Ron Paul caller on Neal Boortz

[bobmurph]

Today I heard the first mention of Ron Paul on the Neal Boortz show yet. It was quick but Neal did make a positive comment. The caller, from Austin, stated that he was a supporter of the Fairtax, and then asked if he would consider interviewing Ron Paul on his show. Neal responded enthusiastically, saying "Absolutely. We'll have Ron Paul on the show, as well as any other meaningful Presidential candidate. We just haven't started interviewing the candidates yet."

Win for RP! Neal, is a self-proclaimed libertarian, but whole heartedly supports Bush's efforts in the Middle East. Glad to hear that he consider's Dr. Paul a "meaningful candidate". Anyone who listens to the show can attest that Boortz can be pretty harsh, so it says a lot for him not to blow off Ron Paul as he is non-interventionist. He continually bashes the LP for their non-interventionists policy. I'm glad he's not following the same route that Hannity & Medved have taken by marginalizing Ron Paul.

Every week there are more stories about Paul in print media, cable & network news, and callers into talk radio. The revolution is spreading...it is very real.

[Kuldebar]

Boortz would be a great guy if he'd let go of this Islamo-Fascists will take over the world crap. Correct me if I am wrong, but he's definitely a hardcore "libertarian for the war" type of guy?

I liked him back when he supported the late great Harry Browne campaign, but people change I suppose.

[bobmurph]

Boortz would be a great guy if he'd let go of this Islamo-Fascists will take over the world crap. Correct me if I am wrong, but he's definitely a hardcore "libertarian for the war" type of guy?

I liked him back when he supported the late great Harry Browne campaign, but people change I suppose.

Yes, libertarian for the war. Also, he wrote The Fairtax Book with Congressman John Liner (R-GA), the author of HR-25 Fairtax Bill. He's a registered Libertarian, but routinely bashes them for non-intervention. An interview between RP & Boortz would be interesting. Listening to Boortz's show was actually what first introduced me the LP.

[beermotor]

I called Boortz in 04 and asked him why he supported the war. He explained it was like an insurance policy, taking Saddam out. I want to call him now and ask him how that's paid off for him, heh.

[ButchHowdy]

Boortz is so irresistably entertaining so instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I've learned the difficult art of juxtaposition.

Like when Hannity says the far left fringe has taken over democrat party, I simply insert the correct words in my mind, otherwise I'd be buying new AM radios daily!

Works with preachers too!

[MsDoodahs]

I used to like Boortz, but ...

He lost me when he came out with "the state should be able to force you to wear seat belts," and

"the state should be able to force you to wear helmets when you ride a motorcycle" and

"the state should be able to force you not to smoke."


:rolleyes:

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

Boortz is no libertarian. He's right on a lot of things, but not a libertarian, no matter how much he says he is.

He's so caught up in this FairTax movement, he can't see the bigger problem, which is runaway Federal spending.

I read his daily Newz, and some of the stuff he advocates make him sound like a fascist.

As much as y'all hate him, and as much as he won't admit it, Rush Limbaugh is as much a libertarian as Boortz, if not more so.

[LibertyOfOne]

Please stop calling the man a Libertarian. When ever you mention his name it would be best that you use the proper neo-con label.

[MsDoodahs]

That he is, that he is.

:)

[UCFGavin]

I remember when Neal had a similar view of RP that Rush did and called him a no chancer. this is a good sign, and i'm not worried about dr. paul holding his own.

[Swmorgan77]

I used to like Boortz, but ...

He lost me when he came out with "the state should be able to force you to wear seat belts," and

"the state should be able to force you to wear helmets when you ride a motorcycle" and

"the state should be able to force you not to smoke."


:rolleyes:

He simply is NOT a libertarian. He could not be for the war, nor any of these policies if he understood the principles of libertarianism or classical liberalism. Its a contradiciton.

Those regulations are all manifestations of the "paternalism" principle as described by Mill in "On Liberty". Paternalism (the need to protect someone from themself) is not a justified basis for forcible constraint through law. Only threats to life, liberty or property by another warrant forcible restraint.

BTW, I do not believe it is accurate to characterize Ron Paul as a "supporter" or the fair tax. He has said that if it came up for vote he would support it, because he has pledged to do anything to reduce taxes and move away from the income tax, but he also has some qualms about it from what I have heard him say (he didn't elaborate).

I imagine he will get a chance to describe his position on the "fair tax" in more detail if Boortz has him on.

[MsDoodahs]

And when you think you see a contradiction, it's time to recheck your premise.:)

(eta: I grew up in Atlanta, so I listened to Boortz for many, many years - long before his syndication.)

[Mom4Ron]

Boortz lost me as a listener when he said that he'd support a national id that contained the person's bio data and that he'd support it being used for rent and shopping, etc. He thought it'd be worth it for citizens to be required to have a national bio id in order to keep illegals from renting property etc. Yeah, no thanks Neal.

[beermotor]

Boortz is no libertarian. He's right on a lot of things, but not a libertarian, no matter how much he says he is.

He's so caught up in this FairTax movement, he can't see the bigger problem, which is runaway Federal spending.

I read his daily Newz, and some of the stuff he advocates make him sound like a fascist.

As much as y'all hate him, and as much as he won't admit it, Rush Limbaugh is as much a libertarian as Boortz, if not more so.


Yeah. Boortz is just a talking head guy. He says stuff to get attention, so they can sell radio ads (and jesus christ, WSB is like 80% radio ads it seems like).

He knows what the score is. He pays lip service to "libertarianism" just to be more contentious with "conservatives"... push-to-shove, he's going to fall in line like most folks.

Good thing it only takes a motivated and irate minority to get change enacted!

[Captain Shays]

Boortz may be a libertarian but Ron Paul is a Republican. These talking daces and mouths of the neo con stripe keep using the "libertarian" label to marginalize Ron Paul despite the fact that he's nearly 20 years in Congress elected as a Republican.
I am mincing words here for a specific reason. On one hand the Medveds and Hannity's of the world use the label "libertarian" (note small l) as something different than strict Constitutionalism, which the Republican Party was originally for, to make it seem like the Libertarian Party (large L) who's candidates included people who were for the man-boy love association, total legalization of herion, LSD, PCP and prostitution. Though I agree with total freedom and lees government as most L(l)ibertarians do, in the present climate of big government coupled with years of indictrination in main stream media and government halls of indoctrination (public schools) its a real hard sell. If you notice, Ron Paul steps very lightly around those issues but Medved and Hannity and Limbaugh and Boortze among other CFR media talking faces know the issues as well as us. In fact they know them well enough to throw strawman arguments, deflections,, discredidations, and marginalizations at guys like Dr Paul.
My point is that since Ron Paul is currently running as a Republican and you and I are trying to get him into the primaries, we need to focus more strongly on the Republican side of small "l " libertarianism and work away from our positions as "L"ibertarians. Its being used against us to make Ron Paul seem like he's not a Republican.
The real argument should be that "l"ibertarianism really means what we know it means. Total liberty, small govt, non-interventionism, ect. and thats what true Republicanism "really" is, was supposed to be and is no longer.

[BLS]

I used to like Boortz, but ...

He lost me when he came out with "the state should be able to force you to wear seat belts," and

"the state should be able to force you to wear helmets when you ride a motorcycle" and

"the state should be able to force you not to smoke."


:rolleyes:

What? And this is a Libertarian?? WTF.....some people.

[ButchHowdy]

Let's not forget that Howard Stern was going to run under the Liberatarian ticket until they wanted him to divulge his finances . . . . DUH!