Michael Savage is asking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for help getting him un-banned from entertaining the UK.
In fact, he's "respectfully demanding" it.
Seems like only yesterday that Savage (KTTH m-f, 6-8p) was calling her "that hag, that harridan," a "fraudulent huckster," a "dangerous yokel," a "liar," a "sickening person." Evita Perón.
Remember when he spouted that one of her speeches, was "Hitler dialogue?" And he shrieked, "Goebbels would be proud of you, Hillary Clinton!"
Or the time he told listeners that her presidential campaign would provoke "race riots" and would be "one long hate crime against white people."
But now is now, and today (being today) and that he's been internationally humiliated and inconvenienced, he could use a little government power, even if it is in the hands of power-mad liberals.
Savage is demanding that Clinton immediately report back to him everything she's done on his behalf.
Fuck Pakistan. They're pakkies: I'm an American citizen, he said. you work for me.
It was only last week he was saying he didn't care that he was banned: because he had no respect for how far Britain had fallen. and wasn't planning to go there anyhoo.
But now is now, and now he's seen the extra week or so of the coverage he can get by calling on Hillary. Corporate station owners and his Clear Channel syndicator Premiere are gleefully counting on the bump in the book this tantrum will percolate.
It all started when British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith published the names of 16 of 22 people banned from the country since October for allegedly fostering extremism or hatred. Along with Savage, who has called the Quran, the Muslim holy book, "a book of hate," Muslim extremists, jailed Russian gang members and a militant Israeli settler were banned. Smith cited "public interest" reasons for not disclosing six of the names.
Although he says he wants to stop "those who want to spread extremism, hatred, and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country;" and advocates shooting to kill anyone who'd attempt breach the wall he'd build around the US, he's highly incensed now that the Brits might want to keep dreck out of their country and the dreck is... him!
The letter to Hillary Clinton points out the ban on Savage has caused a "political firestorm" with some British citizens claiming the move was made to "give political cover to the list that concerns mainly Muslims."
Liberals may be loving to see the hate-mongering douchenozzle inconvenienced, but liberals and civil libertarians are against this "weapon of censorship." It's been used many times against the left.
The SF Chronicle:
In March, more than 70 organizations, including the ACLU, signed a letter asking Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to end "ideological exclusion," described as "refusing visas to foreign scholars, writers, artists and activists not on the basis of their actions but on the basis of their ideas, political views and associations."
While civil libertarians say the practice intensified after the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001, it recalls Cold War fears when people like Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, a communist, was kept out of the United States. The letter cited people who been barred from entering the United States, including Adam Habib, a South African professor and human rights activist, Rafael de Jesus Gallego Romero, a Colombian priest who is a critic of his government, and Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss national who is a professor at the University of Oxford and described as a leading Islamic thinker. The State Department did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
We're glad to write about Savage, as we're glad to write about Dick Cheney, Michelle Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative mouthpieces who are doing such a bang-up job of defining themselves, their political party and their saucy POV.
It's a conundrum for a progressive. We say Hillary should definitely help Savage ... but not until she gets Afghanistan and Pakistan squared away.
I don't know about the "yokel" part, but the rest seems to describe Hillary very effectively.
She all of that.
Posted by: Super Buzzard Barf. | May 14, 2009 at 05:16 AM
Well, I know that at my home we choose whom to admit and entertain. Bullies are not invited in.
Access is power. Look what it has done to this country. Nobody denies Wieners right to his ideas. It is the way he is selling them that is disturbing and possibly subject to so-called "censorship"
It is like our laws against obscenity - with which I might disagree. Hate does not equal ideas. And most of us know hate when we see it and hear it. We need the courage to act when we know we are seeing and hearing hate vs. ideas and move to deny it access.
The kind of hate talk some of our for-profit-only talkers on the right engage in should be prohibited. It is common sense, for the common good and simply a matter for adults to decide if they wish to keep a democratic republic.
Actually, I'm curious: does Germany allow Nazi's a voice in their political system? Would our ACLU fight for the rights of Nazis? I really don't know the answer to that question.
Posted by: joanie | May 14, 2009 at 07:17 AM
Morning, Joanie!
I believe that one of the reforms of the German Republic was to ban all references to that part of their past- swastikas and other emblems, publications by neo-nazi groups promoting hate and violence, etc. And you'll never get the right-winguts to admit it, but the ACLU HAS fought for the rights of groups to assemble and speak, even when their profile seemed completely antithetical to the mission of the ACLU. I believe the Aryan Nations had help from the ACLU to stage an anti-Semetic forum and parade, but I don't remember the details of it.
While I believe that our Freeedom of Speech is a great thing that is unfortunately abused by folks like Weiner, if Britain's Home Office wants to keep him out because he's a hateful racist who incites violence, good for them. All they're really saying is, "Go spew your filth somewhere else- it's not wanted here". Thy're not denying him the right to talk- they're just saying he should take it somewhere else.
Posted by: Drew | May 14, 2009 at 09:10 AM
Joanie, I stand corrected. The German Parliment has been trying to place an outright ban on the Neo-Nazi Party as a political faction. They may be connected to a group called The Fourth Reich, which would like to take advantage of the current economic crisis in Europe to run the country again, much in the same way that Hitler's party came to power in the late 1920s. Pretty ominous stuff. So far however, neo-nazis continue to have rallies and meetings in some parts of Europe.
Posted by: Drew | May 14, 2009 at 09:17 AM
All of this is lame compared to this morning news that according to Ms Pelosi the CIA (thus, the Bush team) lied to her (and thus Congress) about the torture techniques in briefings. This, I believe if true is a crime and needs to be dealt with big time. I'm no fan of Pelosi but this is serious. FAR MORE SERIOUS than dufus Savage.
Posted by: HoChiMinh | May 14, 2009 at 09:25 AM
Hey HO why don't you follow your own advice and stay on topic.
Posted by: sPrinkles | May 14, 2009 at 09:41 AM
Nancy pelosi is a liar.
Posted by: Super Buzzard Barf. | May 14, 2009 at 10:23 AM
The ACLU did defend the Nazi’s right to march through Skokie, Illinois back in 1978, as did they defended Colonel North’s right to plead the fifth and opposed releasing Rush Limbaugh’s medical files to the public.
As for Savage being banned from Britain, it is their country and should be able to do as they please. Germany’s problem is that the eastern portion under communism banned any topic associated with Nazis and Nazism. With such a void in their history, it left a gap wide enough for neo-Nazis to make inroads after communism collapsed in Eastern Europe. Domestic skinheads and fanatical right-wingers are a problem enough for Europe, including Britain. They do not need to import an American version of it.
If Britain lifts the ban on Savage, then the US should do the same for Yusef, a.k.a. Cat Stevens.
Posted by: rozskat | May 14, 2009 at 02:04 PM
She may be a liar, but she's in power, and will be for a long time coming.
The Bush administration's deception is coming more and more unraveled on a daily basis. Obama doesn't want this, (it's so distracting of his domestic agenda) but there will be more investigations, and though I wouldn't have said it a week ago, there probably will be prosecutions. Cheney's insistence upon keeping torture in the news has seen to that.
Obama's changing his mind about releasing the new abuse pictures has insulated him from attacks by the right about the security risks with the troops.
Now with him protected, let the investigations begin! where will it end? who cares? This national shame needs to be aired and criminal matters addressed no matter which party comes up guilty.
Addressing this is what makes our country exceptional. Booyah!
Posted by: Sarge | May 14, 2009 at 02:37 PM
rozkats- Thanks for clarifying that, and I agree with you completely. Our arrest of Cat Stevens was a pretty embarassing moment for Homeland "Security" (do you also see the fascist history embedded in the name of that agency? A little creepy).
Take care.
Posted by: Drew | May 14, 2009 at 03:18 PM
sarge- Spot on...the U.S. really needs to be proving to the world that we take our democracy seriously. Towards that end, we have to show we are willing to openly admit when we've screwed up, and that we hold our own accountable to the law. In an age when we really need to be gathering solid allies, this is absolutely necessary.
Posted by: Drew | May 14, 2009 at 03:25 PM
I guess I'm wondering if there is a rights' advocacy group in Germany similar to the ACLU here and if they would support a resurgence of the Nazi Party.
I guess we're destined to repeat history over and over and over . . .
Everything old is new again.
I'm so glad Randi is back. I truly do not always like listening to her; but, she tells the damn truth. She is informed.
Posted by: joanie | May 14, 2009 at 07:54 PM
Savage - Tongue in cheek. He is blowing smoke if he thinks HRC will come to his defense.
Contrary to Sarge's bloviation; I don't see Nancy Pelosi in power that much longer. She will serve to energize the GOP campaign in 2010 as long as she is in power. Her side will either lose the majority in 2010 or she will be replaced before then and possibly both.
Posted by: KS | May 14, 2009 at 10:25 PM
We can always replace her with someone who's more of a Democrat. Drastic measures to make certain that the Empire will not return to power.
Posted by: Drew | May 14, 2009 at 10:45 PM
KluelesS, you are such a dreamer. The Republicans have a long hill to climb to make a serious comeback. Whom do they have to offer and what do they have to offer? More retreaded economic philosophies of a dead president. If Pelosi is pissing conservatives off then she is doing her job. You had it and lost it! Live with it! Keep smoking your dinner for more of your drug-induced predictions.
Posted by: rozskat | May 15, 2009 at 03:31 AM
Well Drew, I see some nationalistic fervor in the title of “Homeland” Security. Overall, it is one big fear factory of the Bush legacy. It dishes out corporate welfare dollars to anyone with a slight idea of what a terrorist looks like (olive complexioned men with beards).
Posted by: rozskat | May 15, 2009 at 03:52 AM
"KluelesS, you are such a dreamer. The Republicans have a long hill to climb to make a serious comeback. Whom do they have to offer and what do they have to offer? More retreaded economic philosophies of a dead president. If Pelosi is pissing conservatives off then she is doing her job. You had it and lost it! Live with it! Keep smoking your dinner for more of your drug-induced predictions.
Posted by: rozskat | May 15, 2009 at 03:31 AM"
Ok Roz. Answer this: outside of Pres Obama, exactly who do the Dems have on the national stage?
Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid....c'mon, move beyond the namecalling yourself for a second and give us the answer to that?
Would love to hear the answer to that?
Or....will it be back to the travel stuff. (which I actually do like)
But outside of Pres Obama just who is it that the Dems have?
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 15, 2009 at 05:20 AM
"Well Drew, I see some nationalistic fervor in the title of “Homeland” Security. Overall, it is one big fear factory of the Bush legacy. It dishes out corporate welfare dollars to anyone with a slight idea of what a terrorist looks like (olive complexioned men with beards).
Posted by: rozskat | May 15, 2009 at 03:52"
How about pontificating -not a bad thing- on why Pres Obama stays true to his roots on the domestic front but on the war (FEAR) front he is pretty much replicating Pres Bush? Pres Obama sure doesn't sound like Candidate Obama now...c'mon, give us your insights. Lets see if you are more than 'klueless' yourself.
finally Roz
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 15, 2009 at 05:22 AM
Where's nevets?
Posted by: HoChiMinh | May 15, 2009 at 06:33 AM
He's staying in my garage :0
Posted by: Duffman | May 15, 2009 at 08:27 AM
"The Republicans have a long hill to climb to make a serious comeback. Whom do they have to offer and what do they have to offer?"
It's a long hill thanks largely to the last President. However, their climb is being accelerated by the current Administration and their overreaching disease. Record deficits have dwarfed those of Bush, who we thought were bad enough in less than 3 months. You seemed to have interpreted what I said differently than what was written. It is more likely she will be gone as Speaker before the 2010 elections.
"More retreaded economic philosophies of a dead president."
He is looking pretty good right now pushing up daisies. Liberal progressives like yourself won't admit this because the success was by the other party. The opposite economic philosophy of bloated government is in the process of running this country into the ground and trying to emulate EU countries with an astronomical amount of debt to go around to future generations.
"If Pelosi is pissing conservatives off then she is doing her job."
She is also pissing off the CIA (Leon Panetta politely refuted her claims) and fellow Democrats with her bold face lies. Do you like that ? If you think she is being truthful, you have been inhaling too many bong hits and are more clueless than I thought.
"You had it and lost it! Live with it! Keep smoking your dinner for more of your drug-induced predictions."
Seems like you have been at sea too long. We all have to live with it. Predictions ? I said it was a possibility that the Republicans would recapture the House in 2010, nothing said about the Senate, which the Democrat Party will keep. More likely that she is going down on her own.
Posted by: KS | May 15, 2009 at 06:17 PM
Puts – It is much too early for the Democrats to put anyone on the national stage. Obama is one more than anyone the Republicans have to offer for the moment. I find it difficult to think they can stage any sort of comeback next year. I disagree with KS that they have a chance to capture the House. I just cannot see that happening with the economic meltdown being fresh in the public’s minds and the GOP so far holding the keys for blame if you want to believe in polls. I do agree with him (KS) that for the time being the Senate is out of reach for the Republicans. The unfortunate circumstance of the GOP is that they are leaderless and due to this, vulnerable to attacks from the left that allowed the portrayal of Rush Limbaugh as the leader of their party. I am surprised that they could not have seen this coming. Dick Cheney’s public appearances do not help and could make matters worse. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that Dick Cheney’s ego is not large enough for this planet. Alienation of the moderates is another factor that will play into next year’s mid-term election. Governor Crist’s announcement for Florida’s Senate run will be watched with interest to see if there is room for moderates in the GOP. I am sure he is biting his tongue but Bush is playing it smart by keeping quiet. His legacy still haunts the Republicans.
As for Obama’s reversal on stances such as GITMO and the war, I would have to see the details but I am willing to bet they will not be verbatim to what the Bush Administration put forth. However, unlike Bush, candidate Obama did change his stance, though clumsily, which to me shows that he is not afraid to display that there is a President versus candidate Obama. However, he must remember that this can only go so far. I have to agree with Scott McClellan’s analysis that Bush never got out of the candidate mode and the latter years of his presidency showed it with his reluctance to display leadership for not only the country but also his own party which left the void that is still there today. I do not expect my government representatives to be perfect. They are only human and prone to errors and have the right to change stances. I have been around long enough and been through many elections to see the difference between the candidate and the reality of the office they seek.
Glad you like the travel log but thought most with the exception of you and Joanie were bored with it. So I just keep it a folder and on my blog with movies and pictures. It did break the cycle of intense arguments though! I uploaded photos from my 2005 trip to the Galapagos and last week’s Saipan visit last night. I will have to wait to upload movies when I get to Hawaii with high speed Internet.
Posted by: rozskat | May 15, 2009 at 08:07 PM
KS- I think I covered my viewpoints in the post to Puts. However, I think Governor Sanford had a point that Republicans must move away from the myth of Ronald Reagan. It is too much like the Democrats of 40 years ago with John Kennedy.
Despite of what you may wish to believe, President Reagan did not decrease the size of government. Instead, he was on a privatization scheme and used it as a smokescreen. The fallout from his relentless deregulation is all around us. I do not think majority of the populace are with you about the role of government, allied with you that the government is the enemy and the culprit to everything wrong with the country.
It is surprising that you would be concerned about mounting deficits being passed on to future generations while the very president’s economic views you praise did not think deficits mattered. Would you have agreed with him (Reagan) back in the 80’s when this all started? Moreover, the constant fear of “Europeanization” of America. Do you have first hand knowledge and information of this? Many Europeans I know would disagree with your viewpoint and pessimistic assessment. Why should I fear to live like a European? I find it ironic that the “happiest places on earth” happen to fall into an area that Republicans and conservatives paint as Dante’s Inferno.
No need to go into details of how the economy performed since the 1980’s as the results of the drunken consumer binge is now here. Unfortunately, for you, the only people who were pushing for your economic views were congressional Republicans that were largely ignored. Tax cuts to small businesses do no good when your home is foreclosed, business bankrupt or unemployed.
Posted by: rozskat | May 15, 2009 at 08:42 PM
fair enough roz. ks and you are correct about the senate. i really would like to get a little balance in the mix and get a repub congress. i would say the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. too much of one party is never good. you know, the ying to the yang or the coiler to the duffman.
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 15, 2009 at 08:53 PM
"It is surprising that you would be concerned about mounting deficits being passed on to future generations while the very president’s economic views you praise did not think deficits mattered. Would you have agreed with him (Reagan) back in the 80’s when this all started?"
I did not care for some of what Reagan did, like close down mental hospitals and run up the deficit a bit too high, but remember that the Dems were mainly in control of Congress then. I prefer fiscal sanity. Clinton was the best in the last 30+ years with fiscal restraint - aided then by a Republican congress, who seemed to do a 180 when Bush came to power.
"Moreover, the constant fear of “Europeanization” of America. Do you have first hand knowledge and information of this? Many Europeans I know would disagree with your viewpoint and pessimistic assessment"
This has to do with Europe's economy which is the item that is pessimistic. Very slow economic growth in almost all countries, due largely to government control of most industries. They are also getting hit by the Moslem culture and they are trying to take over the culture (Sharia law) in places like France and the UK. That is sad. The deficits in European countries are high, like we are beginning to experience - large governments and more socialism in their countries. The smaller countries like Denmark and Norway seem to do reasonably well with a Socialist style government. Hopefully our economy will stay more vibrant (i.e. capitalistic) than in Europe. Instead of where's Waldo, its has become - where's Duffman ?
Posted by: KS | May 16, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Good points all KS on the Euro issues.
Read America Alone by Mark Steyn or just youtube him. Brilliant book on Demographics.
And where is Duffman? It's like Jimmy Hoffa.
Did Coils and Merci plant Duffman under the visitor End Zone at Qwest Stadium?
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 17, 2009 at 06:11 AM
I'll go with the story that Duffman is Ecuador until July - I hear that there is a lower cost of living after retirement. If he doesn't return by then, there would be reason for an expanded search.
Mercifurious would be a suspect by definition if he does not resurface...
Posted by: KS | May 17, 2009 at 06:20 PM
It is pathetic when Rush, Hannity and the other lock step conservative talk show hosts refuse to come to Savage's defense. By this, they show they do not have much integrity and only care about ratings. They may be sorry that they didn't if they get booted of the air in many of their markets.
Granted, Michael Savage is not their favorite and vice versa, but he stands for a lot of what they do. Savage is the one host who would stand up against political correctness out of control; the localization of radio by the FCC (aka the "Fairness Doctrine" through the back door) he has already started working on that potential lawsuit. More than Rush and Hannity have done. A few conservative talk hosts have backed Savage - the ones who have the lesser egos.
Posted by: KS | May 17, 2009 at 07:58 PM
hey KS
kind of funny how the usual suspects can't play any defense. always easier to complain then to explain. i am guessing it will be a long 4 years for 'em.
Posted by: Puget Sound | May 17, 2009 at 08:41 PM
It is just way more fun to sit here and be entertained by you. No need to write a thing since you have already told us what we think, what we don't think, what we meant, what we didn't mean, how we feel and what we will say in the future. This is like hands free blogging! Keep up the good work!
Posted by: sparky | May 17, 2009 at 09:31 PM
Even if you are being facetious, the important thing is to take away here is that you have no rebuttal about how your ilk thinks.
If you come up with a rebuttal, that will wipe out the relevancy of your comment.
Posted by: KS | May 17, 2009 at 09:48 PM