Savage blasts ‘gay, phony general”; questions quality of U.S. troops

December 5, 2007

Perhaps the most memorable moment of last week’s CNN/YouTube debate for Republican presidential candidates can midway through the event, when Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr quizzed the GOP field on whether they would allow Americans who happen to be gay to serve in the U.S. military, as he did.

Kerr can back up the question with earned authority — he wore a uniform honorably for more than four decades.

[Kerr] retired from the U. S. Army Reserve in 1986 with the rank of Colonel and was commissioned in the California State Military Reserve (California National Guard) on 15 March 1986, where his assignments were Inspector General and later, Chief of Staff. He was appointed Commanding General, Northern Area Command, CSMR, with headquarters at Alameda Naval Supply Depot, Alameda, CA and promoted to Brigadier General on 21 February 1991. He held this position until reassigned to State Headquarters on 31 July 1995. General Kerr retired on 1 June 1996 after 43 years of service to the United States and the State of California.”

But in conservative circles, that record of service apparently doesn’t qualify Kerr for respect. The Republican audience on hand for the debate booed the retired brigadier general, and this week, right-wing lunatic/radio host Michael Savage attacked Kerr personally.

“CNN is a bear trap. CNN is a bear trap for anybody conservative. Look what they did the other night, last week rather, with the YouTube/CNN debate, when they put a planted, gay, phony general in the audience to throw out a question, and then Anderson Cooper followed up with intelligible, ‘Did you get the question answered adequately?’ That’s your idea of a fair debate? It’s like a Stalinist show trial.”

Once again, as far as conservatives are concerned, those Americans who serve in the military but disagree with the right-wing line are “phony.” Indeed, Savage was just reading from Limbaugh’s playbook.

But Savage may have been pushing his luck when he criticized U.S. troops serving in Iraq.

While the “gay, phony general” line is pathetic, and likely to draw plenty of well-deserved condemnations, let’s not lose sight of what else Savage said. Adding to his assault on Kerr, Savage said:

“I don’t care about this old queen, frankly. He disgusts me to make — my flesh crawls from the old queen. That was a general? Now you wonder why we’re still in Iraq five years later. General — with General Keith Kerr, you know why we’re still in Iraq five years later.”

First, Savage the Clown doesn’t realize that Kerr didn’t serve in Iraq. Second, and more importantly, what do you suppose Savage meant when he said we now know “why we’re still in Iraq five years later”?

The implication is about as subtle as a sledgehammer — Savage doesn’t respect the troops serving in Iraq, and blames them for the duration of the war. It’s not because of Bush, Rumsfeld, the Iraqis, Iran, or al Qaeda — for Savage, it’s because of those who wear the uniform.

Now, I’m not necessarily looking for a congressional condemnation here — those are apparently reserved for MoveOn — but I think it’s worth remembering that when it comes to prominent political figures who disparage Americans who serve, it’s the right, not the left, throwing the rhetorical bombs.

Yes, it would be a conservative wet dream if they could blame the whole debacle on General (Ret’d) Kerr. Maybe their journalistic bloodhounds should be looking into Paul “Jerry” Bremer’s background, to see if he ever parked his weenie someplace they’d find morally repugnant. Then the failure of the entire United States of America’s collective will to succeed in Iraq could be blamed on…. homosexuality. It would be so symptomatic of the craziness exhibited by this administration that it would have a creepy kind of synchronicity.

  • one of these days i’d like for the right wing to become unglued over something as blatant as this………

    (one day i’d like a pony too……..)

  • Maybe Savage himself is a closeted gay, and that is why he attacks the Gen. so fervently. Isn’t there a pattern emerginf of Republican politicians and right-wing public figures who condemn homosexuality fervently in public, and then later turn out to be gay themselves?

    Just last year alone provides a few examples- the mega-church minister, the congressman who went after the congressional pages, and Larry Craig, at least.

  • Someone should call up Savage’s show and ask him if he is gay, and that explains his remarks about gays- just self-hate and frustration, or trying to hide himself better. We’d all like to know whether Michael Savage is gay, because it will put these remarks in much clearer perspective. As a public figure who says these kinds of reprehensible things about homosexuals, I think he draws the public’s right to know about that on himself.

  • When you think about it, Michael Savage more probably is gay than isn’t. Otherwise why would he be so focused on it.

  • Savage – Anyone with that much irrational hate is probably hiding something; most fervently from himself.

  • I’m waiting for the people who were up in arms about the ‘Betray us’ ad to be all over this, in like ..five, four, three, two, ….oh, wait. What am I thinking?! Never mind.

  • I read his gibberish to mean all of the troops in Iraq are a bunch of “queens” and if they were “real men” like Mike “Chickenshit” Savage, there would have been Democracy and Ponies all over Iraq two minutes after they got there.

    There needs to be a serious and prolonged advertiser boycott.

    And biggerbox, the proper countdown is “And Mike Savage will get busted for snorting meth off goats in 5…4…3…”

  • I’m going to push back a bit and say that–no matter how much Savage might be a horse’s ass–I don’t think it’s accurate to say he “doesn’t respect the troops serving in Iraq, and blames them for the duration of the war.”

    I think the most you could imply is that he thinks gays, in particular, gays in the millitary, are to blame. Still stupid, of course.

    Not trying to nitpick, I just don’t want the posts here to get too far from the high ground. Overreaching implications are for hate-radio, not The Carpetbagger Report.

  • Can you imagine the shit storm from the right wing that would have occurred if a retired member of the military had been booed at a Democratic debate? We’d be hearing about it for years.

    Is the right wing complaining at all about the boos for a veteran? I doubt it.

  • Hmmmm…. let’s break this down into a few sections.

    1) Reservists historically have not received respect for serving. As they were often far removed from the war or any discomfort. This is changing since King George has sent many to the war in Iran.

    2) Savage is an idiot when it comes to ideology. All he really wants is fame and big check.

    3) Personal preference should have no bearing on job performance. But invariable some idiot from either side will make it so. Often this is fueled by the propaganda that’s put out from religious leaders, political pundits or even the political leaders themselves.

  • Just to set the record “straight”, so to speak, the only people who have a sexual “preference” are bisexuals. Otherwise, it’s is a sexual orientation. One has a choice with sexual “preference”. One does not have a choice in sexual “orientation”.

    Let’s try to keep the nomenclature accurate, people.

  • It matters not whether someone is gay or an immigrant or whatever scape they want to goat. That’s all the right does is blame someone – anyone. If there’s not a scapegoat to place blame on, they have nothing to say. These people are disgusting beyond words.

  • Why does everyone who publicly hates gay people have to be a closeted gay? Michael Savage is a moron and a bigot. To automatically label him a closeted gay is missing the point. He’s saying that the reason “we’re still in Iraq five years later” is because of gay soldiers and generals like General Kerr.

    Sheesh.

  • first thing boycott all advertizers on his show, then collect all this crap to be used for next years t.v. ads starting with the republikkkans, showing their faces, booing a veteran of our great military service. these dumb-asses like bill,rush,ann,mike,etc. need to learn that when you are up to your nose in bullshit you keep your mouth shut.

  • Accusing Michael Savage of being gay is an insult to the gay community. hell, accusing him of being a human being is an insult to humanity.

  • eadle at #9, you kind of have half a point. The thing of it is, whether he’s talking about all troops, or JUST gay troops, there’s really no way to get around the fact that he’s blaming at least SOME troops for the situation in Iraq. Now, for people who are completely pro-Iraq War, What Savage says is heresy, because you NEVER demoralize the troops by implying the war is going badly. Hell, they spin everything into a ringing endorsement for MORE war, MORE of a surge. If you said a soldier who raped an Iraqi woman should be punished, they’d accuse you of wanting the terrorists to win.

    Right-leaning “realists” who think the war was a necessary escalation in the overall war on terror that went horribly wrong, would still never blame it on the troops.

    For those who lean to the left, the mantra all this time has been “hate the war, love the troops.”

    So for Savage to say “…with General Keith Kerr, you know why we’re still in Iraq five years later,” there’s really no way to spin it positively, even positive-in-a-Weiner-worldview. Is he denigrating all officers? Implying that if a fag like Kerr can become a general, there’s something wrong with the entire military system? Is he implying serving under someone like Kerr makes you less of a soldier, nay, less of a man? That despite all their training, if you take orders from a gay man, you immediately start singing The French Mistake from Blazing Saddles? Needless to say, he’s insulted any homosexual currently in the Armed Forces. And underneath it all, the implication that, we’re in Iraq over five years because of men like Kerr, therefore, until the military gets rid of men like Kerr, we may never get out of Iraq. Our military will always be held hostage by the mincing pantywaists who don’t have the decency to go AWOL or step on an IED.

    Whoever else he insulted besides Kerr, he didn’t insult JUST the General. If it doesn’t have repercussions, it should.

    I’d love for Weiner to somehow be forced to “correct” or “clarify” his statements. I can’t imagine any this could be spun to make him sound better. If anything, I can easily imagine him blowing up at the person(s) trying to make him explain exactly what he meant by his dopey comment.

    And again the irony is, Weiner sits behind a mike and spews hate while Kerr admirably served his country for decades, Weiner gets paid more for his spewing, & Kerr gave his all to preserve Weiner’s right to call the General “that” instead of “he” or “him.”

    You’d think he’d at least say “Thank You.”

  • I wish more of the commenters and bloggers who have picked up on this story would have mentioned one point, that while Gen. Kerr has worked with Democrats on this issue — since there aren’t any Republicans of prominence to work with — in fact he is a member of the Log Cabin REPUBLICANS and had every right to ask the candidates of his party their opinion.

  • It’s only a matter of time.

    The left DESPISES the military, will magnify (Abu Ghraib, Haditha) or manufacture (Fallujah) any excuse to demonize them so that the “spit” and “baby killer” can begin anew.

    The right has happily seen to the death and wounding of 25,000+ American human beings. They are unconcerned about Iraqi casualties.
    The dead are fortunate. The wounded must jump through the deliberately erected hoops, loops, roadblocks, and stonewalling to help put their lives together after losing limbs, jobs, homes, marriages, and their ability to think. The neocons see this as a blueprint for the way they intend to treat the rest of the American sheeple when they attend to their future depredations.

    • Comments are closed.