On the Boortz radar screen

Mr. Boortz provided his "Nealz Nuze" audience with a link to this blog today, Dec. 31, 2003.

He also chose, along with the blog mention, to print a letter that I believe seriously misunderstands the issues involved in the effort to have Mr. Boortz removed from the list of convention speakers.

In the extended entry section I provide the blog mention and letter in question, followed by a rebuttal that I just e-mailed to Mr. Boortz. In an accompanying message, I asked that my "The Petition and Free Speech" piece (first posted here a few weeks ago) be printed as a response.

Anyone taking the time to read around this site will better understand the intention and thought of some of us, including Tom Knapp, the petition's author.

I should add that while we appreciate the attention Justin Raimondo and other non-LP writers have given to this matter, we who continue to work in the LP do not necessarily agree with or advocate the same responses they do.

Speaking solely for myself:

Although I continue to adhere to the original spirit and wording of the petition, which seeks to remove Mr. Boortz entirely from the list of convention speakers, I realize that the recent LNC resolution represents a serious setback to that position.

My chief intention in contributing to this blog will remain the same, no matter what the outcome of the "Boot Boortz" campaign; that intention is to help provide a concise collection of views, quotes and commentary to better inform Libertarians about what it may mean in the public's mind to prominently feature Neal Boortz at our convention.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.htm

THE BROUHAHA CONTINUES

We still have an organized effort out there to get me booted off the speakers list for the Libertarian National Convention in Atlanta next year. Their principal complaint is that I support the war in Iraq. Web Guy forwards a few email messages to me every day from people saying "I'm going to do everything I can to make sure you don't speak to the Libertarian Convention ... blah blah blah."

Here's an email from a different point of view:

Dear Mr.Boortz,

I am amazed that there are Libertarians that want to prevent you from speaking at the national convention in May. In my opinion, those who are attempting to silence you do not deserve to be called Libertarians, but instead deserve to be called totalitarians.

Mr. Boortz, I supported the war with Iraq as well. I supported the war because I believed Saddam Hussein was a threat to this nation and had to be stopped. I believed that we had no other choice and I believed that by ridding the world of this dictator, the U.S. done a great service not only for ourselves, for the people of Iraq, but for the whole world. It was the right thing to do. There are those within the party that do not see it that way. I, like you, followed my conscience, and if that is a crime, then pronouce me guilty as charged.

Mr. Boortz, I believe the war on terror is not only a war on the American People but a war against Western Civilization. It saddens me that some in the party don't see it that way. It also saddens me that the some libertarians want to practice the fine art of political correctness, gagging those that don't agree with their view of purity, instead of practicing liberty. If these forces succeed in preventing you from speaking, then the Libertarian Party should cease to exist. They would be committing biggest crime of them all. The crime against liberty of thought.

I hope you do speak at that convention, and I hope to see you on C-Span giving a great address as I know you can. In the meantime, may God bless you and may God be with you as well.

Your's Truly
Alex Pugliese

I fear that this is going to be a bad year for Libertarians. This country desperately needs the message of freedom, property rights and limited government that libertarianism brings, but the American people are not going to warm up to a political party that will not fight for those freedoms or fight for our security.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(And, here's my rebuttal. -Jeff S.)

THE PETITION AND FREE SPEECH

While circulating the petition, I've had some LP activists whom I respect a great deal express to me concerns about the intent of the petition.

It's been (very politely so far) suggested to me that those of us supporting the petition are holding rigidly to our own preferences and point of view, to the point of intolerance.

Is this really an issue that involves the right of free speech?

First of all, no one that I know of who had a hand in getting the petition together is afraid of Mr Boortz' views per se. Our concerns are purely strategic, having to do with the link-up in the public mind between these views and the LP.

I ask that those concerned with the free speech issue consider one simple truth.

The Libertarian Party is a voluntary membership organization, in which members have every right to influence the way our organization is presented to the public.

Naturally, those who disagree with the petition have that same right.

It's no different than a private corporation that has just hired a CEO. Suppose that this person absolutely refused to come to work in anything close to proper business attire, while treating prospective customers with outright disdain.

The stockholders would have every right to bring their concerns before the corporation's board of directors, and ask for the new CEO's dismissal.

Those opposing the petition may differ with petition supporters on what the definition of "proper business attire" should be for the LP, but they shouldn't try to make their case on the basis of a perceived violation of rights.

Posted by Jeff Smith at December 31, 2003 08:40 PM | TrackBack