Atlanta newspaper blasts Boortz

The senior editor of Atlanta's Creative Loafing newspaper has authored this substantial piece, which gives a lot of information and insight into Boortz and his views. Apparently the author is responsible for "outing" Boortz as a chickenhawk, having revealed what is known about Boortz' evasion of service during the Vietnam War.

The piece also discusses the LP National Convention situation in depth, and even plugs the petition.

I've copied the entire piece into the extended entry section.

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


http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-12-18/fishwrapper.html

Neal Boortz is no John Galt

Libertarians will ensure their irrelevance if they embrace radio ignoramus

BY JOHN F. SUGG

Atlanta's radio offerings are so, so, so very awful that, yes, on my drive to the office, in desperation I am forced to tune in to the city's pinnacle (or is it pit?) of know-nothingness, Neal Boortz. But I have a rule. At his first lie, gross misrepresentation of the truth, or race baiting, I go to a book on tape. Often, I don't make it out of the driveway. Seldom do I travel the five miles to I-85, and never have I completed the 30-minute drive to the Loaf without Boortz bellowing some deceitful absurdity.

Neal dissembles, John hits the off button.

For example, just last week Boortz proclaimed that the Bushies told no fibs to con Americans into supporting the war. Huh? I paused for a minute before switching on my current recorded book to make sure Boortz wouldn't qualify that astounding fiction or giggle and say, "Just kidding," since all the world now knows George Bush lied. So did Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the contemptible gang. They politicized and distorted intelligence, and when that didn't work, they fabricated and uttered gross untruths. They have even admitted it, but now claim it doesn't matter.

I sometimes jot down Boortz's lamest deceits. It's a long list. Ranking at the top was his hysterical claim, in the days before Bush's invasion of Iraq, that Saddam Hussein's military might surpass that of Nazi Germany. I slapped my forehead at that one -- the claim went beyond mere bad information and makes me wonder if there isn't serious impairment of Boortz's reasoning capacity. The fellow needs a 12-step program for the chronically dishonest and incorrigibly stupid.

The truth, by the way, was that in 1939 Adolf Hitler boasted 98 divisions, with 1.5 million well-trained men, for the invasion of Poland. For the Western offensive, Germany had 2.5 million men, and 2,500 tanks. In June 1941, Hitler had available 3 million men and 4,000 tanks to invade the Soviet Union. Saddam, prior to our invasion, never had more than 400,000 troops and 2,200 tanks, and the demoralized and largely broken-down Iraqi military was never in the same universe as the Wehrmacht.

In other words, Boortz equals bullshit.

I don't want to argue the war here, but it was just so Boortzian for him to proclaim that pure lunacy as truth. And the sheep that follow him bleat their belief that they are actually getting "information."

That Boortz struts about touting himself as a libertarian would make his daily mission of mendacity a good laugh -- except for one thing: For Big Brother to win, the Bush regime needs to bovine-ize America. Ignorance and the Orwellian capacity to simultaneously believe glaring contradictions are the essential intellectual diet of the Bushies. Force feeding America the swill are Faux News and the phalanx of talk show screechers, of which Boortz is, to his chagrin, merely a farm team lightweight.

(In October a University of Maryland survey measured how much false information -- such as that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq -- people believed and whether they primarily relied on Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN or print. Those relying on Fox were far less likely to know the truth about critical world and national issues, and far more likely to believe distortions of the truth. Boortz, of course, gets it wrong more often than the heavy-hitting propagandists he worships on Fox.)

America needs real libertarians, whose origins are firmly rooted in the Bill of Rights. The Libertarian Party (libertarians with a big "L") is holding its national convention in Atlanta in May, and the party has invited Boortz to be a speaker.

I'm told by Libertarian activists the decision was rooted in the group's cheapness -- they didn't want to foot the freight for major talent.

Well, you get what you pay for -- free traders such as the Libertarians should understand that. In lib -- or Lib -- ertarian land, there has been a howl of protest over the invitation to Boortz.

One of the few points on which Boortz's rants coincide with the Libertarians is ending the Drug War. Hell, there are a lot of tokers out there who can't even spell Libertarian who are in tune with the party on that point.
Boortz is no libertarian. He is a sorry shill for the Bush big-government, interventionist, xenophobic, authoritarian regime. Imposing our will on the world, looting resources and guaranteeing Halliburton billions in profits -- that isn't free trade; it's empire. Gutting the Bill of Rights, spying on law-abiding citizens, manipulation through agitprop -- that isn't freedom; it's slavery.

"The Libertarian Party is so desperate, it has led them to abandon their issues in favor of seeking popularity," says Eric Garris, who helps run a libertarian website, antiwar.com, and who has long been involved with the party at the national and state (California) levels.

On the key issues confronting America, Boortz clearly stands on the side of those who attack freedom, and those who want to turn Big Government into Gargantuan Government (as long as someone besides rich people and corporations pay for it).

Examples: He applauds the FBI investigating anti-war demonstrators, making a broad smear recently on his website (that could have been authored by Karl Rove, and maybe was) that activists should be hounded by the feds because they are "pro-Saddam and anti-U.S.," and that they are "largely anti-American communists and Islamic radicals."

Likewise, in the same epistle, he applauded the police riot last month against trade demonstrators in Miami. I never met someone who claimed to be a libertarian but was so antagonistic toward the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments. It just doesn't compute.

In Boortz's best imitation of Joe McCarthy, he has insinuated that Justin Raimondo -- a nationally prominent Libertarian since the 1970s and the prolific editor of anti-war.com -- is a red. Raimondo "doesn't like me," Boortz huffed on his website last week, "because I approve of our actions in Iraq. Fair enough. Do you know who else doesn't like our Iraqi actions? Well, communists, for one."

Slimey, slimey, slimey.

On economics, Boortz worships Ronald Reagan -- ignoring the fact that government grew much faster under the Gipper than under, say, Bill Clinton, who the talk show host blames for just about every ill that has ever happened (another script line from Karl Rove). And, of course, Boortz has nothing but gushing praise for Bush's economics, somehow equating fiscal responsibility with pumping up government spending to $21,000 per American household, compared with $16,000 during the Clinton administration -- the biggest increase in more than 50 years.

That remarkably un-libertarian accomplishment, coupled with Bush's tax cuts for the plutocrats, has created record deficits that will indenture our children and grandchildren -- hardly what Ayn Rand, the spiritual guru for Libertarians, had in mind in Atlas Shrugged.

It's the war, however, that has real libertarians frothing at the invitation to Boortz. The Libertarian Party platform is decidedly anti-war, stating: "We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad. ... There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine."

Pretty clear writing, and it's at the heart of Libertarian thought. An irony is that since Boortz is peachy happy with the FBI snooping on anti-war activists, and since most Libertarians are anti-war, the radio blowhard is all in favor of the government investigating the very people who invited him to address their convention. And, in the witch-hunting delusions that substitute for thought in Boortz's diseased mind, it's quite likely all those Libertarians are really either commies or radical Islamists.

Boortz doesn't like me. I outed him as a chickenhawk. He keeps changing the story about how he evaded military service during Vietnam (was it the asthma or your eyesight, Neal?). Last week, he was claiming the military wouldn't take him. More precisely, when he couldn't get a relatively cushy job as a pilot, he wasn't about to get dirty (or dead) crawling through rice paddies. It's so easy to be bellicose when it's the other guy -- probably an oh-so-expendable member of the working class and a minority -- who is getting shot.

But that's Neal Boortz, the apotheosis of cowardice. He doesn't like to debate when he can't be in control. He keeps his finger on the disconnect button so that when callers start to score points, he can quickly cut them off.

If that's who the Libertarians want to hear, the party -- already victim to several internal scuffles -- might as well admit that it's history. If its program is to imitate the Democrats' emulation of the Republicans, the Libertarian Party stands for nothing.

Neal Boortz was offered space for his unedited remarks on libertarians' "boot Boortz" efforts. Boortz apparently preferred to pout in silence. For those who would like to sign the petition to give Boortz the heave-ho from the Libertarian convention: www.petitiononline.com/noboortz/petition.html.

Senior Editor John Sugg -- who says, "Neal, you gutless bag of wind, this is a challenge to a smackdown" -- can be reached at john.sugg@creativeloafing.com or at 404-614-1241.

12.18.03

Posted by Jeff Smith at December 20, 2003 10:15 AM | TrackBack
Comments

I don't think this is a very good article. It contains one statement I know to be false.

And, of course, Boortz has nothing but gushing praise for Bush's economics, somehow equating fiscal responsibility with pumping up government spending to $21,000 per American household, compared with $16,000 during the Clinton administration -- the biggest increase in more than 50 years.

I know that Boortz has criticized Bush on this very point. I tried to find the quote, but Boortz's archive is hard to search.

Sugg never quotes a complete sentence of Boortz's. He paraphrases, and occasionally quotes a fragment of a sentence. He doesn't give links for the reader to check for themselves. I've seen this kind of criticism before, and I've learned to be very skeptical of it. If I weren't already anti-Boortz, I'd find this article unimpressive.

Posted by: David Tomlin at December 20, 2003 11:01 AM

"I know that Boortz has criticized Bush on this very point. I tried to find the quote, but Boortz's archive is hard to search."

Well, Boortz definitely liked the Bush tax cuts. Maybe after making my way through all the Boortz archives I will know more about what Boortz has said on the subject over the last few years. There could be more there that Mr. Sugg is drawing from.

As far as a recent Boortz opinion on Bush's economics as a whole, the following article from _WorldNetDaily_ sums it up pretty well. It is, as you suspect, a fairly damning indictment.

What I wonder about is Boortz' view (stated below) that the dramatic spending increases of the Bush Administration can't be blamed on the "War on Terrorism."
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35902

Someone will have to pay

Posted: December 2, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Last week was a particularly good one for the Bush presidency. Just leave it to me to say other than the tax cuts and the war on terror, there is no real compelling reason to re-elect George Bush. We just might be better off with the stalemate that comes from a president from one party, and a Congress under the control of the other. It might at least slow down the growth of government.

Granted, right now fighting the war on terror is clearly the most important job this president has, but it's not the only job he has. The American dream has both foreign and domestic enemies. You can't completely ignore the growing monster of big government while devoting your maximum efforts to fighting Islamic terrorism.

We have a species of parasites in America – some call them Democrats, who think that America's greatness comes from government. America's true greatness was brought about by the dynamic of a free people interacting privately with one another while adhering to a system of laws crafted to preserve and protect basic individual rights. These laws protect the right of the individual to act in his own best interests so long as he respects the rights of others to do the same. Big government is a threat to those rights, and thus far George Bush has done absolutely nothing to fight the growth of government.

As things stand now, George Bush holds the record for three of the top five years in terms of increases in government spending. The only reason Bush holds the record for only three of those years is because the figures for the fourth year of his presidency aren't in yet. What do you want to bet that when those numbers do come in Bush will hold the record for four out of the top five years? All he has to do is beat the spending increases for World War II. For this Congress, that should be a snap.

Who would have believed that by this point in his presidency Bush would not have proposed eliminating one single government spending program? Not only that, but he hasn't so much as vetoed one single spending bill. The recent energy bill failed in Congress partly because some Republicans were repulsed by the pork that had been inserted by their colleagues. They knew a veto wasn't in the offing, so they acted on their own.

You can't blame these spending increases on the war on terror. Yes, military spending is up, but it is still nowhere the level of the 1980s Discretionary spending is increasing faster, and this is where Bush has failed to show leadership.

Terrorists can destroy infrastructure and take innocent lives. Social Security and Medicare could destroy an economy. In Atlanta, we have just gone through a 24-year reign by three mayors who completely ignored a crumbling sewer system. The bill for fixing that system is now due and past avoidance of reality is going to cost some big bucks. Atlanta sewer and water fees are on their way up by nearly 150 percent over the next few years, and this is on top of a recent 50 percent increase in property taxes. Businesses and residents are making plans to move to cheaper climes. This is the price of ignoring a problem you know is there. Medicare and Social Security are headed towards bankruptcy. With every single day that passes we have more people receiving those benefits and fewer people working and paying taxes to fund those benefits.

By the year 2020, those two budget items alone will account for 80 percent of all federal spending. That's about 16 years from now ... less time than our problems in Atlanta were ignored. When taxes triple to fund these two entitlement programs, where do our citizens and businesses have to go to escape? The threat here is as real as the threat of terrorism, and it's time for Bush to apply some of the same leadership qualities he's shown in the war on terror in a war against runaway entitlements.

This hideously expensive and unneeded prescription-drug benefit program would never have happened if one party had been in control of the White House while another controls the Congress. When your party is running the show, there's a special level of responsibility required to make sure that fiscal discipline is maintained. There has been no spending discipline under Bush, and someone will have to pay that bill.

Posted by: Jeff Smith at December 20, 2003 03:00 PM

Just leave it to me to say other than the tax cuts and the war on terror, there is no real compelling reason to re-elect George Bush.

That's the quote I was thinking of.

Maybe after making my way through all the Boortz archives . . .

You have my heartfelt appreciation for doing this work. I don't have the stomach for it. Remember to pull on those hip boots before you go wading in the sewer.

I'll take the fun job -- looking up the facts to show Boortz is lying. If the last example is typical, it will be easy too. If Boortz is in the habit of making up lies that easy to check, we should soon compile an impressive list. I think we should put them in a flyer to pass out at the convention.

Posted by: David Tomlin at December 22, 2003 06:59 AM

One thing to note, is that Boortz often tells his listeners not to believe anything he says unless you have independantly verified it to be truth yourself. So that somewhat exonerates him althought not nearly completely. I happen to be a fan of his but that does not mean I believe everything he says nor do I blindly follow his lead. I'm a typical Libertarian in that I follow my own path and make my own choices. It would be a Democrat though that critisizes a non-Democrat for saying things that they feel mislead since the entire existence of the Democratic party is based on misleading people who are incapable or unwilling to think for themselves. Boortz encourages his listeners to think for themselves and research the topics he talks about themselves. By intentionally injecting an occassional misleading statement or untruth, in my opinion, he is prompting the listener to do just what he encourages.

Posted by: Daniel Griffin at December 24, 2003 09:15 AM

History seems to be repeating itself as some quantity of would-be libertarians muster their misguided forces in an effort to censor those with viewpoints not totally in step with their own. the Dems, it seems have no monopoly on this problem having virtually handed the reins of their movement to the nuts on the far-left fringe of their faltering party. Once any party, regardless how insignificant, represses a single voice of anyone professing interest in belonging, it has shot itself in the foot and will soon bleed to death. In addition, any party that would not raise a hand to defend the county from hideous terroristic attacts (including hunting down the perps wherever in the world they hide) certainly lacks the credentials to lead the nation and provide a Commander in Chief.

If libertarians aspire to become a formidable organization capable of some measure of influence on American politics, then they must grow up and quit acting like spineless liberals.

Posted by: Bill Murphy at January 19, 2004 02:28 PM
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64

design by blogstyles.