An Open Letter to Neal Boortz

Mr. Boortz, I am writing this letter as a plea for you to reconsider your support for Mike Huckabee‘s candidacy for Republican nomination for President.

I’ve listened to you since I was fourteen years old. I remember my mom telling me when I was eight or so that I was going to like your show when I got older because I was just as opinionated, and for the most part she was right.

You single-handedly sparked my interest in classical liberalism/libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. My involvement in the Libertarian Party went as far as getting elected as the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Georgia in 2006 at the age of 25. I have since left that post, and I consider myself to be an independent, but still very much a believer in the libertarian philosophy (limited government, capitalism and the Harm Principle).

I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see your endorsement of Mike Huckabee, in an Athens newspaper. No doubt the endorsement is because of his support of the FairTax, a cause that you’ve taken up over the past few years. I have no comments to make on that issue, other than the fact that the only two reasons you are supporting Mike Huckabee is because he performed reasonably well during the GOP debates. He never really answers tough questions, choosing instead to make a joke and avoid the issue. The most obvious reason you have backed his campaign is because he supports the FairTax.

I do not intend this to be an attack on you because when it comes down to it, I respect you, but I disagree with you. I believe that you have betrayed your principles and ultimately your belief in limited government due to your support of Mike Huckabee.

There are several political commentators that have pointed out that Huckabee is a populist candidate. He is using some of the same class warfare rhetoric (the same rhetoric that John Edwards has used) in order to appeal to the emotions of individuals that simply don’t know better or they refuse to acknowledge reality…and it disappoints me when I think that you may have fallen into one of those categories of voters.

Huckabee’s record is troublesome for anyone who claims to be a fiscal conservative or a limited government conservative. As John Fund and FactCheck.org have noted, the taxpayers of Arkansas saw their tax burden increase by 47%, an increase of more than $500 million.

He has signed into law or supported numerous tax increases ranging from an increase in the state sales tax on several occasions, gas tax, taxing nursing home beds and opposed repealing sales taxes on groceries and medicine. Spending increased by more than 65%, triple the rate of inflation. Huckabee likes to say that he left the state with budget surplus, but he also left the state with $1 billion in new debt. One Arkansas newspaper put together an editorial which shows that Huckabee is more of a tax hiker than Bill Clinton.

The Cato Institute gave Huckabee a grade of “F” in fiscal policy in 2006 (16 Democrats received higher grades), and a “D” for his entire tenure as Governor of Arkansas.

Reason magazine probably put it best, “The vision of ‘compassionate conservatism’ promised by George W. Bush was actually practiced by Huckabee, with all the flaws that entailed. He’s the GOP candidate who’d probably get along best with a big-spending Democratic Congress.”

He has been hostile to school vouchers and has even managed to pick up the endorsement of a state branch of the NEA. You’ve been hostile to teachers unions, even saying that they pose a greater threat than al-Qaeda. This is a man that called No Child Left Behind, “the greatest education reform effort by the federal government in my lifetime.”

During his campaign he has been hostile to the concept of free trade, a fundamental human right, Huckabee instead has ignored the benefits of free trade, latched onto the protectionist “fair trade” rhetoric and opposed trade agreements that may not be perfect, but have had an overall positive effect on the American economy. I find it ironic that the candidates that support the FairTax (Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee) are all anti-free trade.

His reasoning for agriculture subsidies is because it is a “national security” issue. Subsidies are misguided for a number of reasons, but the main problem with them is they drive up the cost of food, which only hurts American consumers.

He has offered no plan to reform the unfunded liabilities (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) that pose a threat to the stability of our economy. He supported the 2003 Medicare drug benefit and was the only GOP hopeful that didn’t support Bush’s veto of SCHIP.

This is a candidate that supported an increase in the minimum wage in his state, as well as an increase in the federal minimum wage. He believes that it is a biblical duty to fight global warming and supports cap-and-trade policies. Not to mention that he rails against Wall Street and the salaries of CEOs, going so far as to deem them to be “immoral.”

Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg shined some light on Huckabee’s view of government. He said, “The problem with someone like Huckabee is that he much like, in my mind, a liberal sees no dogmatic constitutional limits on the “do-goodery” of the federal government. Whatever he thinks is the right thing for the federal government to do, if he thinks there’s a good thing that can be done by the federal government, he wants the federal government to do it whether it’s constitutional or in accordance with principles of limited government. And maybe what he wants to isn’t what a cultural liberal would want to do but he still wants to use the government the same way. It’s big government conservatism.”

This is your candidate, Mr. Boortz. I haven’t even touched on his social authoritarianism and nanny-statism, his comments about AIDS patients and homosexuality, his commutations, his ethics issues or the Wayne Dumond scandal. This is just limited to his fiscal record. And please don’t hand me the ramblings of a political mercenary as a response.

I know that if you happen read this, you’ll probably just brush it aside and continue your blind support for Mike Huckabee based solely on the FairTax, no matter how irresponsible and dangerous it is. It’s no different than a religious collectivist basing their vote on the issue of abortion or someone basing their vote due to their opposition of the war in Iraq. You have made yourself into a single issue voter.

It disappoints me to no end that someone who introduced me to the ideals of liberty and principle can abandon those beliefs so quickly due to his stance over one issue to support the candidacy of someone who antithesis of those values. Mike Huckabee is no fiscal conservative. He is no believer in limited government…and he is playing you for a fool.

FacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponEmailWordPressShare
  • Ken H

    Well said, Jason. Well said.

  • David Smith

    As a lifelong conservative and resident of Arkansas, I can say of your analysis only that it is both incomplete and incompetent. In fairness, the national media is at least as much to blame as you are — they are, after all, responsible for spreading the lies. Fox News has chosen their candidate and have literally smeared Huckabee as he has risen against their wishes.

    While it is true that Huckabee oversaw the raising of taxes here during his 10 years in office, it is also true that after years of government under the likes of Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker, our highways and interstates had deteriorated to the point it was literally like driving gravel roads. Arkansas interstates were deemed the worst in the nation by truckers. When Huckabee left office, they were voted “most improved”, and they were, in fact. Huckabee’s ARKIDS First program has been tremendously successful at getting preventative primary care for children which saves money on the other end.

    Huckabee tax increases tended to come with very specific objectives. When he left office, the state did have a $1 Billion surplus, which he recommended should be returned to taxpayers.

    It is also important to keep in mind that during his tenure, ALL states taxes increased — not just Arkansas’.

    What, precisely, has Huckabee discussed that would make the Federal government bigger? The FairTax would do more to control the Federal government than anything ANYONE else is suggesting. Huckabee has repeatedly stated that it starts with control of spending. What, exactly, leads you to believe Huckabee favors a big Federal government?

    Huckabee has been the target of a smear campaign by Republicans who do not want the true “compassionate” conservatism Huckabee offers. But there IS a place for it, and Huckabee has shown he can walk the walk.

    There is so much you are so wrong about. In fairness, you are wrong because you have been misled by a media who has chosen its candidates.

    In closing, I will say this: I find it easy to ignore the misrepresentations of the media, because I have lived it. Mike Huckabee has more integrity in his little finger than all the other candidates have, combined (and I happen to think the Republican field is very strong this year). He is a fundamentally decent individual who has a positive track record of accomplishment.

    Avoid the media accounts and do your own homework. In my 55 years, I have not seen a governor who occupied the office with as much qualification and dignity as Mike Huckabee.

  • http://jasonpye.com/ Jason Pye

    Avoid the media accounts and do your own homework.

    I don’t watch the news. I don’t like Fox News.

    I did my homework. This is the result it.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

    In my 55 years, I have not seen a governor who occupied the office with as much qualification and dignity as Mike Huckabee.

    Says a lot for Arkansas doesn’t it David.

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    Boortz lost me when he came out and advocated that Opie and Anthony should be fired for something one of their guests (a homeless guy) said on frickin’ satellite radio. He deemed it too offensive and “a threat to us all.” When you consider speech on a comedy radio show to be “a threat to us all,” you lose the right to look yourself in the mirror and call yourself a libertarian/classical liberal.

    I don’t know how he used to be, but between that incident and the Huckabee endorsement, not to mention his embrace of waterboarding, I have a hard time distinguishing him from any other Republican hack these days.

    Just because someone calls themselves a libertarian/classical liberal doesn’t make them so.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/ Brad Warbiany

    David,

    Do you think that someone who advocates a national smoking ban is friendly to libertarianism?

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/ Brad Warbiany

    Jason,

    Excellent post… I had no idea Boortz supported Huckabee. I know he’s a huge FairTax proponent, but like you I can’t imagine him getting behind Huckabee with all his other baggage, even for an issue that is so important to him.

  • http://www.jamesbell.wordpress.com James Bell

    Good one Jason Pye, the sad fact is a lot of voters are one issue voters. Neal’s 2nd “FairTax” book will be out in Feb. and he is trying to sale a few books. At what cost? I will continue supporting Ron Paul. He is the only candidate I truth with my freedom. I might even support a PAUL/HUCKABEE ticket. American is not ready for another 4-8 years of the Clinton Clan. My neighbor told me that God was going to “punish our nation” if we didn’t change. I pray Hillary is not our punishment! JB

  • http://www.sr2.org Sean R Reid

    Huckabee “talks” to God.

    If I wanted to reduce it all to a single issue, that would be enough for me. As an agnostic person, the rise of the Christian Right scares me almost as much as the rise of the Communist Left.

    The fact that he’s more of the same from the Republican “compassionate conservatism” big-growth, big-government establishment just makes it that much easier to look the other way.

    I stopped listening to Boortz about the same time I stopped listening to Hannity. Once the substance was replaced with shilling, even for something I support (Fair Tax), I could no longer offer my support.

    -SRR

  • illumineer

    At this point the only solution to our various predicaments, made worse by people like the commenters below/above who don’t really seem to have a clue what they’re talking about beyond bashing one another and everyone else who doesn’t agree with one ridiculous position or another (though the FairTax is desperately needed if this country has any chance of surviving much longer), is to overthrow the current system and replace it with one that actually represents the people like was originally intended. We’re going to need another civil war to do this I’m afraid.

  • mark m

    I love Neal, I love Huck, I love the FairTax !!! Go HUCK GO !!!

  • Pingback: Third Party Watch » Blog Archive » Letter to Neil Boorz Challenging His Huckabee Support()

  • http://gordonunleashed.com Stephen Gordon

    As a resident of another southern state with a big-government Republican holding the reins, I applaud this article.

    In Alabama, REPUBLICAN Governor Riley tried to implement the largest tax increase in state history. Specifically, he tried to raise taxes in the name of Jesus.

    Fortunately, in Alabama the issue was handled as a constitutional amendment and the voters rejected it 2-1.

    We don’t have the luxury of voting against tax increases at the federal level. We don’t need Huckabee’s pro-tax rhetoric (and unwillingness to veto tax bills) coming from the White House, especially if the Dems maintain control of Congress.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/author/stephen/ Stephen Littau

    Jason:

    I was also unaware that Boortz had endorsed Huckabee. I know he’s said a lot of positive things about him though. Because I am a big supporter of the FairTax, I was seriously considering Huckabee (couldn’t support Tancredo because he’s a nut; Duncan Hunter has no chance at the nomination).

    But after reading some of your posts and Kevin’s posts on Huckabee, I began to take a closer look. He seems to be a cross between Lou Dobbs and Pat Robertson – the worst of both worlds in my mind. He also reminds me too much of Bill Clinton in the way he aviods tough questions with his charm and humor (he is a very likeable guy).

    I’ve determined that Huckabee’s support for the FairTax is not enough to win my support. If Huckabee somehow did win the Whitehouse, I think the FairTax would go the way of Bush’s Social Security reform proposal only with even less support in the Democrat controlled congress.

    At this point, I think I have narrowed my choices down to Ron Paul or none of the above. I’m about 90% sure I will support Ron Paul despite my disagreements with him on how to handle Iraq.

  • mark m

    Huckabee is SO popular and smart, I think anti-Hucks may be the ones we should be suspicious of, since REAL media outlets on TV and RADIO love Huck SO much. Lets keep an eye out for those lieing propagandists who can’t validate ONE story against Huck. With me???

  • http://jasonpye.com/ Jason Pye

    Wow, you’re a nut job.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/author/stephen/ Stephen Littau

    It appears that its not just Ron Paul who has nut job supporters (as some would have us believe).

  • http://None PapaJack

    I am a strong supporter of the FairTax — so strong in fact that I would support most any Republican, Independent, or Libertarian (but no DemocRAT — and not Ron Paul) for President who would push for the adoption of the FairTax. I will not attempt to repeat the advantages of the FairTax here — most everyone who is at all aware of the FairTax already knows its Pro’s and Con’s (most of which, as to the Con’s, are not at all well founded — and some are pure and simple lies).

  • http://None PapaJack

    Response to Stephen Gordon:
    How can you possibly categorize Huckabee’s rhetoric as pro-tax when he is such a supporter of the FairTax that would eliminate the Income Tax and the IRS entirely, as well as all other Federal Taxes?

  • http://None PapaJack

    This is an Open Letter to Neal Boortz:
    Hi Neal, as you can see from my earlier comments I am a strong supporter of the FairTax.
    I am also familiar with the positions taken by the detractors (most if not all of which are at best mistaken, and at worst, outright deliberate lies), primarily as to their contention that the 23% is really 30%. Well, I agree that it is NOT, but who cares if it is? Don’t the detractors know that the top two brackets in the current income tax structure are already well over 30% (the top bracket being already 35%) and the DemocRATS are determined to increase the brackets even higher.
    Another of their contentions against the FairTax is that it lends itself to the strong possibility of fraud in the avoidance of it. Again, don’t they know that the current system is already fraught with fraudulent avoidances of it?
    To me, one of the beauties of the FairTax is that we become in total control of what we pay in taxes and when we pay it. When I go shopping under the FairTax I will not worry about how much profit the retailer is making (because I don’t worry about that now) – all I want to know is what is the cost and can I afford it, or, even if I can afford it am I willing to pay that for it. That same thing will continue to apply under the FairTax.
    Along these same lines, whatever I make I can keep if I really want to. Example: Lets say I make $2000 a month. Under the present system I may not get more than half of that – with the balance being withheld for the various taxes that apply. But under the FairTax I will get and can put the whole $2000 in cash in my pocket.
    Then I go shopping. If I find something that I want and am willing to pay for, I purchase it and will thus have paid a tax that goes to the Government. But if I decide not to buy it, I walk out with the full $2000 still in my pocket.
    Under the present system I don’t have that choice. Whether or not I buy that product I have already been required to pay a burdensome tax on the $2000 at the outset by the withholding of the tax and reducing my check accordingly – so I never even see it.
    Of course, the FairTax has many, many other advantages over the present system, and I am aware of them, but will not attempt to list them all here.
    By the way, I am looking forward to getting a copy of your new book that will put all of the detractors in their place, including that nutcase who writes for the Atlanta Constipation (don’t remember his name).

  • http://jasonpye.com/ Jason Pye

    How can you possibly categorize Huckabee’s rhetoric as pro-tax…

    Because he raised taxes to the tune of $500 million while Governor of Arkansas.

    He never attempted any sort of tax reform while Governor of Arkansas. He sees a populist movement using its supporters in an attempt to get elected.

    Huckabee has a history of changing positions, much like Romney. He’ll drop the whole concept of a NRST if elected.

  • http://None PapaJack

    Jason: Not impressed by your argument which does not address current rhetoric which is totally FairTax. FairTax was not an alternative when he was governor.
    I give him credit for recognizing it as an improvement over the current system, and adopting it now as his preferred tax method. Why can’t you?? Have you ever changed your mind about anything?? Or have you always been perfect??

  • http://None PapaJack

    Jason:
    I reviewed comments back to your open letter to Mr. Boortz, and offer the following in connection therewith:

    First, you say that Huckabee offers no plan to reform unfunded liabilities such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. This shows how wrong you are about the facts (makes me wonder what your so-called “homework” consisted of). The FairTax, which you know he strongly supports, would completely fund all of these things, thus solving all the problems about their survival.

    You then say that Huckabee is playing Boortz for a fool. On behalf of Mr. Boortz, who is NOT a fool, I resent that statement.

    Your response to David was that you never watch the news. No wonder that you are so ill informed. You also say you don’t like Fox – but how do you know if you don’t watch the news?? By the way, what did your “homework” consist of anyway??

    All in all, your comments and those of your supporters (agnostics, liberals, and the like) make me think that, if there are fools at large, and knowing that Mr. Boortz is NOT a fool, then perhaps its you and your crowd who are the fools.

  • http://None PapaJack

    No response Jason???

  • http://None PapaJack

    Jason:

    I agree with you that you are opinionated, which is OK if you are right, but a terrible problem if you are always wrong. Straighten up and fly right.

  • http://None PapaJack

    Looks like Jason is not only opinionated but also gutless.

  • http://jasonpye.com/ Jason Pye

    The FairTax, which you know he strongly supports, would completely fund all of these things, thus solving all the problems about their survival.

    First of all, I own the Fair Tax book and have it on CD. I’ve read it. I think it’s a good theory, but it won’t ever pass Congress as it was introduced and in all likelihood, we’d wind up with a hybrid the income tax and sales tax.

    With any tax reform proposal, there must be spending reform and a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. The Fair Tax does not do that.

    The unfunded liabilities that face the three major entitlements are massive. Pulling talking points out of Boortz and Linder’s book isn’t going to score points with me or impress me.

    You then say that Huckabee is playing Boortz for a fool. On behalf of Mr. Boortz, who is NOT a fool, I resent that statement.

    You can “resent” it all you want, but it’s true.

    You also say you don’t like Fox – but how do you know if you don’t watch the news??

    Previous experiences.

    Your response to David was that you never watch the news.

    I don’t watch the news. I read. All of the news I get comes through my RSS feeder. It ranges from the AJC (my hometown paper) to Drudge, Fox News Online, Real Clear Politics, CNN and so on.

    All in all, your comments and those of your supporters (agnostics, liberals, and the like) make me think that, if there are fools at large, and knowing that Mr. Boortz is NOT a fool, then perhaps its you and your crowd who are the fools.

    Don’t make assumptions. I am a Christian, not an agnostic, atheist or liberal (at least not in the present definition of the word).

    Boortz has clearly ignored the record of Mike Huckabee. He is a classic tax-and-spender.

    You cannot refute the substance of the letter and offer nothing more than a lame response back.

    Not impressed by your argument which does not address current rhetoric which is totally FairTax. FairTax was not an alternative when he was governor.

    In my home state, we are currently discussing methods of tax reform…everything from eliminating the state’s income tax to eliminating the property tax and exemptions for the state sales tax to make up for lost revenue. Most of these ideas were/are driven by supporters of the Fair Tax proposal.

    Huckabee’s failure to even initiate a discussion about tax reform while he was Governor is what makes me doubt his sincerity.

    He sees people like yourself who are blinded by this rhetoric (and while I don’t agree with much of what Jay Bookman wrote today in the AJC, but he has a point about the organization and its supporter being similar to a cult) and knows that there is an instant base of support, and all he has to do is play along.

    Here is the bottomline, the Fair Tax proposal is not worth putting an unprincipled person in office and that is one thing that is clear about Huckabee. Outside of Mitt Romney, he has no principles. He is a tax-and-spend populist that is banking on the support of social conservatives and people, like yourself, who cannot seem to think on their own without running to a talk show host for a talking point.

    Looks like Jason is not only opinionated but also gutless.

    It’s the holidays. I’m relaxing, listening to some music and reading. I’m not going to drop everything to get online and debate some guy I don’t know, who doesn’t offer any real response but insults and lame talking points.

    Consider this my last response to you.

  • http://None PapaJack

    By the way Jason, what have you ever done for this country??

    I served in WWII. I volunteered at the age of 17 into the Marines. Qualified for flight training and was transferred to the Navy for that training (the Marines have no flight training program) with the understanding that I would come out as a Marine officer. Fortunately for me the war ended before I completed my flight training, but I was ready to go whenever and wherever needed if it had not so ended. What did you do you turkey?

  • http://None PapaJack

    Jason:
    I had not read your response when I sent in my last comment, but your comments leave me cold. You say I made assumptions. Ok, look back over your comments == they are fraught with your assumptions that you know what the future holds. I.e., this will happen if Huckabee is elected, this won’t happen, etc. But you surely must recognize that you can no more read the future than I can. I, though, am willing to give it a try and you are not. Wake up man, you are not this country’s saving Guru.

  • http://None PapaJack

    I see also that you say your response was your last response to me. That proves you are gutless, and you know you can’t debate me on the subject. OK, then go and hide under the nearest rock and SHUT UP, and let the rest of us try to save this great country.

  • http://None PapaJack

    Yours is the typical response of the DemocRATs and other Liberals who are out to destroy this country. That is, you refuse to debate the subject. OK, that really shows your colors. No response from you is needed. You are not worth it.

  • http://www.orderhotlunch.com Jeff Molby

    Take care, PapaJack. It was nice meeting you.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/ Brad Warbiany

    PapaJack,

    Here’s the deal. I’m a fan of the FairTax as written. In fact, you can look at some of my previous writings on The Fairtax Blog, although I haven’t posted over there for quite some time.

    However, I stand by what Jason has written about Boortz. Basically, Boortz is throwing out all of his beliefs, save one: support for the FairTax. If Boortz believes that having Huckabee in power will bring about the passage of the FairTax, and is willing to take all of the bad parts of Huckabee along with that, then that’s his decision.

    Personally, I don’t believe that Huckabee being elected will lead to the passage of the FairTax. And even if it did, much of Huck’s platform scares the hell out of me. I’m a libertarian, which largely means I believe in fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. Huckabee is a big-government social conservative, which means that his fiscal policies (using government funds to accomplish his social goals) are exactly opposite of my beliefs. And his social policies, such as a nationwide smoking ban, show that he’s willing to sacrifice civil liberties and personal freedom if he believes he knows whats best for you.

    You can throw out ad hominem attacks on Jason all you want, or you can act as if your WWII service, noble though it is, makes you an expert on government. But none of that changes the fact that I, much like (I assume) Jason, does not view the FairTax as an important enough issue that it will cause us to ignore all the BIG RED FLAGS in the little we’ve seen from Huck.

  • http://None PapaJack

    Who the H…, are you Brad == Can’t the gutless Jason speak for himself??? I am disgusted with Jason and his cult members like you. I never suggested that my service to this country made me an expert on anything — I just wondered what he had ever done for this country. Has he ever done anything except bellyache? Apparently not. Now, in the same vein that you suggest about me, what can you and/or Jason come with that makes either of you an expert on government, or anything else? Huh? I await your wonderful explanation of your expert background in running this country. Wow – you and Jason make me sick. Once again — I dare the gutless nitwit Jason to come back and debate me.

  • http://None PapaJack

    To Jeff Molby:

    Thanks for your kind comment and support. Hope you and yours have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

    From PapaJack

  • http://None PapaJack

    To Mr. Boortz:

    I hope you read this because I think I have a strategy that will almost if not entirely assure that Hillary will never be the President of this Country, but I don’t want to publicize it now and give her the opportunity to construct her denial denial of everything.

    Therefore, if you will send me a brief Email I will answer with my strategy.

    From PapaJack

  • http://jasonpye.com/ Jason Pye

    The reason I will not “debate” you is because you have done nothing but insult me from your very first comment. I don’t have the time or the inclination to have a conversation with someone who cannot be civil.

  • http://None PapaJack

    Jason: You hypocrite. You’re the one who started the name calling bit when you called Neal Boortz a fool. Pretty derogatory don’t you think?

    Next you call Mark M. a “nut job” — another derogatory remark.

    Next, in your reply to me about my resenting your calling Boortz a fool you said I could “resent it all I wanted to but it is true.” Thus repeating your derogatory remarks about him.

    Next, you call Huckabee “unprincipled” which is a pretty derogatory charge.

    Next you say that I am unable to think on my own.

    What makes you think you can call others names, but no-one can call you what you are??

    So, you can take your holier than thou hypocritical crap and stick it where the sun don’t shine.

    I stand by my assessment of you in that you are a gutless hypocrite.

    PapaJack

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/ Brad Warbiany

    PapaJack,

    In one line, Jason suggested that Huckabee was “playing” Boortz for a fool. Perhaps there’s an implicit assumption there that Boortz is a fool if he doesn’t change his mind, and that’s about as close to calling him a name as you can suggest.

    And to call Huckabee unprincipled? Well, how about you enlighten us what his principles are? Because as far as I can tell, his principles seem to be all in favor of big government and social policies that are in line with what he believes God wants. How much do you think those “principles” line up with anything Neal Boortz believes in? How much do those principles agree with the FairTax. Do you really believe Huck supports the Fairtax as a way to reduce the size of government, or do you think Huck sees it as a wonderful way to pay for all the new spending he wants to undertake?

    As for my level of “expertise”, when have I ever claimed to be an expert? I am a blogger and an engineer. My credibility lies in the accumulated writings I’ve put together on this blog and my personal blog over the last three years. I would like to believe that people continue to read this blog because they value what I (and my co-contributors) have to say? The price for that is dealing with drive-by commenters like yourself, who resort to name-calling at the drop of a hat.

  • http://None PapaJack

    Brad:

    You are just like all Democrats, whether or not you are a Democrat. That is you state as a fact whatever you would like the facts to be whether or not your “facts” are true.

    In this instance, you and Jason can contend that he didn’t actually call Boortz a fool, but he not only did in his first open letter to Boortz, but confirmed it later when I chastised him for that derogatory remark. That is, he said he didn’t care how much I resented it, that “it is true”. So thats twice on that one.

    As for yours and his lack of expertise and lack of competence in running this country, you apparently recognize that neither of you have either.

    In that case, this “drive-by commentator” as you call me, is just as qualified as the two of you. and perhaps more so.

    Now, I say again that I didn’t start the name-calling. Jason started it in his first open letter to Boortz, and continues it until now. But I notice that, typical of people like you and Jason, you simply choose to totally ignore his other name-calling that I specifically called attention to.

    If you and Jason choose not to reply to this that’s fine with me. I am not impressed with either of you and I don’t regard either of you as worth arguing with. You are obviously going to continue to make up your facts as you go, and there is nothing you can say that will convince me that Boortz is a fool, or that Mark is a nut case, or that I am unable to think for myself, or that I started the name-calling.

    So it suits me just fine if the two of you will just go and hide under the nearest rock and SHUT UP!! That way you can tell each other how smart you are.

    PapaJack

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/ Brad Warbiany

    PapaJack,

    Let’s face it. You’re a FairTax supporter, and you’ll vote for anyone who will support the FairTax (as you stated in one of your first comments). If that’s your position, so be it.

    As such, you’ve stated nothing about your personal beliefs (other than you apparently hate Democrats and agnostics), so I have no reason to question your support for Huckabee. You could love every other thing he believes in for all that I know.

    But not so for Boortz. I’ve listened to Boortz for many years. I’ve heard him espouse many beliefs that are directly contrary to things that I’ve heard from Huckabee. I’ve heard so many contradictions that I find it very odd that Boortz is willing to overlook those other contrary positions in favor of supporting the FairTax.

    Whether you want to discuss people being called a “fool” or not is your prerogative. I really don’t care either way. Can you debate the fact that outside of the FairTax, Huck and Boortz probably disagree on just about every issue?

  • http://None PapaJack

    OK Brad you got me on that last one. I am in no position to debate the issues that Huckabee and Boortz might disagree on because I don’t know know everything that that they agree on, nor what they might disagree on. But it really does not matter to me what else they might agree or disagree on, so long as I get my FairTax. If I can get that and I’ll take my chances from there.

    I do, however, still resent the fact that I have called uncivil, and have been accused of starting the name-calling crap, which is NOT true.

    But, if it makes you and Jason happy to continue falsely charging me with that, then hop to it. I don’t care to repeat my argument on that any further. I stand on what I have previously said about that.

    PapaJack

  • http://None PapaJack

    I guess they found that rock

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/ Brad Warbiany

    Just can’t please you, can I?

    Neither you nor I cares to continue discussing any charges of name-calling.

    The point of 99% of the post was completely outside any reference to Boortz being a fool. It was almost ENTIRELY about the fact that Boortz and Huck disagree on pretty much everything except the FairTax. You’ve agreed that you don’t know whether Boortz or Huck agree or disagree on most issues (and thus wouldn’t be in a place to even dispute whether or not Boortz was acting foolish by endorsing Huck).

    So we’re in agreement not to further argue over silly things like name-calling. Jason may have thrown out the term “nut-job”, but nobody called you anything before you started talking about us “gutless” “cult members”, acting as if being an agnostic is identical to being a Democrat. I personally resent that, as an atheist who is by no means in political agreement with the Democrats. And we’re in agreement that you don’t have enough information to determine whether the main point of the post, whether Boortz agrees with Huck enough to give an endorsement (although reading all the links in Jason’s article might tell you a lot more about Huck).

    So what do we have left to argue over? Why insinuate that I’m hiding under a rock simply because I didn’t have enough disagreement with you to merit a response?

  • http://None PapaJack

    Do I understand from your last comment that you are an atheist??

    If so, that is another issue that we are 180 degrees apart on.

    I know you have the right to believe or disbelieve anything you like, so don’t bother telling me that. Just remember that I have the same right, and, like it or not, I believe you are wrong and that you either need help now, or will eventually need some.

    I will therefore pray for you to get the help you need, when you need it, and when you want it.

    I am not joking, nor being sarcastic —- I am perfectly serious.

    Meantime, Goodbye and Good Luck — I’m gone.

    PapaJack

  • http://None PapaJack

    Brad:

    If you don’t mind, I’m back.

    Not on the same subject as before, but on the subject of your being an atheist.

    First, though, please understand that I respect your right to be an atheist, but I see parallels between us that might be of interest to you.

    After your above comment to the effect that you are an atheist, I accidentally encountered a comment by you on another blog where you elaborated some on the matter of your being an atheist.

    That other blog was on the question of whether prayers are answered. It is my recollection that you said in that comment that while an atheist, you do attend church, though perhaps not on a regular basis. And I got the impression that you would really like to believe that there is a diety but that, as of now, and in your words you “are not there yet.”

    The thing that interested me is that it appears to me that we may be more alike than I would have thought (you being an atheist and me not).

    My wife says (and I admit it) that I am the world’s worst skeptic. If I haven’t seen something with my own eyes, and if I can’t factually prove that it exists, then I have grave reservations about its existence. As an example, supernatural things like ghosts, other apparitions, books and furniture moving without anyone touching them, doors opening and closing on their own, etc. It sounds to me like you may be the same.

    Next, it dawned on me to wonder how I can be that way and yet not be an agnostic or an atheist, which I don’t like to think that I am. Yet I have never seen God, nor anything else in the realm of the supernatural (unless the part about my Palm Pilot, below, qualifies). I finally decided that somehow I was substituting faith for fact in the religious world because it made me feel better to do so.

    I have seen many crises in my day and much to my surprise I have always been able to handle them with more strength that I thought I had, including the loss of my oldest son to cancer just before Christmas. Some say that God gives you the strength to handle those circumstances, so I accepted that because it was comforting to think that was true.

    I have also adopted a philosophy of life that I got from my father who always said that everything happens for the best. Many times, though, it is difficult to understand how something bad that happens can possibly have happened for the best – but I have found that if you look hard enough you can usually see how it might have been best after all.

    In the case of my son, for instance. It may have been best for him, though not for me. He was in great pain, and had been for months. His prospect for recovery seemed to dim more and more to the point that I am convinced that he was ready to go. At the end, he physically tore the tubes out of his system (one went down his throat and into his abdomen) and then refused to let them put him in Intensive Care. He died the next day.

    Now, the nearest thing to my witnessing the supernatural, came after his death and I was on my way home from the hospital alone. My car has bucket seats up front, with a console between them consisting of a receptical for odds and ends covered by an armrest that could be raised up to expose the receptical or lowered to close it. When closed there was a narrow slit of less than an inch wide between the front of the armrest and the front of the receptical. About 6 inches in front of this and attached to the dash were the drink holders, with nothing but open space in the 6 inches between the receptical and the drink holders.

    When I got in the car, I put my Palm Pilot in one of the drink holders.

    While driving home at a moderate rate of speed, with no herky jerky motions, just smooth driving, I heard a loud clatter inside the car. I look all around and saw nothing.

    Later, I looked in the console for a Kleenex, and, low and behold, there was my Palm Pilot in the bottom of the console. I have yet to come up with a logical explanation of how it got there from the drink holder. Was it my son messing with me? It would be just like him. But if it was, nothing of that nature has ever happened again, although I tried mental telepathy to get him to do something else if it was him. I still haven’t an explanation for that. I have re-created for others the circustances that I have relayed above, and they can’t explain it either. Is it proof that there is an after life? I don’t know.

    Now, finally, as to whether prayers are answered:

    Some say that all prayers are answered, it’s just that sometimes the answer is NO. Whether that is offered as a serious answer or as a joke, I don’t know.

    If you read this and find it at all interesting, please give me the benefit of your thinking on the subject.

    Best Regards,

    PapaJack

    I apologize for the Rock remark — it was really just a poor excuse for a joke.

  • Josey2006

    I guess some folks haven’t figured out yet that Mr Boortz is neither a Libertarian nor a Conservative. He is/was/claims-to-be an attorney. And he makes a pretty penny suckering schmucks into listening to his show and buying his books.

  • http://None PapaJack

    Josey —

    I listen to Boortz’s radio show every chance I get, and I like his book on the Fairtax, all of which means you are calling me a “suckered schmuck.” I thus think you owe me, and his other listeners and proponents of his book an apology.

    You must also be a listener to his radio show, else how did you know that he has said that he was an attorney, or as you say, “is/was/claims-to-be an attorney.”

    Next, do you have any evidence to support your implication that he was NOT an attorney.

    If not, then why did you choose to throw out such a slanderous implication about him??

    Also, it sounds like you bought his book. If so, and if you do listen or have listened to his radio show, does that qualify you as a suckered schmuck??

    Its fine with me if you think of yourself in that context, but I don’t appreciate one bit your slandering me by calling me that, which you have just done.

    So, having done so, if you don’t retract that statement about me and apologize, then you’d better hope we never meet.

    PapaJack