Second Thoughts on Neal Boortz.

I should have known better.

Yesterday, I wrote a post telling how I had voted for Neal Boortz to be inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame, despite my objections to his stand on abortion. No sooner had I written that post, then Boortz went off on a screed that betrayed him to be more of a buffoon that I had previously thought.

Boortz' refuses to call those of us who are against abortion "pro-life". In his warped mind, we are simply "anti-choice" and that's it. To him, we care nothing about protecting life, we just want the government to take away a "woman's right to choose"; we want the government to hold a gun to a woman's head and force her to have a baby she doesn't want.

He says he will not discuss abortion because no one's mind will be changed by discussion (that doesn't prevent him from telling us his opinion....he just won't allow his callers to discuss the issue).

Boortz would have us believe that it is the extreme "anti-choice" element of the Republican Party that will forever prevent the Republicans from becoming a national party of consequence. He would have us believe that Obama's victory over McCain was brought about by those of us who oppose abortion.

Let's look at this realistically.

Let's suppose voter "A", for the most part, prefers the Republicans over the Democrats, but voter "A" supports "abortion rights". Boortz would have us believe that this voter will abandon the Republicans for the Democrats. It's true that voter "A" might very well leave the Republican Party, but his first choice would be the Libertarians.....not the Democrats.

In many ways, the Libertarians are closest to the Reaganesque values of smaller government, lower taxes and individual freedom. If it was the issue of abortion that was driving voters from the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party would be replacing it on the national stage.

On the contrary, many of us who want smaller government and lower taxes are reluctant to cast votes for Libertarian because of their rabid pro-abortion stance.

Unfortunately, when it comes down to selecting the President of the United States, charisma and "like-ability" has more sway with the voters than how the candidate stands on the issues. Obama had more charisma than McCain. The George Bush of 2000 and 2004 was more likable and down to earth than Al Gore or John Kerry.

Sadly, it's the perception that "this guy is like us" that makes the difference in the final count.

Ah ........... government by the people.