Skip to comments.Anybody Else on Here Think Boortz's Statements on Life Issues Are Contradictory?
Posted on 10/06/2009 12:28:26 PM PDT by Debacled
During today's show, Boortz addressed his comments that he made on Monday regarding the alleged hijacking of the GOP by the pro-life wing of the party. Boortz claims that this faction of the GOP has caused the Party to lose the popular vote in the '96, '00, and '08 Presidential elections.
While the radio show host did not explicitly state his personal opinion on the abortion debate, I perceive that the so-called libertarian is pro-choice in that he talks about a "woman's right to choose" and divides the players in the abortion debate into 2 camps: the pro-choice camp and the anti-choice camp.
While I disagree with his assertions, he has every right to say what he says. But the thing that scalds me is his double standard on life issues.
He gives the impression that he is pro-choice on abortion, but yet he is vehemently against the rationing of healthcare away from the elderly and terminally ill. Aren't these opinions mutually exclusive? So, according to Neal, the termination of unborn children is perfectly fine (it is a woman's right to control her body, right?), but yet the passive euthanasia of the elderly and terminally ill is murder? Is anyone else disturbed by this?
Boortz is one of my favorite shows, he (along with Savage) are the smartest, most informed, and most intellectually honest right of center talk show hosts, but his cowardice/ignorance on the abortion issue is costing him in ratings and name value.
The Pro-Life vote is the #1 net gain issue the GOP has year after year after year. Pro-life people are the biggest block of one-issue voters there are, period. Pro-lifers are motivated and they vote.
Where have they been the last 2 elections as the pro-abortion party took over?
Boortz is a pro-abortion jerk.
Boortz has been pro-abortion and remains so, and hates the pro-life side.
Yes, but vehement pro lifers turn off those that say that maybe its murder, maybe its not. But in any event, its none of your business what another person does. I think we can all agree that a late term abortion is a tragedy and should be prevented. But for some even the morning after pill should be outlawed, in their mind.
I don't see it. What about all those Catholics that vote for dems? I bet if you asked them they would say that they don't even care if the candidate is not pro-life as long as they themselves are.
What's more important is that - surprisingly - a greater percentage of young people are pro-life with a plurality of the younger people believing in the pro-life position. I suspect it has something to do with the younger generation obsession with technology and them growing up with those wildly powerful 4D pictures and videos of gestating babies.
In short, pro-life is a winning position - politically - and will only become more so advantageous as the 60's feminists die-off and the young begin to age.
Do you believe in the concepts put forth in our Founding Document or don't you? Do you believe in the scientific reality that a human doesn't spring from something non-human or don't you?
Just because something can be done doesn't mean you should do it. That isn't Liberty but License.
2008?! Abortion was the reason republicans lost?! It’s been only a year, but I don’t remember abortion being much of an issue in the election. I think there was 1 question in the debates about it and McCain & Obama gave the standard party answers. And besides, how does Beck explain Republican success in 1994,2000,2002,2004? The party was as pro-life during those years as they were during the years they lost.
It appears that he is pro-choice but is weaseling around, not being man enough to come out and say so (unlike Camille Paglia).
Called third strike.
The pro-life position doesn't rely on whether some are hypocrites or not. It stands on its own because it is based in Truth. We are human from the moment of conception. We do not spawn from mere cheek scrapings from inside our mouths. This is a scientific fact. When you look at the issue objectively and scientifically you cannot come to any other conclusion without being intellectually dishonest.
Either we are going to believe in our founding document and the universal truths it expounds or we are going to put it aside for something based on a lie and sentimental "feelings".
Boortz is an opportunist content to feather his retirement account and personal largesse. He found out long ago that he could make money with his mouth. Unfortunately for most of the audience, his mouth-action is verbal.
He's a boor and succumbs to his prurient interests very frequently (commenting on boobs, ass and what not of whatever woman he's got the hots for).
He's basically an undesirable opportunist looking to get some recognition or make a buck. His first FTax book he said he'd donate his proceeds to charity (turned out the charity was one of his current wife's endeavors - can you say neat tax dodge?) Also, you used to hear him 'pre 9/11' talk about his father/mother being alcoholics, after 9/11 and his desire to relate to the patriotism, his dad all-of-a-sudden was a hero pilot. He's a despicable person and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone listens to him.
As for abortion, it wouldn't surpise me a bit if his first marriage was the result of not convincing his then-wife to get one. Good luck with him. He's not worth listening to.
I think Boortz feels that it is more of a control issue with many pro-life people. He would rather let someone make their own decisions and hold them resposible for their actions.
Boortz is overrated.
Hey, running your mouth is lots easier than serving clients day in, day out in a law firm.
The problem with that line of thought is that the victim gets no say in the matter.
This is called injustice, something that we are supposed to be against in this country and blood has been valiantly and courageously shed over it since our birth.
He says he will not entertain any abortion calls on his show, but doesn’t hesitate to go off on a pro-abort rant.
To me he sounds like someone who paid for his daughter’s abortion. He said something in the past that made me think that and every time he goes on these rants I believe it more.
I listen to his show on occasion but I am always ready hit the ‘off’ button when he gets on this subject.
Yeah! ask Evander Holyfield what he thinks about Boortz!
Boortz was right—the pro-lifer contingency will hijack their own party’s candidate and destroy them if they refuse to profess their dedication to the one and only cause that pro-lifers care about. Maybe we need to consider candidates whose number one priority is not overturning Roe v. Wade, but nevertheless have a passion for and commitment to protecting our constitution, and are strong conservatives overall. Otherwise, we can count on more rule by the left. Boortz is merely suggesting that we not cannibalize our own party.
Don’t send me nasty comments. Don’t assume I am pro-whatever. You don’t know me. Someone needs to offer the opinion of the other voices in the conservative movement. We all need to get logical regarding the future of the GOP, and Boortz addressed a serious underlying issue.
“I think Boortz feels that it is more of a control issue with many pro-life people.”
Then he would be wrong.
I did not say I agree with it, just what I think his reasining is.
Regardless, one good thing came out of this whole debacle. I remember a line in the old Star Wars Trilogy.....it was something like "There is Another!"
In reality, there is another. She wears a skirt.
Why is it anymore of a tragedy than an abortion in the 2nd or 1st trimester. This makes no sense. The full term baby isn't anymore human than the 1rst or 2nd trimester baby.
It isn't anymore of a tragedy if a person goes up to someone and blows their head off at point blank range or if they shoot into a crowd and achieve the same result but doesn't actually see the carnage. Either way the person's life is lost senselessly and both are tragic.
Please don't fall for the lie that somehow a younger baby is any less human.
Oh spare us...
Understood. I also did not say that you agreed. I included myself in the “We”.
It isn’t a “tragedy”; it’s a baby, and abortion is murder.
Unfortunately it's not a one-issue world.
In Mass. there's special dispensation if the dem's name is Kennedy.
Really? Being a conservative Catholic most Catholics I know did not vote for Obama. But we do have a lot of liberal Catholics for whom abortion is no big deal such as Catholics for Freechoice. Most of those don’t even like the church, they want to make it into their own image.
He is completely against Planned Parenthood and associated groups receiving one dollar of tax money from local, State, or Federal sources. He also thinks Roe V. wade should be overturned and the issue decided by the State.
Typically libertarian view. It'd do more than all the bloodied placards have done to date, but doesn't go far enough by far for some on the Religious Right. Too bad as those two little things would be a lot easier than any Amendment possibly could be.
Maybe it isn't a one issue world but I refuse to vote for any candidate that is not vehemently opposed to abortion, no matter what their stand is on the other issues.
Boortz claims that this faction of the GOP has caused the Party to lose the popular vote in the '96, '00, and '08 Presidential elections.
He does, and this is utterly ridiculous. Abortion was hardly on the radar in the 2008 race -- it was mainly economic issues + a referendum on Bush. There probably aren't three people in the United States who said to themselves, "I desire personal liberty, fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, and Constitutional governance, and I know Obama is an opponent of all those things, but I'm voting for him anyway because he supports abortion rights."
Just because the federal government can stick it's nose into this most personal of decisions doesn't mean it should.
Exactly! Roman Polanski, for instance. What business is it of mine who he rapes?
Boortz’s contention that the Pro-life movement is driving ordinary people away from the GOP is based on a 1970’s and 1980’s understanding of the abortion issue. Then, the fight was over whether a women may legally have an early abortion. In a legal sense, that fight is over and the abortionists won.
What Boortz does not understand is that the abortion battle today is being fought over:
a) taxpayer funded abortions here and abroad
b) forcing religious hospitals and doctors to carry out abortions
c) partial birth abortion
d) unrestricted abortion opportunities to persons not old enough to even get a tatoo without parental consent
e) exempting abortion clinics from the same licensing, sanitary and safety rules all other medical facilities must abide by
f) providing women in crisis pregnancies information about alternatives to abortions and proven consequences thereof
These issues are being fought in front of a public that is becoming more and more pro-life.
Like all libertarians, Neal follows his own thinking rather than walking in lockstep with a specific so-called libertarian platform.
He is hated by some libertarians for supporting Patriot Act and specific military expeditions. He is hated by religious dogmatists because he demands separation of church and state. He is hated by the left because of his opposition to big government. But in all things, Neal is Neal.
A quick look into libertarian websites show most libertarians believe the government has no right to decide for you what you do with your body. However, they also argue that the government has no right funding what you do with your body. And the government has no right forcing abortion, such as seen by the ChiComs. If your doctor is the person prescribing and deliberating on your health, compensated by your money, then your doctor should do what is in your best interest. The government has no say.
I’m not Neal Boortz but I think he follows the idea that people have freedoms to choose many things but he seems to keep a rational outlook. The Bible should be exercised or ignored by a freely practiced electorate.
As for the assertion that the GOP lost ground on social issues, I agree. GOP candidates demand the government remove themselves from their lives but they’re the same people that demand the government intrude in other portions of our lives. I don’t think the government has a right to tell me my girlfriend is committing an offense by performing fellatio because the government defines that as a crime based on some religious dogma. This is the sort of thing that stops people from supporting you if you (being a imperfect human) demand faith-based perfection on others. It’s unconstitutional! And it loses elections. Same goes for a number of other social activities that conservatives stereotypically oppose and liberals say, “Oh yeah, gives us unlimited power and we’ll let you be X, Y, or Z” Most people I know understand libertarianism but fear GOP telling them how and who they can and can’t boink, can’t get drunk in some dry county, or they cant get a divorce.
I think that’s what he’s trying to say. If you believe in limited government in one part of society you shouldn’t be a hypocrite by demanding government intrusion in other parts.
Would you rather continue on the current route and allow our leaders to lead us further toward a fascist or even communist state (like China) where the government can regulate how many children you may have? And then if you choose to become pregnant again, they can legally pick you up against your will and take you to the nearest abortion clinic? Worse yet, if you live too far away from said clinic, they can perform one right there on your dining room table.
I prefer to work within our current system to right society's wrongs, and the number one priority of all of you should be to oust the liberals from power. If you don't vote for a candidate based on your one issue, then you've voted for the opposition. What good is that going to do us?
Boortz is a Libertarian (capital L, as in member of the Libertarian party.) He buys into the extreme positions you see in the Libertarian party plank (even if he doesn’t push them too hard.)
He is pro-choice. Not because he doesn’t believe the fetus is a human being, but because he doesn’t recognize that an unborn child has any rights. Only the mother has rights. If you could convince him that Singer’s arguments about a baby not having any legal rights until age 2, Boortz would be right on board with post-natal abortion.
In the 1980s and 1990s Libertarian candidates consistently drew about 5% of the vote statewide in GA. Due mostly (imho) to Bootzes influence on the radio. Of course, during that time Republicans were losing statewide offices to Democrats by 1-2%. All Boortz and the Libertarians in the state managed to do was gurantee Republican wouldn’t start winning statewide races in GA until 2002 instead of starting in 1986 (for those that don’t know, every GA govenor from the Civil War until 2002 was a Democrat.)
He said the AM that the Libertarian party should put all their effort into electing a Libertarian in Fla. to replace the nut case Democrat. Of course, the only thing that would do is draw enough votes away from any Republican to gurantee the nut case Democrat gets reelected.
What a tool.
I quit listening to him in 2006 when he told his audience to vote democrat and teach the GOP a lesson..
You have seemingly bought into the false media portrayal (unfortunately reinforced by many not-very-bright pro-lifers) that the abortion issue is somehow religious in nature. It is not. In reality, any ethical libertarian atheist ought to oppose abortion.
While it is not a one issue world, there is only one political issue that matters in the womb. For the unborn, it IS a one issue world that has life and death implications. When you view it from their perspective, this one issue eclipses all others.
The reason we are headed down this road you describe is because people like you and others cavalier attitude towards life. I don’t care what party a candidate represents, if he is unaffected by abortion he is unfit to serve in any capacity. I have heard your argument endlessly over the years and the situation just keeps getting worse. Sorry, you are responsible for a liberal getting elected because you refuse to stand up on principle and demand a decent candidate.
I'd go so far as to suggest that most people are primarily one issue voters.
I agree with you. While personally I abhor abortion, I don't think my beliefs give me the right to impose them on others. That completely changes though once the fetus is viable. And it pretty much changes for me after some short, reasonable period for the mother to make her decision.
The problem with the pro lifers is they scare off otherwise conservative voters who don't like having a bible waved in their face.
I listen to Boortz but I don’t agree with him on this issue. He doesn’t like Republicans so he is going to blame them for something.
He doesn't weasel around it on the radio.
He's pro-choice and occasionally goes into a rant about it. At that point I change stations.
I listen a lot, like him but that issue I vehemently disagree with him on.
There are a few other issues I disagree with him on (I'm not gung ho toward the Fair Tax) but all in all I like him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.