want people fired for saying stupid things. I would rather the audience to grow up a little and hopefully change the station. I know it isn't likely or practical, but anything else is a step towards fascism in my mind.
Here is what you fail to recognize.
I believe Roundhouse was actually being sarcastic in replying to you about Franken's alleged anti gay talk (I say alleged because the source you cite was sourced from another blog with no actual source). If he did say it, yes, that's offensive, and at the time that he said it, he should have been called out on it. What else has he said that was anti homosexual since that time?
Roundhouse was pointing out to you the common excuses used by conservatives to justify their hatred, and I don't believe, if Franken said those things, that he or I would defend his use of what he did indeed say.
Thanks Magnolia. That was exactly what I was pointing out.
IF Franken said those things then I have no defense for him. He can defend, explain or apologize on his own.
What Beck said to the nice lady wasn't sarcasm and it wasn't a joke, it was a come on.
Now, shills will come back and say "oh, it's a joke (or sarcasm) and you Liberals need to get a sense of humor."
Sarcasm would have been: Outlandish pictures have been positive for Britney Spears.
A joke: Maybe I need to take pictures of myself and put them on myspace.
If Al Franken said that he should be taken to task and asked to explain himself.
Well, I have to get back to work, just wanted to point out the hipocrisy 'round here. If a lib makes a hateful statement it's a joke and can't be taken seriously but if a con makes it they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I guess what's good for the goose IS NOT good for the gander after all.
It's funny because you keep saying that liberals won't talk bad about one of their own, but myself, and a few others have said after you posted your little article, that if Franken said those things, he should be taken to task for it, and he should be reminded of it, and or asked about it. What more do you want? That's not hypocrisy my blind friend, that's consistency.
Keep in mind it was the Washinton Moonie TImes that stirred this all up. The quote is from this interview in 1976:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=112149
and of course the last part of the paragraph in question is missing (oh, my it couldn't have been deliberate now could it????? LOL)
"The smile became so broad it pushed his eyes shut. He couldn't stand it any longer. "Put that in, put that in," Franken laughed, leaning over the desk. "I'd love to see that in The Crimson."
So once again a dishonest lying smear from the RW noise machine.
Interesting choice of words, considering geese are among the type of animals that will have same-sex couplings.
Hypocracy: The jump-ball call in politics. When all else fails, cry "hypocracy" and run the other direction. I still fail to see what one person said 30 years ago (in one statement) has any similarity as to what another individual (who has a history of this pattern of speech) said just this week. It's apples and oranges.
Hypocracy:(sic) The jump-ball call in politics.
I am putting that one up for Comment of the Week...
That's really funny. You came on here with a clear intent to provoke a certain reaction with your comments, then, even though you didn't get the reaction you wanted, you just acted as if you did.
I am always struck by how much easier you guys have it on the faith-based side...
All I was doing yesterday was pointing out that what Beck said didn't appear to be a joke and absolutely wasn't sarcasm. Monkeyboy gave you some great examples of comments that would have been jokes or sarcasm.
No you only succeeded in taking the heat off of Savage briefly. The term your looking for here is a double standard. If Franken actually said that several years ago I'd be shocked if he was serious and I sincerely doubt he feels that way now. However you can't compare a what if that's decades old with a direct hateful and bigoted comment made this week on a radio program by a guy with a history of doing the same thing. If Franken made a comment like Savage's today he would be skewered by the left as well as the right.
"I guess what's good for the goose IS NOT good for the gander after all."
If Savage had made just one curious, joking remark at a young age, 30 years ago, in a college publication, you *might* have something resembling a coherent argument. But your comparison falls flat on its face because Savage says bigoted, hateful statements every single day to millions of listeners.
actually, the main reason you're around here is because your mind wants you to believe all of these really awful things; things that people like Savage will always be able to nickel and dime ignorant folks who don't know any better with.
but the thing is, your heart knows better.
you're at an interesting place, developmentally. clearly, your trolling is reflective of your desire to Stop Believing All Of These Poisonous Things. you want to think for yourself, i know, and also i know it's difficult to do so in such a fractured environment. hell, rush limbaugh made a lot of sense to me when i was thirteen, but once i determined that he (and pretty much every other adult) was a lying sack, things got better.
and trust me, we "liberals and progressives" hate each other with absolute impunity and contempt. you can hardly ever get us together to agree on anything. except for the ideas extolled by true hate mongers. such as the person you idolize. (i think there's a commandment somewhere about idolization... is all i'm saying.)
You wanted to TRY, you failed miserably as you usually do. If it is clear and true, your source leaves much to be desired. Then Franken was WAY out of line and saying it is a joke is no defense if it was, and IF it happened then it was a joke in horribly poor taste. This has already been said by a couple of posters. Not even a good try.
If any of us were put on trial for the things we said when we were young and stupid... there'd be nobody left to guard the jails. We'd all be in lockdown.
It's about growth and learning. It's clear that whatever intent Franken had when he said those things 31 years ago, he's grown considerably since.
He'll probably have to answer to the quote at some point during his campaign. But the comparison of that 30 year old quote, and the Franken has become, and the values he advocates today, to a man like Savage... I can't think of a word better than "ridiculous."
(and the MAN Franken has become...)
Yeah, that's a pretty crappy thing to say. You would have to admit, though, that one thing a guy said 30 years ago should be taken somewhat differently than things that were said very recently, in the context of repeated, hateful omments.
But yes. Franken should explain his remarks, especially in light of his Senate run. I can't imagine what relevance it has to the subject of this thread, though.
Yes, 30 years ago but exceedingly more offensive. If a conservative said that no matter when they would be ruined
If a conservative said that they would be RUINED???
That conservative would be lauded and defended by the rightwing blogosphere, given a book deal by Crown Forum and put on a Fox Nothing Channel interview tour.
If this fits your description of 'ruined', then I'd say you're right.
Conservatives talk that crap daily, in nearly every sentence that doesn't question the patriotism of anyone who opposes them; and, then, make it governmental policy to boot. OTOH, if, despite lacking firm sourcing, and context, Franken were to have spoken as you cite, it would be bad. So, I'll trade (personal offer - no one else is obligated hereby): if you set about the destruction of all the Repugnants (and O'Liely "uncommitted"s) who have such statements in their resume, I will attempt the downfall (or at least the investigation) of this dubious quotation from Franken.
Deal or no deal?
Actually, Weinerrocks
After looking and looking, the only individuals who seem angry about Al Franken's joke are the right wing bloggers and the RNC attack letter they issued.
Here's the full text of Franken's interview (since I have to do all your work for you): http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=112149
I've checked every national LGBT group, every minnisota state group, nothing........
Not one outcry. (Maybe if you knew anything about gay history, you would know that comments like that were common in the 70's, 80's, and thanks to Weiner 2007).
Does the absence of outrage in the LGBT community over a joke made 30+ years ago suprise you? Does it make you think "well its only because he's a liberal. If a conservative said that it would be different."
If a conservative said that in this day and age, yes they would be attacked, so would a liberal. I'm not excusing him 100%. But do you think people grow up or change? How about the skit on Politically Incorrect (1996) where Franken, Barny Frank and Arianna Huffington were all in bed together? http://www.glaad.org/action/al_archive_detail.php?id=2343&
Did Franken scream and run, no. In general the difference between liberals and conservatives is simple, conservatives don't learn anything or grow as people. Liberals on the other hand tend to be the ones actively looking for new ideas and trying to understand the world we live in. But thats just an observation of mine.
I think Franken's statement should be ignored. If Conservatives ignored what Strom Thurman said about blacks ages ago, certainly whatever comedy writer says about gays (back in the 70s) can be ignored.
Yep, times change, people change.
I'm not going to boycott "Dream Girls" because Eddie Murphy asserted that you can get AIDS by kissing in his 1983 "Delirious" stand up.
That was great. It's interesting to watch stand-up comedy from years ago. It provides a good yearbook as to what our fears and concerns were at that time. Goony-goo-boo.
If a conservative said that no matter when they would be ruined. - savagerocks / Friday March 2, 2007 01:21:45 PM EST
Er, yeah. Just like Savage has been ruined. Oh wait, he still has the number three radio show in the country as he and his fans never tire of reminding us. There's a market for hate after all, it seems.
Spit that fish out while you're talkin, boy!
Strangely enough, everyone has heard of it... I do question is that web site neatly packed in your web browser?
No, I've mastered the ancient art of cutting and pasting...it's really difficult
Not surprising, you miss the "point" one more time....
Not surprisingly, that self-loathing "gay conservative" site cherry-picked the quote for the front page. It's clear in the full context of what he said that he was joking and trying to be provacative.
"He [Al Franken] recalled writing a skit called 'Seamen on Broadway' that was rejected from the Hasty Pudding show 'by some preppie so they could take some other preppie's skit.' Franken started to smile again, but his tone was serious, too serious. 'It's not preppies, cause I'm a preppie myself. I just don't like homosexuals. If you ask me, they're all homosexuals in the Pudding. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia.' The smile became so broad it pushed his eyes shut. He couldn't stand it any longer. 'Put that in, put that in,' Franken laughed, leaning over the desk. 'I'd love to see that in The Crimson.'"
Ah-ah-ah, not so fast. I tried using the sarcasm defense yesterday and was roundly told that it doesn't count if a joke is viewed as sexist. Sexism/harrasment is not QUITE as bad as "hating" people or "being glad they're dead".
Poor you. Poor, poor you. How horrible. That different people on a website forum would dare to apply different personal standards to you.... it's an atrocity.
Ignore Savagerock's statement about sarcasm. He can't tell the difference between a come-on, a joke and sarcasm.
Oh, Come On! He's a joke! That's...not sarcasm...lickingsavagecock definitely does NOT know the difference between any of these...speaking of, weiner lover...if Beck WAS trying to be funny, why did he not say 'I'm kidding' or joking, or something??? Huh? All he said was 'No?, ok then' as if it was a real request....
Beck would only say he was joking as a defense to save his own ass. If he were joking, I think we would have picked up on it.
Franken in the same interview also advised Harvard students to drop-out. The man's a comedian; neither comment can be taken seriously.
But leave it to the wingnuts to dig-up a 30-year old comment as if it would defend a creep who gets paid to make bigoted, homophobic remarks on a daily basis.
They're experts. They'll dig up the most obscure Bible verse to justify whatever means necessary.
Yup, it's a horrible thing to say. I won't defend Franken for that. But let's be clear: you're comparing Savage's current, consistent and repeated slurs and attacks against homosexuals to a single statement Franken made thirty years ago when he was 24.
And what do you mean, "Starngly [sic] you never hear about this"? Clearly you heard about it. If you're trying to understand why Savage's comments receive broader and more public criticism, maybe it has something to do with the fact that he said "Oh, you're one of the sodomites... You should get AIDS and die, you pig" on a major cable TV network.
There's no secret conspiracy of mutual defense among major media operations and 'liberals'. Savage makes himself an easy target. It produces good ratings for him. He loves the attention: it keeps him in the spotlight and perpetuates his image as someone who is challenging the mainstream. There's no irony or mystery here: you're just grasping for an excuse to claim that there's a double standard here.
Even if there is a double standard, exactly how has it negatively affected Savage? Throughout all of his ranting, he's never been fired from his radio gig, has he? As you suggest, he'll wear the CAA's decision not to represent him as a badge of honor. So if there is some double standard here, you yourself seem to be offering evidence that it is a double standard of no material consequence.
So what's your point?
Hate seems to rule
On the Savage show. What a terrible person
Just like he does every night, after looking in the mirror.
"Yes, I'm sure Savage will be crying himself to sleep tonight."
But he can stop all of his sobbing, comforting himself with the thought that he'll always have some like-minded homophobic fans on the fringe who just love him and his gay-bashing to pieces, and think he "rocks".
Not likely. I'm surprised that any agency would dump him after only two days. Did they even do any research about Savage and his content before signing him? There should be NO surprise about his outbursts.. they are well documented.
This is more of an indictment of the Agency's judgment than it is of Savage. Just like a gay man won't go straight despite the efforts a any woman that tries, Savage won't change... they should have known better.
Did they even do any research about Savage and his content before signing him? There should be NO surprise about his outbursts.. they are well documented.
Everyone makes mistakes. The people of Pennsylvania voted in Rick "The Mix" Stantorum, but then tossed him back out.
This is more of an indictment of the Agency's judgment than it is of Savage.
It's Savage facing the consequences of his hate speech. Nobody said they expected the Savage Weiner to change, but it's good people are wising up to the kind of person he is.
And they picked his ideological equal...equal if not in severity, at least in intent. Two mistakes in a row.
do you have some earplugs, Savagerocks?
Wow, that got knocked way down the thread to making-no-sense-land. It was in response to Savage crying himself to sleep.
It's not good to talk of yourself in the third person.
Well, I'll break out the bottle of champaign and some streamers.
Next job: get Mr.Weiner off the air
Its ok, Mike. Etheridge is a nobody, along with the CAA. The GOP still loves you.
Actully the GOP probably doesn't since Savage routinely lambasts them on his show
That is true, Savage hates anyone Democratic or Republican . He is a pure hatemonger.
Well, you won't have to worry about that any more now that you'll be getting your moral, political, and cultural opinions from Melissa Etheridge. I mean, since CAA dropped weiner in favor of Melissa, she obviously has more listeners, which, as you've shown us in the past, is your benchmark for credibility.
This is probably the best thing to happen for you, to put you on the road to salvation as a human. And don't worry about it being a hard row to hoe, Melissa's gay agenda will convert you without you even feeling it...
Yeah, she is a nobody who just won an Oscar. What color is the sky on your planet anyway?
It begs the question, "CAA, what the hell were you thinking?"
Good for CAA. I can't think of many self-respecting artist agency'w that would ever put up with that.
Now if we can just get him off the radio.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=112149
The actual story Savagerocks has been talking about with Franken, which taking his comments about "homosexuals" out of context makes it seem indeed, that he was just talking about them, in a one off hand comment, but his comments were part of a larger story, which of course was not carried by the right winging blogs looking to bite a known liberal.
Indeed, he was joking. Indeed, the joke I think, was not funny and offensive, much the same as Beck's little thing about taking pictures of the woman on his show. And the other thing is that Franken's comment does not show a pattern of behavior at all about "hating" homosexuals, where as Savagerocks' hero, the one and only Michael Weiner Savage, has a pattern of homosexual hating and behavior.
So now Savagerocks you're saying that talking bad about homosexuals is not a good thing? I don't understand why you bring this up at all? Oh, I know, hypocrisy. Yeah, OK...
This has got to be one of the more stuprfying examples of righty thickheadedness, deliberate or otherwise.
While Franken might have been offensive in his very obvious and intentional absurdity, any person unable to see the difference between this and real hate has got to step off of the planet and rest for a bit.
Magnolialover
I too posted the Crimson link earlier.
Also an aside, after research I found no national or state gay rights group even mentioning it. The only reference to Franken on GLaDD's site was to an old Politically Incorrect skit, featuring Al, Barney Frank and Arienna Huffington in bed together.
Attacking someone represented by the same agency?
Michael Weiner must be a blast at family Thanksgiving gatherings.
"This turkey makes me want to puke. ... I want to vomit when I smell it. I think it's child abuse."
"Gay Conservatives,' the very definition of self hatred.
To derail this thread just a touch. What I find interesting is that Savage started his own little society, and used the name of one of the greatest Patriots this country has ever know, Paul Revere, to name his society after. Anyone know if there are any relatives to Paul Revere living that could sue him for using their family name? Because that would be nice. Just by him tacking Paul Revere onto his so called society's name, tarnishes the image of Paul Revere, the actual Patriot, more than a little. I'm pretty sure were he alive today, he would probably challenge Savage to a duel, and would undoubtedly win.
Just an aside there. Sorry.
"Just by him tacking Paul Revere onto his so called society's name, tarnishes the image of Paul Revere, the actual Patriot, more than a little."
That's only true if a person doesn't understand who Paul Revere was, and what he did for his countrymen at risk of life and limb. When a person understands and appreciates Paul Revere as a historical figure, no amount of poo-flinging by weiner and his hateful ilk can tarnish that.
I agree, but it's sad that he uses Paul Revere's name for a front for his hatred for all things he considers "un-American".
If we can't find any decendents of Paul Revere, would Paul Revere & The Raiders do?
"Etheridge, who is a [link to www.caatouring.com] client, won">[link to www.oscars.org] the Oscar in the Original Song category"
Bingo...! There's the bottom line... Etheridge is an Oscar winner (alone which carries commercial potential). Savage is a hack who, by some anomolous political and cultural environment that presently exists in the country, got lucky and has an impressive number of listeners... regardless whether his listeners are bigot, idiots and other mentally deficient people. To use a vulagr, but appropriate expression (for which I hope I am forgiven): Etheridge swings a bigger (insert euphamism for penis) than Savage. How p*ssed off do you think Savage is right now?
A message to Michael...
Do you think Michael Savage is reading this "gay website" (MMFA) today? If so, I'd like to convey this message:
"Since Anna Nicolle Smith was buried today I think Howard K. Stern is looking for a new client. Perhaps you might want to check with him for representation. That's okay... you don't have to thank me for the advice. Toodles...!"
I would sell my soul to the devil for just two hours of face time on any public forum with the Whiny Hiney Weiner Savage.
Are we, as a society, so vacuous, so stupid as to have eight-million of our fellow Americans actually listen to Weiner's self-absorbed, self-hatred and spewing hate as though his mouth were a geyser clogging all those ears with hate?
Me? I listen to his archived, three hour opus that gets cut down to one hour fifty-two minutes after the ads have been wiped. It's a handy site that allows one to listen to Savage on their schedule, not the station from which he broadcasts. Plus, I can pause or fast forward if I choose.
I suppose, I have my own obsession with Savage. My obsession is to expose this pathetic fraud for who he really is: A man who is a living fraud who hides his ethnic background but has no trouble ridiculing those of the his own ethnicity, the Jews.
How could any talk show host speak incessantly of the persecution of Jews, "the Nazis, Hitler, those hateful Muslims, those hateful Arabs" every day on his show. Then ! Then, he ridicules Jews. The Jewish politicians, the Jewish Loiyas, the Jewish media titans, those writers "with the curly hair and thick glasses" those "Stanleys" who graduate from NYU Law School and head to Florida to practice law with the ACLU and NOT ONCE speak from a Jews viewpoint? Not once does he couch an issue with a phrase like: "Well, as a Jew, I would disagree..." "As a Jew, I am appalled by..." "How dare they threaten us. Come on! Come get me, you islamic vermin! Come get this Jew! What's the matter, you afraid to come after a Jew who won't take crap from you?"
I mean, am i wrong? Please don't reply with: "So, Falcon, why do you hate Jews?" "Why is Savage's religion so important to you?" "Why are you obsessed with Savage's ethnicity?"
I'm not even interested in Savage's ethnicity or heritage. However, Savage is obsessed with talking about Jews in his tri-personality way. Yes, tri-personality. He rants like a Jew-hater, he rants over groups who threaten the existence of Jews around the world and thirdly, he very poorly hides his ethnicity behind some tough guy born in the Bronx persona named Michael Savage.
Yes, the subject of his denying his ethnicity is a curious one. Why? Why would a bombastic putz, made of jelly inside, go to such lengths to hide his ethnicity? Listen to Michael medved and Dennis Prager. They will speak at length on similar topics Savage spends time with and they will on any given day speak of their own ethnicity. Again, why? because they make their ethnicity relevant to the topic at hand an they use their ethnicity to focus their point of view.
As one who is from Irish parents, if I had a show and devoted much of my time discussing the troubles in Northern Ireland would any not be surprised if I NEVER informed my audience I was Irish?
Any thoughts? Please, someone, if you have an answer that goes beyond a flip comment I would like to know what you think. Web sites devoted to counter Savage crap are, for all intent, non-existent. except for Media Matters. And, if there were no comment section on this site I think readership numbers would be less.
Well done, CAA.
Well done.
Savage is always a rebel and an innovator. I am glad someone had the courage to speak against the Melissa Etheridge segment publicly. This segment represents the decay of America. Poor Savage he lost CAA contract for exercising his right to free speech.
It's not a free speech issue. Savage said what he wanted to, nobody kept him from saying what he did. For CAA, it just wasn't good business to keep him as a client. A possible scenario would be that a large number of CAA's clients told them that if Savage remained, they would leave, the ol' us-or-him situation. So, in the scheme of cost-benefit-analysis it would better to keep more than one client happy, than to keep a man, who continues to narrow his marketability.Either that, or CAA relized that Savage would be more of a liability than a asset for the company, thus dropped him.Or, they realized that he's a bigger ass than Tom Cruise.
Poor insane hatemonger Weiner, at least he can console himself there are plenty of hateful, bigotted morons out there who still love him. Lucky for us there are plenty of good people to speak out against his insanity and hatemongering
LOL Savage! Who are you going to go with? An Oscar winner or a rude, lying, republican loudmouth? HA! We should all thank CAA for coming to their senses.
Savage doesn't hate gays. He just hates child abuse (gay adoption). Liberals truly are fascists. This is left wing blacklisting at its lowest. Michael Savage for President.
Etheridge writes, sings, records...and raises a family with the person she loves. She gives back to the world, through many humanitarian causes. She is known as an honest, hard-working person, whose "agenda" is being strong, speaking truth, and spreading peace. She is accomplished in her profession and is respected for her courage.
Savage insults, criticizes, demonizes. He diminishes the real problem of child abuse by stating that a particular family make-up constitutes child abuse. He promotes bigotry and hatred.
Two "professionals" with divergent careers. Savage will remain on the fringe of America, while Etheridge lives in its heart.
CAA made a business decision. It just so happens to be reflective of "normal" people's opinions.
Emerald, your very cogent post hit the nail on the head. Mediocrity always attacks excellence. Savage can't stand that others actually have talent and heart. I find Melissa inspiring, accomplished and good hearted.
Could not had it happen to a nicer guy ^-^
This news item proves that Liberal Democrats are against Free Speech. They believe in Democracy ONLY if you agree with them. What more proof does one need to see that our Democrat Libs are actually "Socialists in disguise"? We recently heard Hillary Clinton stating that as soon as she becomes president, she will nationalize Oil company's revenues! Spoken like a true Chavez, and Castro clone! But you can bet that she will NEVER nationalize her own husbands $40 million dollar windfall from making speeches. Michael Savage is one of the few voices of reason and common sense left in American Media. Viva Savage!
Translation: "the sky is falling, the sky is falling..."
Liberal Democrats run this site. Think about it for just a second. No take a full minute. Were your rights to speak freely here abridged?
I challenge you to present dissenting opinion over at freepersissies and see how seriously those rightwingers take freedom of speech.
Go ahead I'll be waiting.
It proves NOTHING that a COMPANY decided they didnt want their good name associated with Weinerdogs insanity and hatespewing ignorance. There is NO freespeech issue involved. Weiner can rant and rave on a soapbox all he wants, if he gets arrested for it you can depend on liberals to stand up for his rights to act like the insane, hatespewing jerk he is. He far from a voice of reason more like a poster child societies need of antipsychotics. The rest of your troll post was pretty far off topic and it was so lame there is no need to follow you there. Suffice to say it can be summed up as complete delusion