Alan Keyes to join the Constitution Party on Tax Day

With the recent party-switching of Mike Gravel and Bob Barr—it’s starting to look like a minor exodus of former officials from the major parties. I certainly hope so. Add Keyes’ name to the list, officially.

Im recieving trustable info from D.C. that Keyes will indeed be bolting the GOP to join the CP—and on Tax Day no less. As an added effect, Keyes will be announcing this at an event in Hazelton, PA which had a recent illegal immigration issue.

So look for April 15th to be the day, in Hazelton, PA.

EDIT: Additionally, Keyes’ website calendar now includes 6 Constitution Party state conventions.

126 Responses to “Alan Keyes to join the Constitution Party on Tax Day”

  1. Trent Hill Says:

    Its cool to be able to post BREAKING NEWS!

    Hah.

    Also, look for Keyes to bring some high-profile people with him. There is talk of him bringing over several names that were already associated with the CP.

  2. Tannim Says:

    How much salary is Keyes demanding from the CP to run for President, then?

  3. Michael Says:

    We don’t have to stay at home on November 4th!

  4. Michael Says:

    To Trent Hill, on another posting on Gravel and the LP you mentioned something about Governor Evan Mecham “having him as a former governor”. What did you mean by it and can you give more information?

  5. Jason Says:

    So Trent, this is for real? He is for sure coming over??

    I’m going to post this and link back to here.

  6. Trent Hill Says:

    Michael,

    Evan Meachem was a member of the Constitution Party for the last 4-6 years of his life and actively worked to create a Constitution Party in his state.

    So the CP had a former Governor.

  7. Trent Hill Says:

    Jason—yes. Its for real.

    Mind you, im getting this from a second-hand source. But its a close/reliable source—and one that gave lots of details.

  8. Jason Says:

    C’mon man, gimme a little more info to go on. A snippet of the email? Some dialogue from Keyes…

  9. Jason Says:

    ok, i’m going with it then…

  10. Trent Hill Says:

    No can do. April 15th, Hazelton, PA. That’s all im giving.

  11. Michael Says:

    I didn’t know that. I talked to him a number of times and he said efforts were made to draft him for the ‘92 and ‘96 nominations for president and he thought highly of the membership. However, I didn’t know he had joined. What year did he officially join the Constitution Party?

  12. Cody Quirk Says:

    Well, he’s toyed around with us long enough, this better be for real.

  13. Trent Hill Says:

    Michael—Ill try to find that out, im not sure what year.

  14. Jason Says:

    Well, I posted it the news…hopefully it sticks…

  15. Jason Says:

    I added a favorable youtube video of Keyes. I’m actually kind of giddy..and very interested in his and the CP’s plans.

  16. Red Phillips Says:

    DON’T DO IT CP! DON’T DO IT! The country already has two pro-war and pro-intervention parties.

  17. Promoting Faith for War Says:

    I remember Alan Keyes debating Alan Dershowitz on the purpose of faith before an audience at Franklin & Marshall College in 2000, which was broadcast on C-SPAN.

    It was a great debate to watch, but Keyes’ rhetorical talents were wasted on the argument that religious faith is necessary to bamboozle people to sacrifice their lives when the State wants to go to war.

    Given that organized religion is the welfare-warfare State’s handmaiden, the Constitution Party and its Biblical law agenda is a good home for Keyes.

  18. Gary Odom Says:

    Red Phillips Says:

    March 27th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
    DON’T DO IT CP! DON’T DO IT! The country already has two pro-war and pro-intervention parties.

    So, do what people in politics do: Instead of standing on the sidelines jumping up and down and complaining, Georgia should send a full delegation to have it’s say and vote for who it wants. Same for every other state.

    (This is to everyone in the CP—it’s certainly NOT just directed Red or Georgia) Don’t give me this OH, OH, OH—“its just too expensive, It’s so far—I got kids, I got bills, I got… blah, blah, blah.” What about the patriots who were willing to sacrifice their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor? Or is it really just all about being political voyuers, watching and talking?

    If you like Keyes, come and support him. If you don’t like Keyes come and support someone else of your own choosing and support the platform you want. The thing is: It’s your party! Get involved.

    Chatting here should in no way be confused with political activity.

  19. Red Phillips Says:

    Gary, I highly suspect that all this internet chatter has the CP leadership concerned. They are blind if it doesn’t. So complaining on here is a form of activism. I very much hope to come to KC. It is an issue of getting off work.

    If I come, look me up. I’ll be the yahoo in the shirt that says “No Nomination for Lincoln Loving, Straussian, Pro-War, Interventionists Neocons.” Or maybe the shirt that says, “We already have two neocon parties. Why do we need another?” or perhaps “Keep the Party Paleo.”

    :-)

  20. Brent Burk Says:

    I would rather see an anti-war theocratic candidate than a pro-war one. (What’s his position on Patriot Act, MCA, Torture, Empire, etc?)

  21. Ronald Monroe Says:

    I agree with Gary, if you are keen on Keyes, come and support him. If you don’t like Keyes come and support another. It is imperative that each state has as many delegates and alternates there as possible. We need to have a very generous turn – out it the National Convention.

    I feel at is my patriotic duty to be at the convention. I know it will be difficult for some of us to spend the time, money and effort, but our country need us to make the effort at this time.

  22. Trent Hill Says:

    “Keep the Party Paleo.”

    I like that one alot.

  23. Trent Hill Says:

    My biggest question to Red Phillips is this: Who else?

    Id love to see you draft someone. I’d even help on it—but I see no real option.
    Red,send me an email or post here about any drafting possibilities.

  24. Tom Hoefling Says:

    Excerpt from an America’s Revival email that went out this morning:

    Important campaign news

    March 27, 2008

    As most of you know by now, Alan Keyes has departed from the Republican Party, or, more properly, the Republican Party has departed from him. He is now looking to the Constitution Party.

    The Constitution Party’s members have labored in the conservative vineyard for many years, selflessly devoting themselves to the cause of restoring our republican form of self-government and defending our liberty, and at long last, the day has arrived for the rest of the conservative movement — including us — to join them.

    Tuesday night, we were joined on our national conference call by CP Chairman Jim Clymer and several of the great men and women who work with him. He graciously took questions, answering them all very straightforwardly and thoroughly. Those of you who missed it missed out on a very edifying conversation.

    Historic Keyes announcement April 15 in Hazelton, PA!

    On Tuesday evening, April 15, in Hazleton, PA, Alan Keyes will be holding a major press conference to lay out his principled reasons for leaving the party he has belonged to and supported his entire adult life, including the years he served so ably in the Reagan administration.

    The Hazleton event will be live-streamed on the internet, and we’re asking each of you to set aside the time needed to tune in for this historic speech. And of course, we’re asking you to help us get as many other fellow Americans to watch and listen as is possible. Look for more information concerning this important event at AlanKeyes.com.

    Time to go to work!

    In the meantime, there is much work to be done. In many states, there is still time and opportunity for you to become a delegate to the Constitution Party National Convention to be held in Kansas City, MO, April 23-26. But time is short, so you should act immediately.

    Information about joining the CP, becoming a national delegate, or simply being a guest at the Kansas City convention can be found at www.constitutionparty.com Once you’re there, click on the “state parties” link, which will take you to a page with a U.S. map. Click on your state, and you will find complete contact information for your state party leadership.

    In about half the states, ballot access for the CP presidential ticket has already been earned, or is very close to being complete. In the other states, work must still be done to make the ballot. A few states have very large numbers of petition signatures to be gathered, to guarantee that the CP candidate will be on the ballot in November. When you talk to your CP leaders, please immediately inquire about the need for volunteers to get this done quickly, where necessary.

    God bless you and yours,

    Tom Hoefling
    National Political Director
    Alan Keyes for President

  25. theCardinal Says:

    Keyes now prominently displays a Constitution Party logo on his site – it’s one one of the first things you see on the site. Why bother waiting till April 15? I may not be a huge CP fan but I am glad they are getting a better candidate than before. The paleos need an established party to call home.

  26. Throwback USA Says:

    I voted for the Michael Peroutka/Chuck Baldwin ticket in 2004. The CP has never had a better opportunity than in 2008. But with all due respect to Gary Odom, and those in the constitution party hierarchy I don’t understand how you can’t see the controlled opposition tool that Alan Keyes and his reprobate supporters are.

    This man was a carpetbagger who went to Illinois to get beaten by Barack Hussein Osama, and made statements about exempting only blacks from income tax in that campaign. He also was roommates with antichrist vile piece of human garbage Bill Kristol. He also was an ambassador to the UN. No real consitutionalist would even talk to that murderous whore organization. He also ran in the same years as Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul(real patriots) for no good reason. Also if he gets into debates he’s a punchline waiting to happen. Lastly his position on the war is unconstitutional and shows a lack of concern for the soliders after his kids aren’t fighting. Who cares if soliders offspring comes out disabled because their exposure to depleted uranium gotta get those US funded islamo-fascists.

    If the CP nominates Alan Keyes or even allows this to be entertained the CP will continue to be a nominal party. Nominate anyone else, even if a real constitutionalist and organize the party behind them. Develop candidates at the local level as well. Your not winning in 2008 anyway, so don’t nominate a controlled opposition clown that will take the party back decades.

    THE LORD REBUKES ALAN KEYES!

  27. Trent Hill Says:

    “Your not winning in 2008 anyway, so don’t nominate a controlled opposition clown that will take the party back decades”

    Its funny you said that. The reason im open to a Keyes candidacy is precisely because he wont win—but he WILL dramatically increase media access, voter numbers, and donor rolls for future CP campaigns. Long-term its a very good investment. Short term,its hurting.

  28. Red Phillips Says:

    “The paleos need an established party to call home.”

    The Cardinal,

    What are you talking about? Paleos do need a home. That is precisely why Keyes should not be the nominee. He is a neocon.

  29. Red Phillips Says:

    Trent, here is what I think needs to happen. It is not a case of you can’t beat something with nothing. It is a case that there should be a threshold for what makes an acceptable candidate. The Party leadership should realize that Keyes is unacceptable on many issues and make it very clear to him that if he attempts to seek the nomination the leadership will oppose him. Then the leadership gets together and hangs the nomination around someone’s neck. A longtime party activist. A state chairman. ANYONE who is broadly acceptable. The person will be a placeholder candidate and 2008 will just not be the party’s year. But the brand will not be tainted. Keyes will taint the brand.

    What bothers me is that the leadership seems OK with Keyes. That has me dumbfounded.

    What would the leadership do if a pro-choicer looked likely to win the nomination? They would throw down all the stops to prevent it. They should do the same thing to stop Keyes. He is just not an acceptable candidate anymore than a pro-choicer would be.

  30. Tom Hoefling Says:

    Sorry Red. Alan Keyes is neither “neocon” nor “paleocon.” He’s simply conservative.

    Your comparing him with a pro-abort, just because you have policy differences with him, is especially offensive, considering the fact that Dr. Keyes is the most effective and eloquent champion for the unborn in America today.

  31. Trent Hill Says:

    Red,

    Im getting reports that various people in leadership positions DO oppose him, but dont see another option. Several other options are being considered, but the foremost option is this: Helping Keyes come to a paleo-point of view.
    Ultimately, this is in the hands of the delegates. I fully expect people to show up in KC ready for a floor-fight, I certainly am ready for one.

    Im also doing my best to recruit more candidates. Any other suggestions Red? You’ve got to be able to draft someone as another option if you want to oppose Keyes. Bryan Malatesta probably would have been an easy person, but he’s a big supporter of Keyes. Stufflebeam is another one of those guys who always rants about how we need someone from INSIDE the party as a candidate,but he is also a fan of Keyes. Baldwin wont run, Corsi you find unacceptable.

    You option is basically Grundmann.

    Keyes is against nation building and against “spreading democracy”. He’s pro-war in iraq only because he believes that is the best way to fight terrorists. This is not a non-interventionist stance, but its far LESS interventionist than your average modern-conservative.

  32. Trent Hill Says:

    Once again ill say this Red: Instead of opposing Keyes, with no candidate to place in his stead—you should attempt to force a compromise.

  33. Trent Hill Says:

    “Sorry Red. Alan Keyes is neither “neocon” nor “paleocon.” He’s simply conservative.”

    Tom,

    I believe that is the biggest problem. We are not the party of conservatism. We are the party of constitutionalism. Keyes’ foriegn policy and foriegn aid issues are the biggest problems to the paleoconservatives/constitutionalists of the CP.

  34. Ronald Monroe Says:

    Tom, be a delegate to the National Convention. We need your input there. It is hard to totally agree with all of anyone or any parties platform in its entirety. We need every loyal Constitution Party member working for whichever delegate they decide on. But ait is important that we have a large turn-out to hear the nominees and decide for our self’s.

  35. Red Phillips Says:

    Tom, what is a neocon philosophically speaking, not just policy wise? Keyes is one. Sorry. He got his PhD under Mansfield (sp?) and calls Bloom his biggest mentor. He is a proposition nation supporter. His “Declarationism” is pure Straussian nonsense. He attacked DiLorenzo. Read the stuff on his website regarding DiLorenzo’s book. Again I say – NEOCON.

    If you are going to argue with me, bring facts. Not indignation.

    Trent, I’m not buying that if Phillips and others publicly opposed Keyes that he would just be able to bigfoot the nomination against their opposition. Who am I? How is it my responsibility to find someone to run for President of the United States? THIS IS A FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP ISSUE. LEADERSHIP NEEDS TO SEE TO IT THAT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN.

  36. Red Phillips Says:

    Tom, I agree that Dr. Keyes is sound on the abortion issue, but he is not “pro-life” because he apparently thinks it is OK to launch aggressive, pre-emptive wars in absolute violation of Christian Just War Theory.

  37. Sean Scallon Says:

    The candidates who are on the party’s list of presidential hopefuls need to come forth to say who is running and who isn’t. It’s not fair to the convention delegates to have no clear idea who’s really running for the nomination and the weigh those options. The party leadership needs to ask people on that list do you wish to have your name put in nomination or not? I’m hearing too much “well he can’t run” or “he doesn’t want to run”. Who says or who really knows? Until someone says unequivocally “I’m am not running, please do not nominate me” or “I am running” this all just speculation at this point, especially when it comes to Judge Moore’s intentions.

    Even Rev. Baldwin has recently said that Alan Keyes needs to clarify his views on foreign policy. Some of those views are in direct contradiction to the party platform. Again I say to CP supporters, if you nominate Keyes, I don’t want to ever see anyone pick on poor Chris Hansen again about how the Nevada IAP isn’t 100% pure on the abortion issue when you’re conisdering the nomination of a man who completly supports this disasterous war in Iraq for the very same reasons that neocon Bill Kristol supports it.

    Can you imagine what Kristol’s reaction would be if he found out the supposedly paleo CP nominated his old college roomate? A good chuckle.

  38. SovereignMN Says:

    Trent Hill says “Its funny you said that. The reason im open to a Keyes candidacy is precisely because he wont win—but he WILL dramatically increase media access, voter numbers, and donor rolls for future CP campaigns. Long-term its a very good investment. Short term,its hurting.”

    Trent, I must respectfully disagree with you here. I see it as total opposite. Keyes as the CP nominee would be a big benefit short term, but long term I think it could hurt.

    Short term the media will will cover Keyes and boost the CP numbers and bankroll. But long-term I fear one of 2 things will happen:
    1) Keyes will have success, the CP will grow and the non-interventionist/foreign policy plank of the CP will be lost. The CP would be nothing more than a pro-life Republican party.
    2) Keyes will flop, abandon the party and force us to spend the coming years trying to regain credibility on foreign policy issues.

  39. Travis Maddox Says:

    I am still not in favor of Keyes. We as a Party talk about Principles all the time, how principle is it to nominate someone who is pro-war, pro-UN, pro-reparations. He has had a long time to join the Party. If he really had our best interests in mind he would have done so long ago. He is doing this for his ego. WE MUST NOT COMPROMISE! We will loose at lot of supporters, I feel more than we would gain. He only has 5000 or so people behind him. The only media attention will be mocking him because he has become a joke to the media. I would rather nominate Pastor Chuck and know that we would have to work harder for the money and media than to take Keyes and compromise on any of those issues. Keyes will also cost us a lot of southern support and not because he’s black but because of his stance on reporation. I am a delegate for MO and I cannot vote for him.

  40. Travis Maddox Says:

    I encourage all delegates to stand on what you beleive. This is a great time for our party not a time to let things like this divide us. I am not for Keyes nomination but I am for the Constitution Party and that is what I will work for. We will have our chance to hear the potential nominees in KC that is where we need to do our disscussing on who we will choose. Let us not get so involved in debating that we loose focus and cause a division in the Party. Stand on what you believe in and fight for that. I appologize if my previous statments seemed harsh. I do not want to bring negativity to the Party only caution in who we vote for. Regardless of who is in the top spot this will be a great year for our party!

  41. David Gaines Says:

    Hazleton, Pennsylvania, that bastion of clear thinking and a town that refuses to back down from its firmly held and, apparently, divinely-inspired insistence that (don’t laugh) ferrets are wild, dangerous beasts unfit to cohabitate with human beings. You can buy a houseful of ferret food, ferret toys, ferret cages, and ferret hammocks at any pet store in Hazleton, but you can’t have a ferret in your house in Hazleton. Most any town in northeast Pennsylvania has no problem with it, but Hazleton – as with the undocumented immigrant issue – knows better.

    Good choice, Dr. Keyes.

  42. Ronald Monroe Says:

    I am interested in moving the party forward, It less we have a lot of people in the discussion now. Will this move us forward , I hope so. Will this discussion hurt us! I don’t think so. Don’t you think we owe it to Mr. Keyes and our Country to hear him speak at the National Convention befor we judge him.

    I have a question to ask, how many of you will be at the National Convention. I hope all Constitution Party members who read these few words, will be at the National Convention.

  43. SovereignMN Says:

    1. I will be at the national convention.
    2. Nobody is saying that Keyes should not be allowed to seek our nomination and address the convention. We just want to get to the bottom of where he stands on some important issues so we are prepared for the convention.

  44. Red Phillips Says:

    Trent, how does a name get put into nomination? Does one state have to do it? Can any delegate?

    Like I said before, Trent, make sure the Party Leadership are reading these threads.

    And right you are Sean. No one can say boo to Chris Hansen if we nominate this platform buster.

  45. Trent Hill Says:

    Soveriegn,

    Agreed. Keyes should be allowed to make his case. Furthermore, delegates who disagree on this issue should address Keyes and each other,with respect.

  46. Paleo Pete Says:

    Red, I suspect that Tom Hoefling had to Google “Mansfield,” “Bloom,” “proposition nation,” and “DiLorenzo” after he read your post. Then he probably had to run ask his Lincoln jock riding boss why anyone would object to them. Modern “conservatives” are so clueless.

  47. SovereignMN Says:

    Trent, I think you’ll see respect at the convention. I think most CPers respect Keyes, especially for his pro-life stance. People tend to talk more boisterous online than they would in person.

  48. Red Phillips Says:

    Trent, did Keyes treat DiLorenzo with respect? I will treat Keyes with respect in person. I try to be a Southern Gentleman. I hope I am not being disrespectful now to Keyes as a person. On most issues he is much better than most Republicans and most “conservatives.” I am just adamently opposed to some of his ideas. All read this.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo14.html

    Paul Craig Roberts based his column on well-documented facts as presented in The Real Lincoln. In response to these facts, in a recent WorldNetDaily column the insufferably sanctimonious Alan Keyes described people like myself, Paul Craig Roberts, Walter Williams, Joe Sobran, Charles Adams, Jeffrey Rogers Hummell, Doug Bandow, Ebony magazine editor Lerone Bennett, Jr., and other Lincoln critics as “pseudo-learned scribblers,” with an “incapacity to recognize moral purpose” who display “uncomprehending pettiness,” are “dishonest,” and, once again, his favorite word for all who disagree with him: “ignorant.”

    The Lincoln issue caused Keyes not to join the CP in the past. What has changed.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/015333.html

    Howard Phillips once told me that Keyes turned down his request to join the Constitution Party, where Ron would be perfectly comfortable, because of only one thing he (Keyes) disagreed with vehemently: Howard is strongly anti-Lincoln.

  49. Trent Hill Says:

    Red,

    The Lincoln issue is one of many. To me, it is of VERY little importance. On the campaign trail and elsewhere—very few people will ask him his opinion of Lincoln. Once again ill say, this does us a favor—it dispels the myth that we’re all neo-confederates or racists.
    As for Phillips, Clymer, all of them—I know they have reservations too. And I suspect Keyes knows that.

  50. Red Phillips Says:

    Trent, like I said, if someone says you are a racist respond by saying “No I am not.” We need to face down the PC Gestapo, not give into them. And what is wrong with being a neo-confederate? The fact is, of all the people I personally know in Georgia who are sympathetic to the CP, most are League of the South people. You can’t dis your base.

    Howard Phillips needs to publicly say on the record that Keyes is not in line with the platform, and he doesn’t support him. I think that alone would make this whole potential nightmare go away.

  51. Trent Hill Says:

    “The fact is, of all the people I personally know in Georgia who are sympathetic to the CP, most are League of the South people. You can’t dis your base.”

    I dont like our base. Its small,and many of them give us a bad image/no progress.
    I want to EXPAND our base.

    As for Howard Phillips, he’ll say what he needs to. I think he’ll say that although Keyes isnt in line on foreign policy,he’s a good candidate.

  52. Ronald Monroe Says:

    I am all for encouraging all delegates to come to the convention with a open mind. I am so glade we will have a fair opportunity to hear each potential nominees in KC.

    But now is the time to build our infrastructure in each state and encourage our members to form local chapters to be ready to work for the election. I know all of us don’t want to bring negativity to the National Convention.

  53. Jason Says:

    “I dont like our base. Its small,and many of them give us a bad image/no progress.
    I want to EXPAND our base.”

    Precisely. you’ll get a slew of people like myself.

  54. Red Phillips Says:

    Precisely. you’ll get a slew of people like myself.

    Jason, are you pro-Iraq War and pro-intervention? Are you pro-entangling alliances?

    Ronald, this is on your website. You ask candidates to answer it. How would an honest Keyes answer it?

    Do you agree with our stand in opposition to our country’s pursuing a war in Iraq, without adequate and accurate information before hand, to explain the necessity of putting our troops in harms way.

  55. G.E. Says:

    It’s interesting to watch a person’s (Trent Hill) principles disintegrate in real time.

  56. Jason Says:

    Red, I’m part of the “community” that helped supply the “inadequate” information. Consequently, I’ve been to Iraq and fought there and helped remove dozens of very bad men. So I’m kind of biased as a service member.

    No, I wasn’t for going into Iraq and look forward to us pulling out. I was, however, for the removal of Saddam. But, I’m not for surrendering and I wish the military was allowed to do what it does best. Which is not policing the country, besides they simply aren’t worth the sacrifice. I’ve seen up close and personal—they don’t have “it.” So saying all of that, I probably wouldn’t pass the purity test of the CP.

    Lastly, entangling alliances doesn’t apply to today’s time, as there is no more “Old Europe” and the balance of power is no more. It’s simply Democracies and western culture that supplies the new alliances in our times. That other stuff is dinosaur talk…tha term hasn’t applied in a century.

  57. Cody Quirk Says:

    Keyes will need to reconcile his views on foreign policy with the CP, he will have to give up his pro-interventionalist stance to get the nomination.

    Having a African-American Catholic as our Prez. candidate would be pretty cool. But he really needs to think and act like a constitutionalist if he will be running & committing to our party. Perhaps I might publically endorse him if he proves himself.

  58. Dylan Waco Says:

    “I dont like our base.”

    With a relatively small third party, a statement like this is essentially the same thing as saying “I don’t like our party”.

    If you don’t like the party leaving it is easier than trying to change it. When third parties are “changed” against the will of their base they usually die.

  59. Jason Says:

    “If you don’t like the party leaving it is easier than trying to change it. When third parties are “changed” against the will of their base they usually die.”

    Precisely. Which is why you get a slew of people like myself doing just that.

  60. Red Phillips Says:

    I was, however, for the removal of Saddam.

    That is the issue, Jason. America, a sovereign nation, has no business telling another sovereign nation who their leader is supposed to be nor do we have any business telling them what kind of weapons they can or can not have. What would you think if Canada supported the “removal” of an American President? Or Mexico said we couldn’t have nukes? That is the point of non-intervention. You mind your own business and tend to your own affairs and let other countries do likewise.

    Lastly, entangling alliances doesn’t apply to today’s time

    I wish. What do you think our “special relationship” with Israel is if not an entangling alliance? What is NATO if not an entangling alliance?

  61. Jason Says:

    Well they wouldn’t because those nukes deterred a great evil for decades. It kept the balance of the world intact. Like it or not, inspite of some our policies, the Cold War worked —we won, they lost. In today’s time you can’t afford to mind your business, we’re not exactly firing muskets and roaming the seas with wooden navies anymore.

    Canada wouldn’t because we are allies and democracies. But, if we were like Iraq (under Saddam), Iran, North Korea and so forth, you kind have to think they may explore that route. None of those questions you asked are really that hard, and are really knee-jerk reactions. They never generate any kind of deep thought.

    Israel is supported by the free world and western democracies. Again, these are the alliances.

    NATO is another subject, a completely differnt topic altogether.

  62. Dylan Waco Says:

    Switzerland and Sweden do remarkably well minding their own business. Maybe they aren’t a part of the planet.

  63. Red Phillips Says:

    Jason, don’t be so concrete? Of course Canada wouldn’t. I was making a point. No other country gets to tell us what weapons we have or who we have as a leader. We shouldn’t get to tell other countries that either. This mindset is always based on hubristic assumptions of American exceptionalism. The normal rules don’t apply to us. We’re special. Revolutionaries want their country to be special. Conservatives want their country to be normal.

    I know, I know, it’s not 18 whenever anymore blah, blah, blah. But of course it is ALWAYS 1938 and there is always some new Hitler on the horizon that we must battle.

    That is the problem with interventionists. You just can’t not think that way. Your globalist and internationalist assumptions are in your blood. Try thinking like a conservative instead of like some kind of revolutionary Jacobin. Think parochially.

  64. Trent Hill Says:

    “It’s interesting to watch a person’s (Trent Hill) principles disintegrate in real time.”

    That ohk GE, ill just hang around for another 6 weeks and your opinion on the subject will change—just like so many other issues.

  65. Trent Hill Says:

    Mind you: I have not endorsed Keyes for the nomination. Nor have I said id cast my delegate vote for him,except jokingly. Of all the whiners and complainers, I seem to be the only one trying to actively recruit a candidate with name-recognition and money.

  66. Dave Williams Says:

    bwaaaaaaaaahhhahhahahaha…. Keyes + CP?! WTF over?!

  67. Jason Says:

    Red, I see your point, and I appreciate it. Consider me middle of the road. I buy into you logic but I also recognize grave dangers in reverting back to our 1930s policies. Admittedly, we have, at time, took our global crusade insanely far.

    Policies such as yours are not nearly as easy and utopia-like as you advocated. Nor should we be worrying too much about other countries affairs.

    However, there are times when the big picture, the far reaching effects must be realized.

  68. Ronald Monroe Says:

    That right, Cody lets wait and see what he does between now and the convention and then what he says there. Now! We need to be getting commitments from as many delegates as possible to go to the convention and vote.

  69. Red Phillips Says:

    Ronald, what is he going to say and do between now and the convention that will change anything? Would you say the same thing if Rudy Giuliani decided he wanted to seek the CP nomination? Keyes is just an unacceptable candidate. He is unacceptable now. He will be unacceptable then. He has a long track record of being pro-War and pro-intervention. If he renounced that then that would be good enough? Shouldn’t the CP nomination be an honor? Not something we bestow on some opportunistic flip-flopper?

  70. Red Phillips Says:

    I find this whole playing footsie with Keyes problematic in and of itself, even if he doesn’t get the nomination. The notion that Keyes could be the CP nominee should be greeted with scorn and derision, not a wait and see attitude. Either the Party is anti-Iraq War and anti-intervention or it isn’t?

    I have been reading some of Keyes’ archive at WND. It is worse than I thought. Read it please. It is downright scary. In 06 he said we should declare war on Syria. He said EVERY act of terrorism around the world against anyone is a declaration of war against America. Keyes’ own rantings damn him. Are CP supporters so desperate they are willing to pretend that history doesn’t exist?

    The message does not need to be wait and see. The message needs to be crystal clear – Keyes is not an acceptable nominee. If he wants to join the party and come and learn, then fine. But he can’t just waltz in and have the nomination hung around his neck. To become the public face of the Party.

    Ronald, what would Keyes need to have said in the past re. foreign policy that would make you think he is unacceptable and not worthy of consideration?

  71. G.E. Says:

    Okay, Trent. Six weeks from today is May 10. Let’s see how much my views have changed by then. Six weeks ago was February 16. . . How much have my views changed since then? Or six weeks prior to that? (January 5). Answer: ZERO. Yes, I experienced an epiphany through the Ron Paul campaign—like about 100,000 other people. And you criticize me for that. You’re pathetic. Your “six weeks” shtick is lame and intellectually dishonest. Your lulu book should have included something about how “new revolutionaries” will forever be accused of coming late to the party by stalwarts like yoruself. What are you now? 18?

  72. Jared Says:

    I have a feeling all Keyes will do is tone down his message but it will not change at all. I have always had respect for Chuck Baldwin but his backing of Keyes really bothers me, and I was even considering voting for Baldwin (if he won CP nomination but it looks like he’s not running now) if the LP nominated Root or Phillies but its looking like if that happens I may be writing in Ron Paul.

    I just don’t understand the support for Keyes at all. I always assumed (what looks like wrongly now) that almost all of the CP, especially the leadership, were opposed 100% to the Iraq war and all foreign intervention. I wish that was the case. I have also voted for the CP (or GP) candidates in the past 2 elections if their wasn’t a Libertarian on the ballot, I will also not vote for any CP candidate that backed/backs Keyes as the nominee.

    Ruwart/Kubby ‘08

  73. jr Says:

    Red,

    As a preface, I’m a CP member who’s been a Paul supporter. I opposed the Iraq intervention, and I totally agree that invading Iraq just to remove Hussein from power would have been a complete abuse of power. I will add that if Keyes gets the CP nomination, I very well could vote for Barr if he’s endorsed by the LP.

    That said:

    First, it is known that Hussein exaggerated the extent of his military capabilities under the radar to thwart regional aggression against himself; he sponsored terrorists by rewarding the families who survived suicide bombers in Israel; his cat and mouse antics with weapons inspectors gave the impression that he was indeed hiding dangerous technology.
    In short, there are a lot of people much smarter than myself who still believe that attacking Iraq was a perfectly moral decision as framed by Christian just war theory – based on the intelligence and perceived imminent threat at the time. (Remeber the mushroom cloud propagana?)

    Second, even admitting that the invasion was a mistake (being based on unsound information), it is still within reason for people now to question whether immediate withdrawal is the best course of action in the present circumstance. What moral obligation do we have concerning the welfare of the people whose country we invaded and removed all institutions that provided police functions?

    I’m not expressing my personal view in either the points just mentioned, but I’m a bit tired of the insinuation that otherwise good Christians who we disagree with on this subject haven’t considered the moral or constitutional aspects of their positions. And certainly, just because people were sold on a bunch of propaganda, as it were, doesn’t make them a bunch of neocon “interventionists”. Self-defense is not “interventionism”.

    Finally, the leadership of the CP has obviously left the door open for “paleos” and “conservatives” to be welcomed in the fight against socialism and restoration of the Constitution together under one banner. The only official position that they have taken on the Iraq intervention is that is was unconstitutional in its execution for lack of a formal declaration of war. The upshot of this is that a similar intervention could very likely be prevented if the constitutional means were reinstituted as proposed by the CP, even if the executive had interventionist tendencies (whatever party he/she be from).

    Not having heard Keyes explicitly talk on this subject, it wouldn’t be fair for me to immediately dismiss him because of particular disagreement I have with him on the Iraq intervention. He wasn’t commander-in-chief at the time of the intervention, and as far as I know, he may be in complete agreement that we should have had congressional hearings and a formal declaration of war. As long as the action is thought to be necessary in self-defense, that’s all that the Constitution demands.

    JR

  74. G.E. Says:

    Trent – I wrote this on October 22. That’s six MONTHS ago, not six weeks. And it will be the same in another six years. Will you be happy then?

    http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/confessions-of-a-former-fiat-moneyinflation-enthusiast/

  75. Trent Hill Says:

    “I just don’t understand the support for Keyes at all. I always assumed (what looks like wrongly now) that almost all of the CP, especially the leadership, were opposed 100% to the Iraq war and all foreign intervention. I wish that was the case.”

    The CP is 99.9% anti-inteventionist. With leadership, it is 100% I believe.
    The issues isnt wether we oppose the Iraq War. The issue is wether Keyes is our best choice for President or not. Im hoping to remedy the problem by recruiting a big-name candidate. Everyone else is just whining.

  76. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,

    You seem to be quite sure of yourself. Just as arrogant and impressively sure of yourself as you were when you claimed fiat currency was the answer to all our problems, or that the Fed was super-duper, or that pro-choice values were incredibly important, or that Lincoln-haters were racists. I wont debate someone who shows SO little respect for opposing viewpoints, especially considering his own viewpoints are not that concrete.

  77. Throwback USA Says:

    If it were Keyes or Grundmann, then I’ll go with Grundmann. Even apolitical people are sick of the same politicans promising programs(soft communism) under different brands. I’d rather have someone who follows a constitutional platform and get 100,000 votes than a controlled opposition mouthpiece like Keyes get 5,000,000 votes. This will be good for development for Grundmann and others.

    If worst comes to worst who says the CP should nominate anybody? Use Kansas City as a gathering point for all local candidates and persuade other delegates to run for something, even dogcatcher. Besides 3rd parties are better off focusing locally if they want long term success.

    As far as the Presidency goes I might vote for Bob Barr, but need to do more research on him. It looks like I will write my dog’s name or write none of the above.

  78. Trent Hill Says:

    Im waiting to see how Keyes talks and what he does. My vote hinges on his explicit statements on the War before the Convention. It also hinges, to a lesser degree,on his committment to party-building.

  79. Red Phillips Says:

    Trent, have you read his WND archives? He is beyond rehabilitation.

    I have spoken to some other people in the Party and they say there is no way Keyes is getting the nomination. They are apparently getting different information than you.

  80. theCardinal Says:

    Here’s the conundrum that the CP faces – do you want maximum exposure and high vote totals? But also risk being a punchline in the election. Keyes is a mesmerizing speaker but he is ultimately an opportunist. He could do to the CP like Buchanan did to the Reform Party – tear it up by making it a personal vehicle.

    There is no doubt that Keyes will garner attention and the highest vote total that the CP has seen but the price may be too much. And truth of the matter is no other Paleo has as much name recognition. Keyes may not be paleo but he is the closest known name willing to take up the CP banner. Give him credit for that – Buchanan never bothered.

  81. Trent Hill Says:

    “I have spoken to some other people in the Party and they say there is no way Keyes is getting the nomination. They are apparently getting different information than you.”

    Ask those people who WILL get the nomination.

  82. Red Phillips Says:

    “Ask those people who WILL get the nomination.”

    Good question, but it will not be Keyes. The leadership is hostile, and there are at least a few states that will not put him on their ballot. I’ll let you know more as soon as I can.

    It will be curious to watch the Keyes website and board and see if he backs out.

  83. Trent Hill Says:

    “Good question, but it will not be Keyes.”

    This is all I ever see in response. A name.

    As for the leadership—many of them have participated in Keyes Teleconferences. Including Clymer, Odom, and Starrett. So to say they are hostile is not true. They are DEFINETLY not seeing eye to eye—but I wouldnt expect the leadership to outright reject him.
    With that said, im looking for a fight at the convention—it’ll be fun to liveblog.

  84. G.E. Says:

    I never said that fiat money was “the solution to all our problems.” More lies and distortions from Trent Hill.

    I never said the Fed was “super duper.” Another lie.

    I was mostly responding to untruths about the Fed and the nature of fiat currency that were advanced by Fed opponents. These untruths are no more true now than they were then.

    I never said that ALL Lincoln haters were racists. I said some/many were. Some/many are. I was wrong about Lincoln and SOME of his detractors, but not others. This is a minor point. Like when Russert tried to nail Ron Paul.

    And finally, so I had a change of heart on abortion, and that has been more recent than six months. Is this a crime?

    So I used to attack anti-Fedders (who were wrong about the facts), anti-Lincolnites (many of whom were overly pro-Confederate), and pro-lifers (the majority of whom do not derive pro-life beliefs from the same basis that I do). I’m wondering when Trent Hill will let me off the hook for my past transgressions. It is very important to me to have the respect of a kid who now supports a neocon swindler for president—GWB but more religiously idiotic, more blooodthirsty, and even more corrupt.

    Add another flip flop to your list: I used to respect Trent Hill.

  85. jr Says:

    Trent,

    From what I’m able to tell, Bryan Malatesta looks to be endorsing the concept of putting Ron Paul on the ticket (whether Dr. Paul agrees to it or not) rather than put Alan Keyes on the ticket (who’s actively seeking the spot.) That would hardly seem to make him “a big Alan Keyes supporter”, as you mentioned previously.

    [I must admit that it is an intriguing idea.]

    JR

    JR

  86. NewFederalist Says:

    Paul/Baldwin on the CP line and Paul/(fill in the blank) on the LP line. That would give us a reason to vote in November!

  87. Trent Hill Says:

    “Add another flip flop to your list: I used to respect Trent Hill.”

    And you used to respect Baldwin, so I guess im in good company. By the way, I said I have NOT decided wether to cast my nomination vote for Alan Keyes at the convention. I am still undecided,and probably will be up until convention. But I will make sure you know about my decision Oh Great GE. Let me make this clear though: I dont chastise you for changing positions. Only for being so arrogantly sure of yourself on BOTH SIDES of each issue.

  88. Red Phillips Says:

    G.E. in you mind does being “overly pro-Confederate” (whatever that means) equal being “racist” (whatever that means)?

  89. Dave Williams Says:

    THE LORD REBUKES ALAN KEYES!

    hahahahha Red did you write this nonsense? I think it’s awesome how folks could still follow a 2000 y/o religion. You guys keep it up in the CP, you’re doing a fine job.

  90. Dave Williams Says:

    TRENT WROTE: “You seem to be quite sure of yourself. Just as arrogant and impressively sure of yourself as you were when you claimed fiat currency was the answer to all our problems, or that the Fed was super-duper, or that pro-choice values were incredibly important, or that Lincoln-haters were racists. I wont debate someone who shows SO little respect for opposing viewpoints, especially considering his own viewpoints are not that concrete.”

    Yes, G.E. is a sniveling little suckass isn’t he? hahahaha

  91. Dave Williams Says:

    THE LORD REBUKES ALAN KEYES! Shouldn’t that read “THE KKK REBUKES ALAN KEYES” I know how you ‘Judge Roy Moore’ types are…lol

  92. G.E. Says:

    Red Phillips – Could one be “overly pro-Confederate” and not be racist? Sure. In an overreaction to disgust with Lincoln, the war, and northern mercantilism / centralism. But it’s still wrong.

    Strip slavery from the equation, and there’s no doubt that the Confederacy was morally superior to the Union. In fact, strip slavery from the Confederacy and it would have very nearly been the ideal government. But slavery did exist and was a major part of the Confederacy and the individual confederate states. I agree with Thomas Woods and Thomas DiLorenzo, RE: the Confederacy—it was obviously bad, as all governments are and have always been. DiLorenzo goes as far as to say that IF Lincoln had really invaded the south on a crusade to free the slaves, then the morality of the action would be debatable. But as this was not even close to the case, then clearly the southern states were independent entities, free to associate or not associate with the union or with each other, and Lincoln’s invasion was an act of aggression (to say nothing of all of the horrors inflicted during and after the war by the North). Since all of this is whitewashed, it may be natural for pro-liberty individuals to have some sympathy for the Confederacy, but it cannot be stripped from its fundamental collectivist, racist, white supremacist identity. It had a ton of pros but serious and unforgivable cons. Ultimately, it was evil. And just like the evil Taliban, it should have been free from invasion. That is where the libertarian / individualist should draw the line—celebrate the best elements of the Confederacy (its superior constitution; its support for free trade (which your party rejects, btw)), but never in celebrating the Confederacy itself.

    Trent – I withdraw my comment about Chuck Baldwin. Perhaps I don’t know enough about Judge Moore to make the statement I made. However, I do know plenty about Keyes, and he is a crook and a fascist.

  93. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,

    That was a civilized statement,and a respectful one. While I dont agree that he’s a fascist, and dont hve all the info on wether he’s a crook—you were not spewing venom at people who liked him or at people like me—who just want to know more.

  94. Throwback USA Says:

    Dave,

    Look I don’t care if your atheist or not. That’s a debate not worth getting into, but no true christian or secular constitutionalist could vote for Alan Keyes. Alan Keyes is a joke and will be viewed as such whether atheist or christian.

    Alan Keyes is a shill period and there is absoultely nothing wrong with true christians (not the John Hagee crowd. or for soft feel good apostasy of Joel Osteen) or secular constitutionalists condemming him for his endorsement of war and repairations. The man is also a crook with campaign debts. There should be no voice or role for Alan Keyes in this party, I don’t care how pro life he claims to be. Let’s not turn into the libertarians and sell the nomination to the highest bidder. Or if not that have a schyster pro war gambling expert be the party’s nominee.

    In the perfect world it would be a Ron Paul/Chuck Baldwin ticket but realistically it looks I’ll write in my dog.

  95. G.E. Says:

    This atheist agrees with everything Throwback USA says.

  96. Red Phillips Says:

    “THE LORD REBUKES ALAN KEYES!”

    Where did you see this statement? I don’t know what you are referring to.

  97. J Says:

    I know this is slightly off-topic but I am very interested in the Constitution Party and have been thinking about leaving the R’s and joining the CP for a little while. I was wondering if there is any gathering place specifically for CP members or Constitutionalists in general on the web (like a forum for example)?

    Thanks
    J

  98. Trent Hill Says:

    J,

    This is a good place for Constitutionalists to gather on the web. I cant think of a better one,actually.

  99. Ronald Monroe Says:

    Trent, I have been using this site to make contact with other members of the Constitution Party and receive and pass on news about our party. I check this site twice a day.

  100. Ronald Monroe Says:

    Trent, I have been using this site to make contact with other members of the Constitution Party and receive and pass on news about our party. I check this site twice a day.

  101. J Says:

    Anyone here active in the CP in Florida?

  102. hugh Says:

    Keyes running on any 3rd party is a sure way to reduce the credibility of that party. His base support has crashed down to a few wacknuts on his site. One of his claims to (presumed) fame is his refusal to compromise his principles. YET, that is EXACTLY what he has done to join the CP. Shall the CP be led by a HYPOCRITE?

  103. TexasConservative Says:

    Keyes is legit. Stop acting like he is rich. He helped create the Minutemen, he stood with the Schiavo family, and he fought with Judge Moore in Alabama—he paid heavy “political capital” for the cause of conservatives while every other so called conservative pundit, radio host, and writer just did that, talk! THE CP is getting their guy

  104. hugh Says:

    He is not a rich elitist? Would you like a GoogleMap photo of his estate in Maryland posted? Would you like to see his income statements where he pulled a large salary off his election committee donations (donations, might I add that came from working class constituents)? When all that became public, his support waned to where he now gets a fraction of a percent support, where a few years ago he was in double digits. These are numbers, these are facts.
    AK joining the CP is ALREADY creating controversy within the CP. Something that man brings wherever he goes. AK stops and reverses the growth of the CP party. He is not a “name” candidate (except in the eyes of about 20 fanatics from his site), he is a focus of negative attention.

  105. Trent Hill Says:

    20 fantics?He got 44,000 votes in a highly contentious republican primary—so i’d say its more than that.

    If he came to the CP,he’d bring a little star power and up to 50,000 members with him. Which isnt a bad thing.

  106. hugh Says:

    He had millions of votes 4 years ago and was able to do absolutely nothing with it but pull PERSONAL USE cash from his donations. Because of that, and his failure to pay his debts while maintaining his huge estate has cost him nearly all his support. “Star power”??? Surely you jest. Nominating him will only guarantee that people will only think of the CP as desperate for increased notoriety and willing to nominate someone who will become known as someone who compromised his principles to try to dash into the dim fringes of the spotlight.
    He doesn’t have 50,000 members, he got a sum total of 44,000 votes from all the primaries – blank spaces got more votes (true).
    Nominate this shyster and you’ll go nowhere; try it and see. Remember this post and refer back to it in Nov.

  107. TexasConservative Says:

    Hugh you reek of haterism! Yeah, your just a player hater. Alan Keyes house is smaller than mine, and yeah IM not rich. Im ok though. Plus—- you still discounted everything he has done—WHY DONT YOU read that part???? HE again—setup the Minutemen, fought for Schiavo, and Judge Moore—- what “RICH” guy would do that? FOr what? WATCH the campaign, its absurd to think he would endure so much ridicule for money—that is the most retarded thing I have read on this website. POINT ME OUT some other candidate that does what he does and says what he says—SHIT right about now—I would gladly pay a candidate to stand up for conservatism

  108. hugh Says:

    I don’t reek of “haterism” you illiterate Texan. I am just reporting facts. Did you use GoogleEarth to zoom in on AK’s estate in Maryland or you just pretending to play smart?
    AK endures ridicule for the money. Answer me why he is the only national candidate who has ever taken money out of his campaign donations for salary as reported on numerous sites on the web? Answer me why his support has dropped to less then 0.1% after 3 presidential elections? He has never won any elections in his entire life. Don’t condemn me for reporting known numerical facts. Perhaps you want someone who has not even been elected to dog catcher to lead the CP. Seems smart (for a foul mouthed Texan).

  109. hugh Says:

    no response – good – no language is better then foul language

  110. G.E. Says:

    The Shiavo family = usurper’s of states rights. Yes, Keyes is a Lincoln-loving liberal nationalist, so I’m not surprised.

  111. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,

    I thought there were no “states rights”? I thought that was just a code-word for racists?

  112. hugh Says:

    Sarcasm notwithstanding Trent, Keyes will not get the nod of any party. Least of all the CP, unless desperation sets in. In which case there is no issue anyhow. It becomes moot.

  113. TexasConservative Says:

    LOL. Grow up, we are not in sunday school anymore. What does states rights and racism have to do with abortion or gay marriage, DAMN how dumb are yall? Don’t push my words to the extreme or I will too. AND YEAH while you ignorant, small minded people keep wrapping yourself around the state’s right flag, you can keep watching the secularist- progressives keep winning the proxy wars like that of Schiavo. Science does not know all, but they will gladly use you as pawns when you love state’s right so much. STATE’s rights only apply to those powers not enumerated to the federal government—but what about the natural rights that the consitution was built upon?? NOOOO you don’t think that far do you? I’m guessing the CP is also a perennial loser right becausee they haven’t won anything, even the position of dog catcher, but who is judging them? Principle means you have to wait until the masses want you. Principle is meddlesome, it bothers the greedy—

  114. hugh Says:

    It’s nice to have dreams. Too bad for AK supporters they can only dream. Their “principles” are in a state of flux. As AK is entering the world of hypocrisy by changing his interventionalist views to try to garner the slightest bit of attention.

  115. Dave Lee Says:

    Now clear your mind of all preconcieved notions of Alan Keyes…good. Ready?...now open your eyes and conjure up the last performance of Alan Keyes. What do you see?.....RIGHT A complete loon

  116. hugh Says:

    Don’t insult the loons! AK is in it for his cash and the fact he has nothing else to do.

  117. Chet Says:

    America faces a very real probability that a socialist will be elected into the office of president, and you’re worried about Alan Keyes???????? If half of you CPer’s put half as much effort into getting just one of your candidates elected, as you do trying to keep a good conservative man out of your country club, you probably would have won an election by now.

    Some of you really need to loosen up, clear the cobwebs out of those little used minds, and work at fielding a viable candidate, whether it’s Alan Keyes or someone else.

  118. BigBoa Says:

    If Keyes gets the nod, I am leaving the Constitution Party and never give another dime. WHAT are you thinking? He doesn’t even have the same platform! His only paycheck was for working in the UNITED NATIONS (he wasn’t trusted to be in a policy setting job, just a messenger; but still!). Is he going to change his principles or RIDE US for PUBLICITY and BALLOT ACCESS?

  119. Chet Says:

    I’ve read both platforms, and there’s not a hair’s breadth of difference betwixt the two. Alan’ positions derive from those truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and the protections guaranteed by the Constitution.

    I’d support a ticket of Keyes and Moore in any combination you’d like. Both men have what it takes to turn this country from the way it’s headed.

  120. BigBoa Says:

    The Keyes-ers are using the CP party as a desperate attempt to get more recogniztion about AK:

    http://www.alankeyes.com/discuss/showthread.php?t=788&page=6

    QUOTING FROM THEIR SITE:
    “In that respect, they’re useful idiots for spreading the word about Alan. All we need to do then is add our comment to direct people to Alan’s website.”

  121. Hugh Says:

    Chet,
    Check again Chet. If you get into more detail, you’ll see the difference is huge. Particularly on the all important foreign policy. Besides, since Keyes attracts negative attention more so then positive, by a 1000 to 1 ratio, it would be foolish to think Keyes would be an asset.

  122. Chet Says:

    Again with the negativity.

    I could say some of you haven’t been real nice either, but I’m not that way, and I’d like to see us come together to field a good candidate for the upcoming election. There’s far too much at stake for this country for some of you to be so anti anything. Trent Hill asked “who else”, and I have as yet to hear an answer. All I hear is I wouldn’t consider Alan Keyes, and if he joins or gets the nod, I’m leaving.

  123. Chet Says:

    Yeah, and wait till you see what an Obama, Clinton or McCain do for your foreign policy. Of the four, Keyes stands head and shoulders above the other three. . . . . But again, I haven’t heard who you guys are considering. In all of my posts here I’ve been open to other considerations, but all I hear is attacks on a good conservative man. .

  124. Chet Says:

    Gentlemen and ladies:

    You are being fed a lot of misinformation regarding Dr. Keyes, and dare I say, many of you need to re-read the preamble of the CP. Also take a look at the beginning sentence of your mission statement. . . .”The mission of the Constitution Party is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity through the election, at all levels of government, of Constitution Party candidates who will uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.” There’s not a candidate running that has done and is doing it better than Dr. Keyes.

    Another in your party, i.e., the CP, has said this. . . .”If the Constitution Party rejects Alan Keyes, it basically rejects what he stands for and declines its best opportunity to make an impact for Biblical, foundational, Declaration of Independence and constitutional principles in this presidential election that lacks a credible conservative nominee; perhaps then the party should change its name and its mission statement.” I concur.

    I would invite you to go to his website (www.alankeyes.com), listen to some of his speeches, read his platform, and writings, and see if it doesn’t line up with what the Constitution Party stands for.

    Thanks for listening.

  125. kerwin Says:

    Seems at the Keyes site they run down the CP party then come here and try to tell us off! Here is a quote:

    Do you want to have the CP grow and become something it has never been before? Or not? ‘Cause it’s nothing now except in the exaggerated imagining of some of its members.

    Practically speaking, you don’t have anyone else except some local yokels willing to run for president on the CP line. Every political figure of any credibility isn’t interested, save only for Keyes

  126. Chet Says:

    “Now clear your mind of all preconcieved notions of Alan Keyes…good. Ready?...now open your eyes and conjure up the last performance of Alan Keyes. What do you see?.....RIGHT A complete loon”

    “Don’t insult the loons! AK is in it for his cash and the fact he has nothing else to do.”

    Yep, you certainly hold the moral high ground. . . .

Leave a Reply