Mr. Boortz says:

"Let's not tip toe around this. If you believe that the United States should not have initiated its military action against Iraq, then you believe that Saddam Hussein should have been left to do whatever it is he was doing as the Iraqi dictator."

This draws attention to another issue, to one even greater in fact than Mr. Boortz' disagreement with one single official LP position, that regarding the invasion of Iraq:

The above statement entirely accepts the notion that American interventionism is a proper policy. Further, in my research thus far, I have found no indication _whatsoever_ that Boortz has _any_ allegiance to the LP's non-interventionist philosophy at all.

This means that the Boortz affair involves not just a debate over applying an LP Platform principle in a single instance, but the ENTIRE PRINCIPLE ITSELF.

Nor do I so far know of an instance where Boortz has opined that previous U.S. foreign policy has any role whatsoever in "why they hate us."

This means that not only does Mr. Boortz clearly _disagree_ with LP foreign policy principles, but he goes further by disallowing any knowledge that would allow his followers to understand the _practical relevance_ of those principles.

I would be more than happy if someone were able to provide an instance when Mr. Boortz has even paid lip service to either the principle of non-interventionism, or how not following that policy has had a role in the problems this country currently faces.

Tom

I know you are more experienced in these matters than I, so I hesitate to disagree with you. But, I don't see what the problem is.

Competing with Boortz at his own game is exactly what we don't need or want to do. If I were debating him, I would start out by saying so.

Something like this:

"I expect that Mr. Boortz and I will be giving a demonstration of the principle of division of labor. He will provide entertainment. I will provide facts. Think of him as the entertainer, and me as the schoolteacher. I'm sure I won't be nearly as entertaining as he will be. Sorry about that."

Note how such gentle, self-deprecating humor positions the debater as a sympathetic underdog, while paying a backhanded compliment to Boortz's professional skills that highlights his real shortcomings as a serious advocate.

". . . then you believe Saddam Hussein should have been left to do whatever . . ."

Such lame pseudo-arguments are one of the reasons I wouldn't choose Boortz to represent my side in a debate. (The other is his childish nastiness.)

Your examples are good, especially the one about the drug war. I might mention space exploration, as something many libertarians think is good but don't think is the government's job.

If Boortz made this argument in a debate before a libertarian audience, it would be a great opportunity to go after him for thinking like a statist. I would mention books like Hayek's _The Mirage of Social Justice_ and Sowell's _Vision of the Anointed_, the whole hubristic notion that it is the government's job to solve every problem on earth.

The final point would be that Boortz presumably wants Mugabe to continue tyrannizing Zimbabwe, since he doesn't advocate an immediate invasion of that country. I might omit it, since that business is growing trite through repitition.

I would suggest a debate strategy in which Boortz's specific arguments are exposed as briefly as possible, and the remaining time used to get as many anti-war facts in as possible. In the foregoing example, I point out that Boortz was thinking like a liberal statist by looking only at what the program achieved and ignoring the cost. Then I would give some statistics on casualties and financial costs. Then, if there were still time, I would bring up the reasons why deposing Saddam was so important, and talk about WMD and Al Qaeda.

This technique may not be allowed in high school debates (I never did that, so I don't know) but it is routine in real political debates. No matter what the question is, use it to get your talking points in.

Looking back, I see you give a demonstration starting with "For years prior to the invasion . . ."

I think it is Boortz who is at a disadvantage, assuming he even cares about "winning" the debate. I suspect his only aim would be to enhance his reputation as an entertaining speaker. He can do that while our side kicks his ass on substance, and it will be a win-win.

Actually, I will be surprised if Boortz would even agree to a debate. Does he debate? Rush Limbaugh doesn't, after trying it once and finding he wasn't good at it. It's a different skill set.

Something I forgot to mention. If Boortz is so foolish as to bring up "Commies", our debater points out that the Iraqi Communist Party is presently an ally of the occupation. Raimondo has done a piece in this vein.

That's also an opportunity to bring up such things as the gasoline shortage in Iraq, on which Hornberger recently did a good article. I've gotten the impression that occupied Iraq is much like the poorest third world countries in the red tape required to start a business, but that point needs more research to nail down.

Last time, I promise.

The tricky part is to get him away from talking smack and actually pin him down on those arguments.

I don't know what you mean by "talking smack", but I don't see any need to influence what he says. When he makes a fallacious argument, expose it. If he makes any good arguments, respond with best possible counterargument. When he insults, patiently point out how uncivil he is. Use the remaining time to get in antiwar talking points, as rich as possible in facts.

The one problem I see is that Boortz may not comply with the debate format, which normally allots time for each speaker. He may simply interrupt and refuse to let the other debater talk. That would be in character for him. He is a professional asshole who panders to an asshole audience. As a talk radio host, he isn't used to arguing with someone whose mike he can't turn off. That's why I don't actually expect him to be very effective as a debater.

and of course I wonder what cruise they're listening to. Today I hotel had a very strong urge to start usa visa a new project, or maybe not even caribbean cruise anything that well defined - just, merchant account to start behaving in a different accept credit card way. I would like to walk up to las vegas hotel