Clinton Hater Needs Favor From Hillary
Michael Savage, the extremist radio host who is on England’s banned list, is now asking for help from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He’s enlisted the Thomas More Law Center to write a letter that “respectfully demands” that she call on the UK to rescind the ban. This is very interesting in light of the way he’s treated Secretary Clinton on his show. Michael Hood at Blather Watch collected some of Savage’s bon mots.
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.”
Savage’s anti-immigrant message is severe:
…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…
But now he’s the one being kept out of a civilized country because of “extremism, hatred and violent messages.”
Here’s a little Savage-to-Hillary love from August 14, 2007.
Michael Savage wants to stop people who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages?
Get off the radio, Mikey. Simple as that.
“Goebbels would be proud of you…!”
EricG Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
“Get off the radio, Mikey. Simple as that”
usually I don’t stand for telling anyone to be quiet with their politics but in this case I’m with you.
Weiner (Savage) is so full of hate and scorn for everyone not white Christian conservative that his show amounts to nothing more than anti-minority radio.
It’s disgusting that so many think highly of him.
“Dr.” Savage is not informed on anything except his own partisan hate and distaste for American Culture and hatred for American Society.
It’s anti-social radio. It should go bye-bye.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
The Eric said: It’s anti-social radio. It should go bye-bye.
K: Of course it should! You don’t agree with it and that should be reason enough to ban it, huh?
May 14th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I mean, sucks for Weiner, but Britain has the right to not allow any non-British citizen into Britain if they so please.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:35 am
While Savage may be a little over the top, why would requesting that the Secretary of State to intervene be ‘asking for a favor’? I mean, it IS her job isn’t it?
Sarah Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
And I’m sure she’s definitely prioritized this accordingly, on her long list of “what my job is.”
Kind of reminds me of a great sign I saw once:
“Our credit manager is Helen Waite. So if want credit at our store, please go to Helen Waite.”
(hell and wait… get it?)
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
So, you figure Clinton will place her personal feelings ahead of her duty in regards to Mr. Savage?
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
“Clinton will place her personal feelings ahead of her duty in regards to Mr. Savage?”
Our Sec. of State should consider just how badly America’s international image will be affected if Weiner’s permitted to travel to Britain and expose British citizens to his particular brand of acid and bile.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Rock, uh, don’t they already KNOW about his particular rant since thats why they are banning him?
Now, back to the question – Should Clinton perform her duty in spite of her personal issues with Savage or should she shirk those duties out of spite?
TDro319 Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Sure Clinton should perform her duties. It’s just that I’m not so sure helping Wiener is one of her top priorities.
She’ll do it when she has time – IF she has time. I mean, it may take a while so I suggest Weiner not hold his breath.
Sarah Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
I’m not sure I understand why it’s the U.S. Secretary of State’s job to convince other countries to let Americans visit who they might find objectionable.
Who do you think she is, Love Boat’s Cruise Director, Julie McCoy?
Kregg Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 2:54 am
Sarah said: Who do you think she is, Love Boat’s Cruise Director, Julie McCoy?
K: No, Ms. McCoy had a heart and a sense of humor…
Sarah Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
In regards to Mr. Savage, I’m sure her personal feelings are that America has many other issues of higher-priority than a hater’s ability to enter a country that clearly rejects him.
He’s also made it abundantly clear that he loathes Clinton and all that she stands for, not to mention his disdain for her abilities. So why would he even deign to ask for her help?
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Sarah said: He’s also made it abundantly clear that he loathes Clinton and all that she stands for, not to mention his disdain for her abilities. So why would he even deign to ask for her help?
K: I can think of at least ONE reason – its her sworn duty to do so. And, lets get rid of the fluff that she’s too busy – we all know that she would hand it off to someone of the THOUSANDS of employees that handle the affairs of state and it could easily be done.
Sarah Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
How is it her “sworn duty” to grease the way for an American hater, who the English government has found repugnant, to visit that country against their will?
Scott the Drunkard Who Won’t Leave wants to come to your next barbecue, even though he gets wasted, won’t leave, insults your kids, breaks patio furniture, hits on your wife, and eats all the shrimp before he throws it all up in your pool.
As someone who’s friends with you, and has been on the receiving end of one of Scott the Drunkard’s visits myself, WHY would I plead with you to let Scott come to your next party?
Isn’t it England’s RIGHT to ban Savage?
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Sarah said: How is it her “sworn duty” to grease the way for an American hater, who the English government has found repugnant, to visit that country against their will?
K: It is her sworn duty to represent Mr. Savage’s interest in appealing his case to the British government. No one has said anything about ‘greasing the way’ for his re-admission to Britain. She has a duty to represent and assist an American citizen in his efforts to deal with a foreign power. THATS her sworn duty…
Sarah Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Again, Kregg, I’m not sure why you’re under the impression that it’s the Secretary of State’s “duty” to represent and assist an American citizen in his efforts to deal with a foreign power. Where are you getting this?
Sarah Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Here are some of the duties outlined for the Sec. of State. Please explain where you’re understanding that it’s her “duty” to write a letter to the U.K., asking them to rescind the ban:
Serves as the President’s principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;
Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs;
Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;
Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;
Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;
Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;
Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;
Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;
Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;
Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;
Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;
Administers the Department of State;
Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Sarah quoted the duties of the Secretary of State: Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
K: It could easily be said that Mr. Savage’s issue falls under this catagory. And, who said she should write a letter to get his ban lifted? Certainly not I.
Um Cara Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
It could easily be said that Mr. Savage’s issue falls under this catagory.
In what way? Countries refuse entry to Americans for a variety of reasons. Canada won’t let you in if you have a DUI on your record, for example.
Perhaps if his property had been seized, or if he were in the U.K. being waterboarded, it would be an issue for the state department.
But them exercising their right to choose who they wish to admit? Hardly.
Sarah Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Oh, right. He’s asking the right-wing lawyer group to write the letter to Clinton, “respectfully demanding” that she personally approach the UK about lifting the ban.
Since Savage, his property and interests aren’t in the UK, it’s difficult to see why he’d fall under the duty of “ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries.”
Incidentally, when we visit foreign countries, we do so as guests. I’m sure the State Department would be better serving those who have been fraudulently locked up abroad, or are political prisoners, or who have to flee difficult international situations.
Sarah Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Um Cara– Jinx!
BarryB Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
If this had been anyone else then it wouldn’t be considered to be anything. However, this is a guy who has acted attrociously to the current Secretary of State.
If you were in Hillary’s shoe and were the target of Mike Savage, would you’d be so willing to help? Or, would you be tempted to go a different route?
It would be great, if Hillary could come out and say something like this. Publicly forgive the guy and graciously help him, even though he doesn’t deserve it.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Barry said: If you were in Hillary’s shoe and were the target of Mike Savage, would you’d be so willing to help?
K: Absolutely. And here is why: It is Ms. Clinton’s duty as a sworn public servant of our goverment to represent EVERYONE who is a citizen of this country. It scares me that you would apparently absolve her of her duty so as to indulge a personal animosity toward Mr. Savage.
B: Or, would you be tempted to go a different route?
K: No, I would not. And, I hope you wouldn’t either because if you WOULD you are not fit to serve your fellow citizens. If you cannot/will not stand on principle and the law that backs it you could not be trusted to govern a society of free people. Which route would you choose?
BarryB Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Kregg,
I see that you’re working on the art of selective quoting.
I was posing the question to the reader and asking them to get in Hillary’s shoes. How would the readers react in this situation.
If you’d bothered to read the last paragraph, I did say what I’d like her to do.
Kregg Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 3:03 am
Barry,
I was simply making the point to ALL that read this blog that treating Mr. Savage differently than anyone else would be not cool. Notice I did not accuse of such…
May 14th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Savage deserves no courtesy nor consideration from any Democrat, anywhere. He is responsible for all the partisan hate he spreads and BS lies he lies about people like me. While I don’t think this UK ban is a good idea I do think that Savage is a bigot and a conservative-fascist.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
The Eric said: Savage deserves no courtesy nor consideration from any Democrat, anywhere.
K: It is not Hillary Clinton’s courtesy he is soliciting. It is her duty, as Secretary of State of The United States of America, to serve her citizens regardless of personal feelings. Would you not agree?
OldLefty Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
This happens a lot, George Galloway was banned from entering Canada.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
And, would it be the Secretary of State’s duty to represent Mr. Galloway in his efforts to have that restriction removed?
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Let’s put it this way:
Screw Michael Savage.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Rocky said: Let’s put it this way: Screw Michael Savage.
K: So, you have no moral qualms about denying Savage’s rights as a US citizen to have the Secretary of State address his issue with Britain even though it is her legal duty to do so?
TDro319 Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
K: “So, you have no moral qualms about denying Savage’s rights as a US citizen to have the Secretary of State address his issue with Britain even though it is her legal duty to do so?”
TD: She’ll do it when she has time. Why don’t you fly to Washington DC and demand Clinton drop everything and take care of Savage’s problem. Let me know how that works out.
flap Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
I ACTUALLY agree with TDro…should it be a priority of our Secretary of State to worry about a radio host being banned? That’s WAAAAY down the list, regardless of whether Savage should or should not have been banned.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
TD: She’ll do it when she has time. Why don’t you fly to Washington DC and demand Clinton drop everything and take care of Savage’s problem. Let me know how that works out.
K: Why don’t you simply remember that she has thousands of people working for her who could do the job in a jiffy – and we’re already paying them to do so?
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
“So, you have no moral qualms about denying Savage’s rights…”
SCREW MICHAEL SAVAGE!
Do you understand English?
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
K prv: “So, you have no moral qualms about denying Savage’s rights…”
Rocky screamed: SCREW MICHAEL SAVAGE! Do you understand English?
K: Yes, I do. Do you not understand the rule of law and the role of a public servant under that law? Don’t answer that…
EricG Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
“It is her duty, as Secretary of State of The United States of America, to serve her citizens regardless of personal feelings. Would you not agree?”
Actually, yes. You’re right. But she also has no obligation to fulfill his request.
In review … I think it is a shame that any person can attain this level of hatred and bigotry that I can not see an avenue to extend an olive branch.
Perhaps I should reconsider but someone advocating return to internment camps and outlawing religions is not rational.
You don’t put the criminally insane on the radio and in all honesty I’m not so sure about this man called ‘Savage.’
I’d love to say the opposite. But it would be lies.
He is dangerous and should be avoided by all intelligent Americans.
EricG Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
“Why don’t you simply remember that she has thousands of people working for her who could do the job in a jiffy – and we’re already paying them to do so?”
The fact that Savage is asking for help is significant but let’s not forget who he is. He is a radio host and not that big a deal when you get outside of Radio Land.
The Sec. of State and her staff have no obligation to heed him any more than other cases. His pleads draw attention to his case but hardly increase it in importance.
In the end the UK can do whatever they want and it doesn’t effect our Constitution or our media to have them ban figures in this way.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Who said it did? Alan makes a point of Savage appealing to his federal public servant as if he has no right to do so with the precise intention of providing his sycophantic true believers with a platform to rail against anything and everything on the subject. The fact remains that Savage, as an American citizen, has the right to request the State Department to assist him in dealing with his status in Britain.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
The Thomas More Law Center caters to the wack right, not just Savage(or what ever his real name is).
It pushes for getting so called ‘Itelligent Design in schools, got involved in the Terri Schiavo case, defended Judge Roy Moore when he put the Ten Commandments in the court house in the dead of night then refused to remove it.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Kregg said,
And, would it be the Secretary of State’s duty to represent Mr. Galloway in his efforts to have that restriction removed?
…………………………
I don’t even know if he is an American or British citizen.
I do agree that State should go to bat for citizens, even those with zany shtick like Savage.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Lefty said: I do agree that State should go to bat for citizens, even those with zany shtick like Savage.
K: Thank you…
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
“I do agree that State should go to bat for citizens…”
And once State has gone to bat for all the people who truly deserve the aid of our government, they can take a look at the Savage case and consider if it has any merit.
And then they can call Savage on the phone and tell him, “SCREW YOU!”
EricG Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Those wouldn’t be my words if I had Weiner Man on the line.
I dare not type out what I would say to him.
On a good day I might just tell him that Jesus loves him and to look for love where he wants to the least.
But most days … I think he would hang up on me and be right to do so.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Rocky said: And then they can call Savage on the phone and tell him, “SCREW YOU!”
K: You know, Rocky, you really DO resemble a rottweiler – all jaw muscle and no brains.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I believe that the Sec. of State has many more important things to do then worry about poor Mr. Wiener’s plight with the British. I don’t believe it is or should be anywhere near the top of her “to do list”.
Wiener is one angry, frustrated individual.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
K: “Why don’t you simply remember that she has thousands of people working for her who could do the job in a jiffy – and we’re already paying them to do so?”
TD: If you’re in such a hurry for her to take care of Wienerboy, why don’t you go to DC and make sure she has her “people” working on it? Personally, I don’t care if she EVER gets to it.
EricG Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
I would like to see the State Dept. take this case as seriously as any other. No special rules and no special attention. That would be what I would expect as well from Hillary Clinton.
I imagine a partisan somewhere disagrees with me on this.
Someone who loves Michael Savage and kisses Bush’s butt with puckered lips ….
(Damn, so easy to drop into partisanship … argh!)
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
The Eric said; I imagine a partisan somewhere disagrees with me on this.
K: Yeah, look no further than Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler
EricG Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Hey, I make no judgments. I am partisan at times and fighting my little battle on my end. I never said everyone has to be like me. Just have asked for a little ‘coming to the middle’ from both sides of the Left v. Right Debate.
My comments are rarely aimed exclusively to the right when I speak of partisanship.
It’s everywhere.
I love Alan’s show because we can all hear him trying to do the same as I:
Be bipartisan, everyday.
(It’s not hard to talk bipartisan. But it’s sure hard to think bipartisan. Didn’t you know I’m right? That I always win? yea, exactly)
EricG Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Whoops, lemmie change this.
“My comments are rarely aimed exclusively to the right when I speak of partisanship.”
I meant to say that when I speak generally about partisan attitudes I do not exclude the liberal side from it. Often I do exclaim a Republican or a conservative as Partisan, and that’s just my opinion of them.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
TE, if you’d only told us you lived in Santa Cruz to begin with we’d of understood. What with all those crystals and harmonic convergences and all… ;-)
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
TD: If you’re in such a hurry for her to take care of Wienerboy, why don’t you go to DC and make sure she has her “people” working on it? Personally, I don’t care if she EVER gets to it.
K: Why are you so intent on climbing into the same gutter you believe the GOP to be in by ignoring the duties and responsibilities of governors to those they govern?
TDro319 Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
K: “Why are you so intent on climbing into the same gutter you believe the GOP to be in by ignoring the duties and responsibilities of governors to those they govern?”
Why are you so concerned that she drop everything and take care of Wiener’s problem? Do you think she has nothing better to do than babysit whining bigoted talk show hosts?
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
TD said: Why are you so concerned that she drop everything and take care of Wiener’s problem? Do you think she has nothing better to do than babysit whining bigoted talk show hosts?
K: Can you really be this ignorant? The State Department employs tens of thousands of employees who can handle this sort of thing. You think that perhaps, say one or two of them might be assigned to address Mr. Savage’s issue? Ms. Clinton is a public servant. Public servants serve the public. Mr. Savage is a member of the public. Get it?
Sarah Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Kregg, what YOU don’t seem to get, is that this particular situation does NOT seem to fall under the purvey of the Secretary of State’s Office.
You’re grasping at straws by insisting that “(ensuring) the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries” applies here.
Savage is not IN the UK. Heretofore, he did not seem to be interested in VISITING the UK.
This is a publicity stunt on his part, much the same as Fox News falsely reporting that the Obama administration was funding weird NIH studies abroad, when in fact it was funded under the Bush administration.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I’m sorry what is she being paid for again. I think Savage is way out there but that is still her job.
May 14th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
When someone acted as badly as Savage has, the punishment of marooning them was popular. For Savage, it be a pistol with one charge, a small jug of rum, and the blessings of Davy Jones. May his bones rot in the sun waitin’ for help from them that’s been on tha long side o his blad afore. Just deserts, sez I. Just deserts.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
So, if one acts disagreeably toward a govt official then that govt official is justified in ignoring his duty to the citizen who has acted disagreeably toward him? IF thats your standard – and it is essentially what you’ve espoused – then Bush owes you nothing. In fact, he has the right to completely ignore you and should.
TDro319 Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Well Kregg, like I’ve said before, if Clinton isn’t doing her job to your satisfaction, go to DC and set her straight. Whining to us is not gonna do you any good. You might try whining on Limbaugh’s site. He’ll appreciate is a lot more.
Sarah Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Of course, he’ll have to pay money to Limbaugh for the dubious privelege of whining on that site, but perhaps he’ll find it worth his time.
Kregg Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Who’s whining? You are ignoring the point. You’d apparently shirk your public duty and refuse services to a person with whom you have a private disagreement. Not the stuff of character and integrity, TD.
OldLefty Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
My question is:
Does anybody know that the State Dept is NOT doing anything for him?
In my hometown we had a Catholic Priest from Ghana who was getting an honorary PhD from a Catholic university.
His 82 year mother was denied a visa to come for the ceremony.
Both Sen Santorum and Spector and the US rep went to bat for him at State, but never got visa….
And that was not even dealing with a foreign country.
Sarah Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Kregg, you seem to be assigning a duty to the Secretary of State that doesn’t belong. There seems to be no “duty” here to shirk.
Incidentally, Savage didn’t have a private disagreement with Clinton. It continues to be very public (on a radio show), and he attacked her both personally and professionally.
Kregg Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Sarah said: Kregg, you seem to be assigning a duty to the Secretary of State that doesn’t belong. There seems to be no “duty” here to shirk.
K: Sarah, I don’t know every in and out of the State Department but I”ve dealt with US embassies in foreign countries and they represent US private citizens in matters between that citizen and that foreign country. I would presume that the State Department would be the appropriate avenue for presenting Mr. Savage’s issues to the Brits. Am I wrong? Is there some other department that would be better suited?
S: Incidentally, Savage didn’t have a private disagreement with Clinton. It continues to be very public (on a radio show), and he attacked her both personally and professionally.
K: A ‘private’ issue is one between two individuals as opposed to an issue that is ‘public’ in nature that affects or includes us all.
Kregg Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Lefty said: Does anybody know that the State Dept is NOT doing anything for him?
K: Who knows, Lefty. It isn’t in Alan’s best interest to post the rest of the story…
OldLefty Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Alan has stated many times on his show that he opposes this ban.
Um Cara Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Who knows, Lefty. It isn’t in Alan’s best interest to post the rest of the story…
In truth, I think the results are less interesting to the overall audience of this blog than the fact that Savage now needs the help of someone he has so viciously attacked in the past.
It’s funny.
Alan’s job isn’t to help Savage with his publicity stunt, Alan’s job is to entertain Alan’s audience. While Savage’s request is amusing, the end result is not all that interesting.
Plus, assuming Savage’s request is appropriately prioritized, it will be up to the successor of the successor of the successor of Clinton to start digging into the details as to whether Savage’s banning should be challenged.
Sarah Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
K: Sarah, I don’t know every in and out of the State Department but I”ve dealt with US embassies in foreign countries and they represent US private citizens in matters between that citizen and that foreign country. I would presume that the State Department would be the appropriate avenue for presenting Mr. Savage’s issues to the Brits. Am I wrong? Is there some other department that would be better suited?
Yeah, I kinda think you’re wrong in assuming this is in the State Dept’s bailiwick, since Savage isn’t in the UK, and heretofore doesn’t seem to be interested in even visiting the UK. This seems to just be a publicity stunt that’s part of his ongoing disgust with Clinton and all she represents.
K: A ‘private’ issue is one between two individuals as opposed to an issue that is ‘public’ in nature that affects or includes us all.
Unfortunately, when Savage trumpets his hatred of Hillary Clinton (and the job she’s doing) all over his radio show, he’s not just keeping it between him and Hillary. He’s inviting public comment.
Also, Clinton, unlike Savage, is a PUBLIC servant, as you have observed. The fact that Savage is distracting our State Department, and quite probably “barking up the wrong tree” in so doing, could be construed as a public concern for the rest of us.
To summarize:
Savage may be asking her to do something that’s not part of her job, trying to make a country accept him when he’s clearly earned its (and her) alienation.
Thousands of people working for her there may be. But for any ONE of them to spend five minutes on this issue, distracting them from worthier causes that ARE, without a doubt, under their purvey, is a waste of time, energy and money.
Um Cara Reply:
May 15th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Sarah and I keep posting at the same time on this issue.
Jinx squared!
May 14th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
He doesn’t and shouldn’t get to the top of any list of those that need or will get help.
There are many more that are more deserving of aid from the State Dept.
Savage and Coulter, the two most obnoxious and vicious right wing nut jobs, would be dead last on my list.
If only we could figure out a way for either of them to leave the country for a while and then we could refuse to let them back in.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Kregg Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Boogie said: Savage and Coulter, the two most obnoxious and vicious right wing nut jobs, would be dead last on my list.
If only we could figure out a way for either of them to leave the country for a while and then we could refuse to let them back in.
B: Good riddance to bad rubbish.
K: This is why you and anyone who thinks like you should never be allowed near public office.
TDro319 Reply:
May 14th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
K: “This is why you and anyone who thinks like you should never be allowed near public office.”
No. People like Coulter and Savage should never be allowed near public office.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Let the UK,s actions stand. Make this buffoon stay at home.
May 15th, 2009 at 7:06 am