Skip to comments.Michael Savage v. Charles Barkley
Posted on 01/08/2003 5:20:44 PM PST by modern_orthodox
Listen, our next guest says liberals suffer from a mental illness and are trying to destroy the America he knows and loves and he plans save it.
Michael Savage is host of the syndicated talk show host "The Savage Nation," coming out of KSFO radio station in San Francisco. And he has outlined his plan to save the country in his latest book, "The Savage Nation: Saving America From the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Language and Culture."
MICHAEL SAVAGE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hello. What a buildup.
NEVILLE: I'm sure you will live up to it.
So, listen, first of all, what do you think about Arianna Huffington's SUV campaign?
SAVAGE: Well, let's start with Arianna Huffington. She made her fortune -- God bless her. She's a lovely lady. I had dinner in her Washington home when she was still married to Michael, after he ran for governor, blowing $30 million of his dad's fortune.
Where did Arianna Huffington make her money? Oil and gas. So what does that tell you? Now she's attacking oil and gas?
NEVILLE: She said that now she has seen the light, basically. She used to drive a Lincoln Navigator about a year ago. She got rid of it. And now she's all about saving oil.
SAVAGE: And is she driving a Volkswagen microbus painted with turtles? What is she driving these days?
NEVILLE: Listen, you know what? I am not going to let you pick on Arianna Huffington, because she's not here to defend herself.
SAVAGE: No, I love her. She's a great lady.
I got to say this. This to me is like the Clonaid fraud. That's what I see there. If you want to buy a used clone, I can tell you where to get one.
NEVILLE: All right, Michael, you blame liberalism for pretty much everything that's wrong with the world. So, let's see. Let's talk about some issues here.
SAVAGE: Not everything, just about 90 percent.
NEVILLE: Almost everything. OK.
Let's talk about now the standoff with North Korea. How do you feel about the way the White House is handling this? They're willing to talk to North Korea, and they're willing to, perhaps, go to war with Iraq.
SAVAGE: It's a complicated riddle. And for anyone to stand up here and say they have all the answers without all the facts would be foolish.
However, as an outsider, someone who's not privy to government inside information, if I were a consultant, I would say, go to China. They're making a fortune by trading with us. They have a lot at stake. They should apply the pressure on this lunatic. He is in their sphere of influence. They do not want that Asian sphere of influence upset by a madman.
NEVILLE: So you're talking about Kim Jong Il.
SAVAGE: China should be the ones to constrain the man.
NEVILLE: OK, but what do you think about the standoff, though, with Kim Jong Il? He's not really responding to the White House's offer to discuss this issue at hand.
SAVAGE: Why should he respond, when our president, who I voted for -- quite reluctantly, incidentally -- has taken so long to strike back against al Qaeda? It's been a very, very long buildup for this strike back. And I think the longer we have waited, the weaker we look.
NEVILLE: OK, let's take a look now at some quotes from your book, little excerpts here, starting with: "Contrary to what you've been programmed to think by politicians with teleprompters, the al Qaeda network is not America's most dangerous enemy. To fight only the al Qaeda scum is to miss the terrorist network operating within our own borders. Who are these traitors? Every rotten radical left- winger in the country. That's who."
Why do you say that, sir?
SAVAGE: Let's start with that lawyer who John Ashcroft rightly jailed. I think her name was Lynne Stewart. She's a radical, flaming leftist lawyer who was found passing notes with the blind sheik, who was under federal guard. He's the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
She was found passing messages for him, according to the government. Why would she do that if she's an American citizen? But she's not alone. Why is it, every time our government tries to round up sleeper cells in America, the left jumps up, in a knee-jerk fashion, and says, civil rights, civil rights, civil rights?
We are all Americans. We're on the good ship America. If we go down, we go down together. We have enemies within. Let's be real. Why should the left continue the same nonsense as though everybody is innocent?
NEVILLE: Michael, let me just ask you, do you not believe that no one is entitled to civil rights?
SAVAGE: I'm an American. I'm quite outspoken. I want my civil rights protected. I want my free speech protected. I don't want anyone knocking on my door in the middle of the night and arresting me.
But if someone is in this country wanting to do it harm, I want the government to have the right to find them before they strike again. Doesn't that make sense to everybody listening?
NEVILLE: OK. That makes sense.
Cabel (ph) here in the audience has a direct question for you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
I want to know what you think about the United States' policy of considering, or at least allowing, North Korea to have weapons, when we discourage Japan, Taiwan and South Korea from doing the same?
SAVAGE: Well, you have to blame Jimmy Carter, to a certain extent. Jimmy Carter just won a Nobel Peace Prize. I don't know if most people know this, but the prize was given to Jimmy Carter for his fabulous diplomacy with North Korea in 1993, where they said they would not develop nuclear weapons.
Now, why would he get a Nobel Prize for that? That's one part of the puzzle. The other part is, Japan is a great ally of ours. They have a great warrior tradition. And there's no reason why Japan shouldn't, I believe, in self-defense, create a nuclear capability.
NEVILLE: OK, let's take another look at a piece of your book here: "At the top of this hierarchy is Hillary Clinton, followed by others, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court. Together, they have both feminized and homosexualized much of America, to the point where the nation has become passive, receptive and masochistic."
And you are referring to so-called she-ocracy? Explain that.
SAVAGE: Well, look at the people in the country today. Everyone is afraid to speak out. Men are afraid to discipline their children. Women are afraid to discipline their children. Everyone has been pacified by this overbearing government of ours.
However, it wasn't put in place by Republicans, although they're not too far behind on this control of everybody. And I fear that, if we go down this road any further, we're going to become total sheeple, just sheeple, easily manipulated. This is not a racial issue. This is an issue of being an individual, being independent
NEVILLE: But is it only about women, though? You're calling this a she-ocracy.
SAVAGE: Well, OK, then let's look at the women who have assumed power in America.
I remember the year of the woman back in the '90s. We were told that when women assumed power in government, we would have a more compassionate government. Can anyone sitting here listening to this show today tell us that, under Hillary Clinton, under the other women in power, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, we have more compassion? They're like guys in women's dresses. They're no different than men. They're power-mad politicians,
NEVILLE: Hang on for me, Michael.
What's your name, ma'am?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My name is Tykila (ph)?
But I feel like a woman can discipline their child the same as a man can. And what's wrong with a woman being president? We can do the same as a man can.
SAVAGE: Well, I think that we should have an iron lady for president. I think that Margaret Thatcher would be a good model. I think she has more guts than most men. And I think that the men running the government today are too intimidated, frankly, by the political winds. And I believe that a strong woman would be a great president.
NEVILLE: OK, Michael, I've got to take a break right now.
But when we come back, I want to bring someone out here to talk with you. Our TALKBACK contributor, Charles Barkley, has been listening to what you've been saying. And we're going to find out what he thinks about it.
And don't forget, everybody. Our "Question of the Day": Should TV stations air those anti-SUV ads? Go ahead and pick up the phone, 1-800-310-4CNN or you can e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com.
The talk continues in just a moment.
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
Joining me right now is the set in Atlanta is Charles Barkley, TALKBACK contributor, and host of "Listen Up" on TNT.
Hey, Charles. How you doing? Good to see you.
CHARLES BARKLEY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I'm good. Happy new year.
NEVILLE: Happy new year.
BARKLEY: We've got a lively crowd.
NEVILLE: Yes. And we are so glad to see you.
We've got to start with Arianna Huffington and her TV ad campaign regarding those SUVs. What do you say about that?
BARKLEY: I just got one.
BARKLEY: And after listening to her, I'm going to go out and buy another one, just for the hell of it.
NEVILLE: Oh, lord. Well, what did you buy? May I ask?
BARKLEY: Oh, I bought a Hummer. That's -- and I'm going to go out and buy another Hummer, just to piss her off.
NEVILLE: Oh, man. And, you know, we've been talking to Michael Savage, of course.
NEVILLE: You've been listening to that. Any thoughts on some of the comments so far?
BARKLEY: Well, the thing that's interesting to me -- and this is like my biggest complaint with the whole political process and anybody.
I'm trying to figure out -- they throw these words around like liberal, moderate, conservative. And we are like idiots. We sit here and choose sides. Man, I don't care what it is. Let's just solve these problems.
NEVILLE: It's about the people, right?
BARKLEY: Hey, it's our country. It's not -- he says his country. No, it's our country. We elect these guys to run the country. They're just not doing their job.
Man, everything gets blamed on the Clintons, every single thing in this world. I think Bill Clinton shot JFK, too.
BARKLEY: It's funny. No matter what happen in this country, somehow, now, he went back and blamed something on Jimmy Carter.
SAVAGE: If you knew your history, you'd know what I'm talking about. It's nice for you to sit there and make jokes, but...
BARKLEY: I'm not making jokes. I'm telling facts.
SAVAGE: You're just throwing stuff out without knowing your history.
BARKLEY: You want to blame everything on Bill Clinton.
SAVAGE: Jimmy Carter won his Nobel Prize for his negotiations in 1993. If you want to do a variety show, do it somewhere else,
BARKLEY: I hope you sell a lot of books. And I never heard of "The Savage Nation," don't care about "The Savage Nation." I care about this nation.
SAVAGE: Well, I don't care what you heard. I don't know who you are. I'm on 300 stations. People love me, man.
BARKLEY: So what? So what?
SAVAGE: So what? So it's a big deal to me. So it's a big deal to me.
BARKLEY: You're on 300 stations? So you got 300 listeners.
SAVAGE: I don't know who you are. What do you do?
BARKLEY: I get so tired...
SAVAGE: What do you do? I don't even know who you are. I have no idea who you are. What are your qualifications?
BARKLEY: That makes two of us.
SAVAGE: What do you do?
BARKLEY: What do I do? I work for CNN and TNT. That's what I do. What do you do?
SAVAGE: Excellent. Can you please tell me -- what's your education level?
BARKLEY: This is what I do. I went to Auburn University. I went to Auburn University.
SAVAGE: All right, great. I'm glad to hear it. But you ought to learn your history.
BARKLEY: I'm glad you mentioned that to me.
SAVAGE: Learn your history, brother. Learn your history, brother.
BARKLEY: I'm not worried about history. I'm living right now. I'm trying to make a difference right now.
SAVAGE: Well, this explains the whole thing.
SAVAGE: You're part of the ignoramus brigade.
NEVILLE: Chris, I think we have a quick audience comment and then we're going to break, quickly.
Stand up. Talk to me over here.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I agree with Charles Barkley.
But let me tell you who he is. He is Charles Barkley. How can you not know him?
NEVILLE: All right, on that note, I am going to break, OK?
SAVAGE: You're asking me why? Because I don't follow sports.
NEVILLE: We have to take a break. We're going to continue the "Savage" debate after this.
And don't miss Friday's show. The duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, joins me here in Atlanta. She's going to talk about her new book: "What I Know Now: Simple Lessons Learned the Hard Way."
If you want to be in our studio, by the way,, you can go ahead and give us a call at 1-800-410-4CNN for tickets. We'd love to see you.
We're back in a moment.
NEVILLE: All right. Welcome back, everybody.
We're talking with radio talk show host and author Michael Savage, and TALKBACK contributor Charles Barkley. All right, Michael, lets talk about your book a little more. Another excerpt from the book: "If America is going to survive, we must close our borders to those who come to mooch and to those from all terror-sponsoring countries. Haven't we learned our lesson from 9/11? I say we must defend our borders from those who come to exploit our nation or we're cooked." Want to expound on that for me, sir?
SAVAGE: Well, I think it's self evident that a nation is defined primarily by its borders. Without borders, where's the nation? That's number one. When you have a house, your house is defined by your property line. A nation is defined by its property line. Either you defend it or you let burglars in.
We have 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country. Yes, I know many immigrants are hard working, but how do you explain that 30 percent of all of our prisoners are here illegally? They didn't come here to work; they came here to work the system.
We need to do what people are doing in Europe. Even liberal Europe is closing its borders and seeing who's coming in and who's not coming in. Who do you want in your country? Do you want anybody? Do you want everybody? Do you want a selective few?
Can we afford to take in tens of millions of people when we have poor people of our own? These are questions that aren't being discussed. BARKLEY: I think there is some truth in that. I think we have to hold people accountable. I think, as far as immigration, that's always going to be a very difficult situation, because, number one, discrimination is always going to exist. There are a lot of great people here who are immigrants, who come here with goodwill. But some come here with bad will, and we just have to -- some already here have got bad will.
SAVAGE: Well, what would you deport native citizens?
BARKLEY: If they're bad people, you put them in jail.
SAVAGE: Well, we do. But now what we've got to do is see why are we letting criminals into the country? I mean, what sense does that make?
BARKLEY: Well who gets to pick and choose who we let in and who we don't let in, is the question.
SAVAGE: Well any -- hello? Every country...
NEVILLE Michael, you're mainly talking about the illegal aliens, correct? Michael?
SAVAGE: Well, of course I'm primarily focusing on those who come here illegally. But lets also focus on immigrants in general. I'm an immigrant son.
NEVILLE: Yes you are. I read that in your book.
SAVAGE: Which immigrants does a nation want? Do you want educated immigrants? Do you want poor? Do you want people with Tuberculosis? Do you want people who need heart and lung transplants that everyone has to pay for? I mean, don't...
BARKLEY: So you'll just...
SAVAGE: ... you have to decide what you want to bring into your country?
BARKLEY: No disrespect to your father -- he's an immigrant?
SAVAGE: No, he's dead.
BARKLEY: No, I'm saying he was an immigrant.
BARKLEY: So what if somebody didn't want him to come here, who was on the television station years ago saying your father was an immigrant who shouldn't...
SAVAGE: But see, again, you're missing the point. He came here legally. He didn't swim across the border.
BARKLEY: That's my point. We're not saying all immigrants who come here have goodwill, legal or illegal, but who gets to pick and choose that? That's the question.
SAVAGE: Who? Who gets to pick and choose? A nation has a dialogue about it and we say we can't take in anymore people. We have our own poor. If we want any more immigrants, we need to find out if they're criminals, if they're healthy.
We used to have an Ellis Island, where people if they had a disease they were quarantined. We have people coming in today with tuberculosis. We certainly can't agree that that's a good thing for America. Can we?
BARKLEY: Well, I will agree with you on that. I think we have to do a better job of screening, but also, just to be fair. And the system right now is not fair.
NEVILLE: Moja (ph).
MOJA: Yes. It sounds like that Mr. Savage ought to be called pass the buck Savage. It doesn't seem like that he wants to stand the responsibility for our actions. When you talk about North Korea, he wants China to take care of it. When you talk about the agreement with everybody, and the US is over in Iraq talking about jumping on Iraq. Nothing has been found, and we are sure that North Korea is proliferating nuclear weapons.
So I would say that the priority is in North Korea instead of in Iraq. And if you want to be the world's police, then be the world's police. If not, then change the policy to where we get along with everybody, and not let...
NEVILLE: Let me get Mr. Savage a chance to go ahead and respond to that.
SAVAGE: Well, you don't understand the first thing about geopolitics with that statement. You're trying to have it both ways. You're saying the US is aggressive for being the world's policemen, for attacking Iraq, or about to attack Iraq. But you're saying the US should attack North Korea, when I'm saying they shouldn't attack North Korea.
This can be settled peacefully, in my humble opinion, by taking that giant nation called China, which controls the Asian sphere of influence, and they can control North Korea. That can be done very peacefully.
NEVILLE: I have an interesting guest, Michael, in the audience. Olga (ph) from Cuba -- an immigrant.
OLGA: Yes. I came here 47 years ago legally as a resident. Before I came here I went through all the legal...
NEVILLE: All the procedures?
OLGA: Procedures, right. Blood tests, X-ray...
NEVILLE: And then what happened? OLGA: Legal paper (ph) that was never arrested (ph). And now the people from my country get in to Iraq, and cross the ocean there and get accepted over here, and they...
NEVILLE: So you feel that's unfair? You had to go through all of this?
OLGA: It's very unfair. I agree that people should be legal. They should be...
NEVILLE: Go through all proper channels?
OLGA: And scrutinized that they are legal. But all those people, that they are not troublemakers, and that they are going to come here to work.
SAVAGE: Absolutely. That's what we're -- what she -- she and I agree. She's answering Mr. Barkley's question. We're talking about who should come here, who should decide. Wouldn't common decency say that you don't want criminals? The woman did it the right way. She's what we want here.
We don't want people to come here illegally. If they're criminals or if they're (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with tuberculosis. That's what we're talking about.
BARKLEY: First of all, I'm not disagreeing with you that we have to be more restrictive as far as immigration. But how do you -- who knows who is going to be a crook when they get here and who's going to be a hardworking person is my question. Who gets to choose?
SAVAGE: Well, I think we have quite a database of illegal aliens who are not permitted into the country. And we certainly want to keep them out. My main point is that our border with Mexico is not guarded sufficiently. You have got citizens trying to protect their farms.
I think we ought to put troops on the border with Mexico. Not continue to leave it as an open sieve. What if terrorists want to walk across that boder?
NEVILLE: So are you saying specifically that Mexicans are the ones who come over here to do harm or that border is soft?
SAVAGE: Well, I didn't say which races because I haven't studied it. However, if you look at your prison population, and you know that 30 percent of the prisoners are illegal aliens, you'd have to break that down by country of origin. So I haven't done that. I haven't seen that data.
The fact is that the border with Mexico is quite porous and terrorists are known to come into a country through a porous border. They caught them in the Canadian border. The Mexican border is wide open. The government ought to look into that and help the border patrol with some US troops. I think we ought to take our troops out of South Korea and put them on the border with Mexico.
BARKLEY: You know it's interesting. You said 30 percent of the criminals are illegal aliens. Is that what you said?
SAVAGE: That's when I read.
BARKLEY: It sounds like -- so 70 percent of our own people.
BARKLEY: That's my point. You're blaming 30 percent of the people for the problem, when 70 percent of the people, they're friends of ours, they're our family members. Why are you blaming a small 30 percent and not blaming that 70 percent?
SAVAGE: I have no idea what you're talking about. Your logic seems to be so screwed up, you can't even present an argument. I don't know what you are saying.
NEVILLE: Oh, come on, Michael. Oh, come on, Michael.
BARKLEY: You know what Michael is? Michael is one of them guys who is really, really smart, who's a (EXPLETIVE). Like, he wants...
NEVILLE: Wait, wait, wait. Listen, no, no, no. I am jumping here in.
SAVAGE: I don't know who you are. Look, I could call you -- what are you an ignorant basketball player? You're a dummy.
NEVILLE: Michael Savage, thank you very much for joining us here today.
SAVAGE: Yeah, you're a dumb basketball player. Go dribble a ball. Go dribble a ball. You couldn't shine my shoes, buster.
NEVILLE: Hey, hey. Both of you, time out. We're back in a moment. Cut. Cut. We're back in a moment.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
This line of thinking is logical but not wise. We must never act as if we acknowledge ANY Chinese sphere of influence in Asia. To acknowledge any Chinese sphere of influence outside of China's borders would be to put our stamp of approval on China's "multi-polar world" concept and acquiesce in the deterioration of U.S. supremacy in the Pacific.
And like it or not, it is U.S. supremacy in that area that allows democracy to thrive, period. It is only due to our dominance there that no other Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere has risen up to rob us of our Pacific territories. Dominance in East Asia requires large investments but we must be willing to make those investments in perpetuity.
Interesting that Barkley finally resorted to name-calling.
There's no way Savage could come out looking good in this one.
Many thanks to a great patriot, a great American, Charles Barkley.
I loathe Ari(head)eanna Huffington!
Ok ....so you don't watch tv or listen to the radio or read newspapers. Good for you. Your point????
Let's assume you are are brilliant. Have you heard of Sir Charles?
Anyway, Barkley maneuvered an ignorant Michael Savage into saying that Barkley was a dumb jock who was not fit to shine his shoes. Not a good thing for Savage, of course. He loses the argument under the circumstances.
(Besides, Barkley's accent is actually better than most American Blacks.)
You never heard him say: his mom say "the Republicans are the party of the rich..
To which he said "but mom, we are rich now"
Agree. There are one of two ways that these two guys can resolve their differences: one, Barkley and Savage meet in a debate and hash out their issues, or, two, Barkley and Savage meet in a boxing ring and slug it out. In the first scenario Savage savages Barkley by talking too fast for the Round Mound to keep up. In the second, Barkley beats Savage into a bloody pulp. The real question is which event the public would like to see. :-)
Savage exposes ignorance for what it is .... Big-mouth Barkley, "... dummy ... go dribble your basketball ... you couldn't shine my shoes"!!
SAVAGE: If you knew your history, you'd know what I'm talking about. It's nice for you to sit there and make jokes, but...
BARKLEY: I'm not making jokes. I'm telling facts.
Am I mistaken, or is there a single fact in anything Barkley had said to that point?
I agree. OK, so they confronted him with an idiot. But Savage appeared more interested in being pugnacious. When Barley said something that did not make sense--that 70% --30% thing-- Savage appeared more interested in showing that he knew it didn't make sense and calling Barley a name-- could not make a coherent argument or something like that-- and impugn "your whole way of thinking"..
Fine, if you want a fight. But why do that? Actually, Barkley was trying to be on his good behavior at that point until Savage impugned his "whole way of thinking".
Savage was mainly upset that they confronted him wiht a basketball player. He could have used the occasion better than he did.