Posted on 10/06/2009 12:28:26 PM PDT by Debacled
During today's show, Boortz addressed his comments that he made on Monday regarding the alleged hijacking of the GOP by the pro-life wing of the party. Boortz claims that this faction of the GOP has caused the Party to lose the popular vote in the '96, '00, and '08 Presidential elections.
While the radio show host did not explicitly state his personal opinion on the abortion debate, I perceive that the so-called libertarian is pro-choice in that he talks about a "woman's right to choose" and divides the players in the abortion debate into 2 camps: the pro-choice camp and the anti-choice camp.
While I disagree with his assertions, he has every right to say what he says. But the thing that scalds me is his double standard on life issues.
He gives the impression that he is pro-choice on abortion, but yet he is vehemently against the rationing of healthcare away from the elderly and terminally ill. Aren't these opinions mutually exclusive? So, according to Neal, the termination of unborn children is perfectly fine (it is a woman's right to control her body, right?), but yet the passive euthanasia of the elderly and terminally ill is murder? Is anyone else disturbed by this?
Boortz is one of my favorite shows, he (along with Savage) are the smartest, most informed, and most intellectually honest right of center talk show hosts, but his cowardice/ignorance on the abortion issue is costing him in ratings and name value.
The Pro-Life vote is the #1 net gain issue the GOP has year after year after year. Pro-life people are the biggest block of one-issue voters there are, period. Pro-lifers are motivated and they vote.
Where have they been the last 2 elections as the pro-abortion party took over?
Boortz is a pro-abortion jerk.
- JP
Boortz has been pro-abortion and remains so, and hates the pro-life side.
Yes, but vehement pro lifers turn off those that say that maybe its murder, maybe its not. But in any event, its none of your business what another person does. I think we can all agree that a late term abortion is a tragedy and should be prevented. But for some even the morning after pill should be outlawed, in their mind.
I don't see it. What about all those Catholics that vote for dems? I bet if you asked them they would say that they don't even care if the candidate is not pro-life as long as they themselves are.
What's more important is that - surprisingly - a greater percentage of young people are pro-life with a plurality of the younger people believing in the pro-life position. I suspect it has something to do with the younger generation obsession with technology and them growing up with those wildly powerful 4D pictures and videos of gestating babies.
In short, pro-life is a winning position - politically - and will only become more so advantageous as the 60's feminists die-off and the young begin to age.
Do you believe in the concepts put forth in our Founding Document or don't you? Do you believe in the scientific reality that a human doesn't spring from something non-human or don't you?
Just because something can be done doesn't mean you should do it. That isn't Liberty but License.
2008?! Abortion was the reason republicans lost?! It’s been only a year, but I don’t remember abortion being much of an issue in the election. I think there was 1 question in the debates about it and McCain & Obama gave the standard party answers. And besides, how does Beck explain Republican success in 1994,2000,2002,2004? The party was as pro-life during those years as they were during the years they lost.
It appears that he is pro-choice but is weaseling around, not being man enough to come out and say so (unlike Camille Paglia).
Called third strike.
Cheers!
The pro-life position doesn't rely on whether some are hypocrites or not. It stands on its own because it is based in Truth. We are human from the moment of conception. We do not spawn from mere cheek scrapings from inside our mouths. This is a scientific fact. When you look at the issue objectively and scientifically you cannot come to any other conclusion without being intellectually dishonest.
Either we are going to believe in our founding document and the universal truths it expounds or we are going to put it aside for something based on a lie and sentimental "feelings".
Boortz is an opportunist content to feather his retirement account and personal largesse. He found out long ago that he could make money with his mouth. Unfortunately for most of the audience, his mouth-action is verbal.
He's a boor and succumbs to his prurient interests very frequently (commenting on boobs, ass and what not of whatever woman he's got the hots for).
He's basically an undesirable opportunist looking to get some recognition or make a buck. His first FTax book he said he'd donate his proceeds to charity (turned out the charity was one of his current wife's endeavors - can you say neat tax dodge?) Also, you used to hear him 'pre 9/11' talk about his father/mother being alcoholics, after 9/11 and his desire to relate to the patriotism, his dad all-of-a-sudden was a hero pilot. He's a despicable person and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone listens to him.
As for abortion, it wouldn't surpise me a bit if his first marriage was the result of not convincing his then-wife to get one. Good luck with him. He's not worth listening to.
I think Boortz feels that it is more of a control issue with many pro-life people. He would rather let someone make their own decisions and hold them resposible for their actions.
Boortz is overrated.
Hey, running your mouth is lots easier than serving clients day in, day out in a law firm.
The problem with that line of thought is that the victim gets no say in the matter.
This is called injustice, something that we are supposed to be against in this country and blood has been valiantly and courageously shed over it since our birth.
He says he will not entertain any abortion calls on his show, but doesn’t hesitate to go off on a pro-abort rant.
To me he sounds like someone who paid for his daughter’s abortion. He said something in the past that made me think that and every time he goes on these rants I believe it more.
I listen to his show on occasion but I am always ready hit the ‘off’ button when he gets on this subject.
Yeah! ask Evander Holyfield what he thinks about Boortz!
Boortz was right—the pro-lifer contingency will hijack their own party’s candidate and destroy them if they refuse to profess their dedication to the one and only cause that pro-lifers care about. Maybe we need to consider candidates whose number one priority is not overturning Roe v. Wade, but nevertheless have a passion for and commitment to protecting our constitution, and are strong conservatives overall. Otherwise, we can count on more rule by the left. Boortz is merely suggesting that we not cannibalize our own party.
Don’t send me nasty comments. Don’t assume I am pro-whatever. You don’t know me. Someone needs to offer the opinion of the other voices in the conservative movement. We all need to get logical regarding the future of the GOP, and Boortz addressed a serious underlying issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.