Aug 15 2012

Savage Doesn’t Like Ryan Pick

Categories:

At least one prominent right winger isn’t buying the Paul Ryan pick. Radio talk show host Michael Savage blasted the pick as a “too little, too late” attempt to appease conservatives and shore up Romney’s right flank, and he says it will assure Obama of winning the election:

“This is the end of the Romney campaign,” says Michael Savage. “As good a man as he is, Ryan will be portrayed by the Marxists as another rich white male who wants to ruin the environment, destroy Medicaid and Social Security and give tax breaks to the very rich. It’s all over.

“The Romney schmucks are so out of touch with reality they do not see how they are being portrayed and perceived both by the servile press and the ignorant masses,” the radio host states on his website. “The Romney insiders detest conservatives and are trying to appease this core base with Ryan. Too little, too late.”

So what are you gonna do? Vote for someone else? I doubt it.

This post has no tag

18 comments

Skip to comment form ↓

1

greg1466

August 15, 2012 at 10:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment

I believe he left a word out…

Ryan will be accurately portrayed by the Marxists as another rich white male who wants to ruin the environment, destroy Medicaid and Social Security and give tax breaks to the very rich.
2

jamessweet

August 15, 2012 at 10:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment

Wow, I… I’m surprised to see something so close to sane coming from Michael Savage. He’s basically right, here: Ryan’s too easy of a target on exactly all the areas where Romney was already weak with independent voters.

I’d revise greg1466′s revision one word further, and replace “Marxists” as well (take your pick with what to substitute it with). But yeah… Savage is more or less correct. Which is just wierd.

I guess sometimes even a blind rage-filled, spittle-flecked, dangerously unbalanced squirrel finds a nut?
3

eric

August 15, 2012 at 10:43 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment

Amusing that some pundits have already decided to switch to explaining their loss. Its still August! Lots of things can happen.

No doubt that in September we’ll get the next step: the “our loss is really a victory, here’s why” explanation.
4

paladin1969

August 15, 2012 at 11:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment

Heck some of my more conservative friends were touting Cain in 2016 before he imploded so giving up on Romney probably started around the time he become the presumptive candidate. I will give Mittens this – most presidential candidates want to actually win, but he is clawing his way to second :)
5

d cwilson

August 15, 2012 at 11:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment

As good a man as he is, Ryan will be portrayed by the Marxists as another rich white male who wants to ruin the environment, destroy Medicaid and Social Security and give tax breaks to the very rich.

Damn “Marxists”! How are we expected to sell a narrative if they keep telling the truth about Ryan?
6

d cwilson

August 15, 2012 at 11:19 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment

Amusing that some pundits have already decided to switch to explaining their loss. Its still August! Lots of things can happen.

No kidding. Obama’s lead is pretty thin, but then, the number of undecideds is also tiny for August. They keep cruching the data, but they obviously don’t think they can move enough votes to Romney’s column in the key swing states to change the outcome.

From the way they’re talking, you’d think we were already in “Unless Obama gets caught with a dead hooker” territory.
7

laurentweppe

August 15, 2012 at 12:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

Damn “Marxists”! How are we expected to sell a narrative if they keep telling the truth about Ryan?

Damn Reality and its socialist bias.
8

TxSkeptic

August 15, 2012 at 12:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

“So what are you gonna do? Vote for someone else? I doubt it.”

I’d be thrilled if they just didn’t vote at all.
9

sqlrob

August 15, 2012 at 12:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

Saw the headline and thought “Well, duh, isn’t that obvious?”

Then a little more reading.. “Michael. ohhhhh”
10

Modusoperandi

August 15, 2012 at 12:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

paladin1969 “Heck some of my more conservative friends were touting Cain in 2016 before he imploded so giving up on Romney probably started around the time he become the presumptive candidate.”
They never gave up on Romney. They were never for him. Hence the long parade of not-Romneys.
11

dcsohl

August 15, 2012 at 1:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

It won’t be Cain in 2016. In 2000 the runner-up was McCain, who won in 2008. In 2008, the runner-up was Romney, who won in 2012. Who was the runner-up in 2012? Not Cain, who didn’t win a single delegate… Santorum.
12

aarongarten

August 15, 2012 at 1:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

Michael ~~Savage~~ Wiener said the same thing about McCain when he choose Sarah Palin. I can’t stand Michael but I knew someone who was an ardent fan back then and got to hear a lot his opinions from that time. Michael said McCain threw the election with the Palin pick, and he sounded as a voice of sobriety back then too.
13

Hayden

August 15, 2012 at 2:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

So what are you gonna do? Vote for someone else? I doubt it.

Any time this point is brought up in conversation with my brother he always likes to point out the German party system. Each party endorses a candidate, and you then vote not for the candidate, but the party. Multiple parties can then endorse the same candidate. This means you could vote for Obama via the Democrats, or via the Green Party. Or, you could vote for Romney via the Republican party or the Constitution Party. This then allows small parties to gain a foothold against entrenched behemoths like the Democrats and Republicans, because you no longer have to “throw away” your vote to support a party like the Greens.
14

brianl

August 15, 2012 at 3:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

Actually, if he hadn’t done something to lock in the base, there’s a chance they might very well have voted for someone else (at least in states like California where there are always at least a dozen names in the column for President, including the Constitution Party, which states in their platform they believe in turning the government into a theocracy).

I’m still a bit dubious about how weighting voting for the not-white guy vs. voting for the Mormon plays out an evangelical household, but having Ryan there might tip the balance.
15

Raging Bee

August 15, 2012 at 3:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

…Ryan will be portrayed by the Marxists as another rich white male who wants to ruin the environment, destroy Medicaid and Social Security and give tax breaks to the very rich.

Gosh, whatever could have given him that idea?
16

matthewhodson

August 15, 2012 at 6:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

Do you all have some kind of preferential voting system in the States?
Having become disillusioned with both major parties in Australia I generally vote for independents or smaller parties with policies and reputations more inline with my own. In some cases this means voting for someone with little chance of being elected but with a preferential system I know my vote will still go to deciding between to lesser of two evils.
17

timgueguen

August 15, 2012 at 10:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment

No, neither Canada nor the US have preferential voting systems. A Canadian province or the Canadiaa federal system would be more likely to adopt preferential voting than the US, since we’re used to multiple parties being represented in our legislatures and parLiament.
18

slc1

August 16, 2012 at 11:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment

Re Hayden @ #13

This is the system in New York State where a candidate can run on more then one party line. For instance, many Rethuglicans also run on the local Conservative party line and all votes for that candidate are totaled.