The "Savage Nation" Savages Bill O'Reilly and President Bush

I don't listen to Michael Savage. I don't like MIchael Savage (see below). However, I actaully heard a protion of Savage's radio program (don't ask how I manage to hear these things), where Savage was "savaging" Bill O'Reilly and President Bush. Both deserved it. In fact, they (O'Reilly and Bush--not Savage, even though I think I like Savage less than O'Reilly and Bush) are this week's winners (for last week) of the coveted/dreaded Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate (returning this week after spinning out of my control for awhile--see later entries planned for today). Michael Savage has more claim to being my kind of conservative than either O'Reilly or President Bush. In fact, O'Reilly is "proud" of not being a "conservative", and says so. It is one of the moest correct, and probably sincere, things that O'Reilly (the master of posturing with no intellectual depth) has ever said. Savage specifically went on a rant about O'Reilly's statement that O'Reilly thought Obama had the right approach to the economy, and O'Reilly's incredibly stupid position on illegal immigration (see next entry). Savage "savaged" President Bush for essentially the same reasons that this blog has done so for the past two years (at least). Why don't I like Michael Savage? It is because he descends into irrational hatred. How else can you explain him calling President Bush a "criminal"? This is "leftist" kind of thinking: that you are obligated to consider everyone who disagrees with you as a criminal, or worse. As I have said, at the extremes (Commuhnism and fascism) the "left" and "right" come together (more accurately, the labbels become somply wrong and/or meaningless). President Bush is not a "criminal", and it serves no purpose to call him that. Yes, I am perfectly aware that many leftists want to put Prfesident Bush, and members of the Bush Administration, on trial for "war crimes" and violating "the law" (like illegal immigrants?) in other ways. That is my problem with Michael Savage. To me, he thinks the same way. I can see him wanting to put people who disagree with him, or who he thinks have made mistakes in policy, in jail. You may justly ask how I can criticize MIchael Savage, when I throw around words like "Communist" in this blog. Well, the distinction is that my "attacks" are intellectually based, and not intended to reflect personal hatred. I admit that my use of "Communist" is hyperbole, to make a point, rather than an all purpose swear word (like "criminal"). I explain exactly what I mean when I call Larry Kudlow, and the people on Wall Sstreet, "Communists". I mean that they have embraced central planning, and government control (the fascist combination of big business and big government, at the level where fascism and Communism come together) for their own self-interest (what they perceive as their self-interest). As I have said, the essence of the definition of "Commmunism" is a central planning, all powerful government operated for the benefit of the favored "Communists". While I admit that Kudlow cannot be correctly labeled a "Communist" in the traditional sense, he--and the others I refer to in that manner--is adopting the essential characteristics of Communism to "save" Wall Street (and only incidentally the country). This is not the same as calling it "criminal" to disagree with me. And if you read the entries in this blog carefully, you will understand that I am not into personal attacks. I am into a consistent, conservative philosophy. I think that those who oppose that philosophy are WRONG--not that they are criminal. Now you will remember that I often call the mainstream media EVIL people (not the same as saying they are criminals). Every entry in which I do so, I explain what I mean. In those cases, I am only using hyperbole in the sense that I don't believe mainstream media people are "evil" in every way. It is like Thomas Jefferson having slaves, and seemingly a sexual relatiohship with at least one slave. Was that "evil"? Certainly. It did not make Jefferson other than a great man. Now I think the mainstream media are much closer to being overall evil than Jefferson, but this is still the sense it which I accuse them of "evil". I mean "evil", but I always explain exactly why I consider them "evil" in the sense of committing evil. It is never because they disagree with me. It is because they have taken hypocrisy, gossip and unfariness to a nuclear, evil level, which has nothing to do with whether their political phiosophy is right or wrong. Whether you like the way I distinguish myself from Savage, I still do so. And I just can't like Savage, even though his policy ideas are much closer to mine than most Republicans (establishment kind) seem to be these days.