It may be fair to characterize Boortz, or his show-biz persona, as religiously bigoted. But his Islam-bashing is just a special case of his generalized indifference to fact and logic.

My favorite quotes:

"I only have one purpose in that studio, and that is to attract an audience to listen to radio commercials . . . . I will flat out lie to you if it serves the entertainment value of this program."

We should make this the letterhead for all anti-Boortz literature. Emblazon it across the homepage of the blog!

Final question. Do you really thing Boortz has a shot at ever getting an LP presidential nomination? Aside from his foreign policy views, his nastiness can have only limited appeal.

I wonder how Boortz is viewed among LP members in Georgia. Is it possible he could get a local nomination?

"Do you really thing Boortz has a shot at ever getting an LP presidential nomination?"

Honestly? I doubt it.

But how many people in the LP really have any idea what kind of stuff he says and stands for? I heard the speech he gave at the 2002 LP National Convention. He can be pretty congenial when he wants to be.

There are those who really believe in the "celebrity candidate" strategy. They may be willing to overlook a lot, if the conditions were right.

"We should make this the letterhead for all anti-Boortz literature. Emblazon it across the homepage of the blog!"

Not a bad idea. Lance is the one who would have to do that. I just have certain areas of access.

Regarding the quote in question, and at the risk of stating the obvious:

_He_ may know when he's just trying to "stir the pot," but his listeners don't always, and I'm guessing a lot of them don't particularly care.

Being an "entertainer" only excuses so much.

But how many people in the LP really have any idea what kind of stuff he says and stands for?

If he were a serious candidate for a presidential nomination, I think someone would tell them.

I heard the speech he gave at the 2002 LP National Convention.

I'd like to know more about that. What was the topic?

He can be pretty congenial when he wants to be.

I'm sure. I once read a column by a liberal feminist who wrote about meeting Rush Limbaugh, and being surprised at how nice he was. I was surprised by her naivete. Talk radio is showbiz, and the jocks are playing characters.

On the occasion you mention, did Boortz drop the insults, or just direct them outside the room?

There are those who really believe in the "celebrity candidate" strategy.

I do myself, to the extent that I see name recognition as a big plus. Like the farmer said about the mule, first you have to get his attention.

Unfortunately it is rare for a celebrity to have the other qualities needed for a decent candidate, and those who do probably prefer to put their energies into their careers or into some other form of public service.

I happened to remember that I had taped Harry Browne's speech from the 2002 convention, while C-Span was running it. I wondered if I had also taped Boortz's speech, and it turns out that I did.

So, I just watched it again. He didn't speak on just a single topic. I would say that the major themes, those he dwelled upon for a length of time and with some feeling, were these:

1. The War on the Individual
2. The War on Drugs
3. Giving up Liberty in the name of "security."

(BTW: He was _against_ the last, mostly speaking in a general way, but being specific in regard to the rights of those arrested under suspicion of terrorist activities.)

He injected a fair amount of political humor into the speech, and, while discussing the district of Atlanta represented by Cynthia McKinney, gave the specific definition for his phrase "liberal bedwetter."

(The phrase basically refers to an inability to control government spending and growth. )

Boortz was surprisingly accurate in his comments of Muslims. He was quoted as saying "If Muslims like you don't get a grip on your leaders and rein them in . . ." is a sentiment shared by most Muslims. Their Uncle Sam-installed and maintained leaders are a real problem for them, from the anti-Islamic king of Saudi Arabia to the Ex-Soviet and now Drug Lord Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan to General Musharraf in Pakistan to the dictators and despots in every Muslim country. There is no country today in which Muslims reside where the leadership is not approved by Uncle Sam. The last one was Sudan who bucked the World Bank for a time.

It is the Muslims' desire to get a grip on their rulers that some of them are fighting to overthrow the king of Saudi Arabia, the King of Jordan, the King of Yemen, etc, etc. But in every instance Uncle Sam is there to back them up, from AWACS to naval radar to ground surveillance sites.

America, founded on the priniciple that monarchy is an illegitimate form of government unfit for any people anytime and anyplace, is keeping monarchy alive and strong as we move along in the 21st century. America, once the beacon of liberty, is now the oppressor who maintains monarchy.

Boortz was quoted as saying "But I do think that Islam is going through a period where it is largely under the control of people whom Muhammad would not necessarily want to have dinner with". Most Muslims probably agree with Boortz again - Prophet Muhammad would not want to eat dinner with the Master Terrorist Junior Bush, his Daddy, or the King of Saudi Arabia or any of the other territorial bosses that Uncle Sam, the Godfather, put in power in other peoples' countries. Instead, he would probably want to eat dinner with the practicing Muslims who languish in prisons in Saudi Arabia, in Yemen, in Afghanistan, in Egypt, etc, etc.

It should be pretty clear by now that Uncle Sam is the root of the Muslims' problem with their governments. The British carved up the Middle East and got the countries started. After WWII, Americans began providing the brawn to British Empire and installing the leaders in Muslim countries. And just as the Irish wanted independence (and still do in the North), the Muslim peoples want their freedom and liberty too. But Uncle Sam will not let them have it. And while he provides the brawn to British Empire, he flushes America down its toilet. Our Bill of Rights are null and void today, they apply only to friends of the state.

Lastly, Boortz can be corrected on one point. He claims Muhammad to be the founder of Islam, but Muslims believe that Prophet Adam, the first man created by God, is the founder of Islam. They believe that Noah, Abraham, Moses, Solomon, David, and Jesus were all prophets of Islam. In that sense, a Muslim might say that he is just a better Jew by possessing the knowledge in the Last Testament or a better Christian. A Muslim sees Jews and Christians as People of the Book towards whom they have special duties and may even marry. That is because they are all children of Abraham.

I wonder what Imad-ad-Dean Ahmed of www.minaret.org thinks about all of this? He's a Palestinian.

Peace in our time,
www.tikkun.org

YOU CAN ALWAYS TELL WHEN A PERSON HAS THE ABILITY TO REPEATLY LOCATE THE TRUTH AMONGST ALL THE BLAH-BLAH NEWS REPORTING THAT WE HAVE ALL BECOME USE TO. I AM PROUD OF NEAL BOORTZ FOR SPEAKING THE TRUTH INSTEAD OF SAYING ONLY WHAT MIGHT MAKE YOUR LITTLE LIBERAL (edited) FEEL GOOD.

BRIAN GRANGER
MACON, GEORGIA

He injected a fair amount of political humor into the speech, and, while discussing the district of Atlanta represented by Cynthia McKinney, gave the specific definition for his phrase "liberal bedwetter."

(The phrase basically refers to an inability to control government spending and growth. )

This is ironic, since the "war on terror" and associated "nation building" have become major pretexts for that very inability.

Boortz made a very bad first impression on me. He seemed to think that calling people names proved his point and his superiority. His smug pride in his ability to repeat "liberal bedwetter", over and over again, was just idiotic. He seemed to think it would impress the audience, as if the syllables were hard to pronounce.

On that occasion, he clearly applied the term to anyone who opposed the Iraq war. Either he was ignorant of the libertarians and conservatives who opposed the war, or he meant to imply that we are all "really" liberals. Neither does him any credit.

At the end of the day, it must be sad to see the greatest thing you have accomplished is to set up a site to "Boot Boortz." Why bother worrying about the issues he concerns himself. Get some issues of your own, spice up your life, and maybe this wont seem so dang important.

Libertarians believe in personal freedom. That includes the freedom to decide for yourself weather you like Neal or not. I also believe in your freedom to oppose Neal being a speaker, but wouldn't it be better to let the people decide for themselves? I support the agenda of speakers that have been chosen for the National Convention, but that doesn't mean I have to aggree with evertything they say. I listen to Neals program when I can, sometimes I agree with him and somtimes I don't, but I dont get too upset about it either way.

James Miller

. . . wouldn't it be better to let the people decide for themselves?

Meaning what?

Watch out Jeff, pretty soon Boortz will be denouncing you as an anti-Semite for daring to question something he's said about Israel, Palestine, the Middle East, or WHATEVER. The depths these right-wingers will stoop to!

Carol in dc, waiting for password to make me an official -- if still occassional -- blogger.