Posted on 04/28/2008 5:02:53 AM PDT by Dukes Travels
Last week Alan Keyes ended his quixotic quest for the Republican presidential nomination and announced that he was leaving the Republican Party. I know what you are thinking: Alan Keyes was running for the Republican nomination?
Even the most ardent followers of presidential politics could be forgiven for not knowing Keyes was actually a GOP contender this year. After making a late entrance into the Republican contest in September 2007, the former ambassador, conservative activist and perennial presidential candidate got very little press attention with the exception of one embarrassing debate performance in Iowa.
But when Keyes left the Republican Party last week, he did not throw away his presidential ambitions. He plotted a new path to the White House as the nominee of the Constitution Party.
(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...
How do you fall from rock bottom?
LOL! A guy who sounds like Marvin the Martian?
He would certainly get my vote! Go Allan
He would certainly get my vote! Go Alan
A well written piece, and, grudgingly, I have to admit that Alan just isn't going anywhere politically.
Unfortunately, if according to the author, acedemia is the place for Alan, where in America would a university hire a man with such principles?
America is the worse for not giving Alan a microphone and audience.
And the Keyes bashers here in FR are part of the problem.
Keyes is a very bright intelligent man. He just comes off sometimes as condescending and angry...he got smoked by Obama by the way in the last Senate race. Nobody had the guts to oppose Osamabama and they tossed Keyes in there as a carpetbagger...
let me add....Still an incredibly bright man who I enjoy listening too because he knows what he is talking about....
Um. I resemble that remark.
If Keyes keeps running for stuff, I will bash him. I don't think he has the stuff to win elections and I question his executive ability. I even wonder about his emotional stability and his judgment.
Absolute Cato-like probity is an essential part of his schtick. If he is going to pay himself from his campaign funds, I personally don't ave a problem with that. But he hass to be transparent as glass, and he has to be consistent.
When he lambasted Shrillery Clintoon as a carpet-bagger and then ran against Obama he lost me for keeps. He was doomed and he didn't seem to know it, so his judgment was seen to be lousy. And he lost nearly all of his moral force (which he imperilled by paying himself for his campaign). Yes, I think it was possibly justifiable for him to run in that campaign despite his remarks about carpet-bagging. But he did not produce the clear and compelling argument necessary to preserve his image of integrity.
And he seems to have a tendency to shoot himself in the foot and to hang his supporters out to dry. I could not believe that after I gave over $1k to one of his campaigns, his workers called me for more and didn't seem to get that it had already given more than we prudent for my situation. It's almost cult-like. They seem to be all over sacrifice to the point of self-immolation on the part of his followers while, as one of them once said to me, He doesn't seem to want to join his own campaign.
I conclude that "something is up" here, something pathological. He is, despite the quality of his voice, a good, if not great, thinker and speaker. But IMHO he does not have the chops for the Presidency.
By never holding office, Keyes (and Patsy) insulated themselves from having to vote on one issue "against their conscience" in order to get something else. In politics, that's called, representing your constituents---but the thing is, you can't represent ALL of your constituents ALL the time because they don't ALL share the same views. So you have to make choices.
Reagan consciously gave up on downsizing government because his priority was defeating the USSR and keeping the U.S. economy strong. He signed off on illegal amnesty because there is only so much political capital available for ANY fight, and he kept the first things first. But ideologues, like Patsy and Keyes, aren't interested in "getting what is possible." They only want what is "pure" so they can then harangue those who actually GOVERN and say they aren't "pure enough."
I suppose these types are needed, but they shouldn't be hypocrites. Rush Limbaugh is outspoken on the fact that he wouldn't run for office because he wouldn't fundraise, which would involve making promises he couldn't keep.
If my vote isn’t critical in keeping a DEM out of office, I will support Dr. Keyes.
No, he’s not going to win, this year. But a significant showing this year will set him up nicely for 2012.
The key line from the article. It's also why the Constitution Party didn't nominate him as their candidate.
Roger that. Watching him mop the floor with Allan Dershawitz when they had a debate on Church & State was very satisfying indeed.
Alan Keyes is all we would want in a man, as far as his understanding and comprehension about what America is, why, and how we got here.
As I understand it, John Adams was a most disliked man, but he knew his $h!t.
A lot of people are @$$holes, but they know their $h!T and get things done.
But like the kid that never got laid and grew up to be a rapist or pervert, Alan Keyes is being thwarted at every attempt to legitimatetize himself, and gets more than a little anxious to state his position. (That's how he comes off every debate "they've" ever allowed him to be in.)
I guess I would just like to see a little more respect for the man.
... Yeah, Alan's "guilty" of being exceptional!
This article (hit link below) exposes that President Eisenhower -- one of our most brilliant leaders -- went to great lengths to downplay his intelligence!
Eisenhower understood that being perceived as "to smart" would work against him -- at least in America.
The man who ran against Eisenhower, Adlai Stevenson, was touted by the media as "a 'brilliant' Princeton graduate"(etc.)as opposed to Eisenhower who "liked golf and cowboy stories"... Just an old general... that might "know how to win a war"... but would never be able to grasp the complexities of running a country.
In reality, 'Stevenson's resume was comparable to that of George W. Bush'
>http://www.vdare.com/sailer/041028_iq.htm<
Yes, Alan is "guilty" of being exceptionally bright or, more accurately, not hiding his light under a bushel.
And he's probably also "guilty" of the 'sin' of being impolitic from time to time.(wasn't Ragan 'unpolitic' when he called Russia 'the evil empire?')
The question I have is this:
Are we going to let a few human imperfections -- that we all share to some extent -- get in the way of our electing a candidate that stands for constitutional principles, and the American traditions that we all, supposedly, support?
I don't believe we should.
STE=Q
“With his brilliant mind and unmatched oratory skills, there are few people who have as much natural talent as he does.”
... Yeah, Alan’s “guilty” of being exceptional!
This article (hit link below) exposes that President Eisenhower — one of our most brilliant leaders — went to great lengths to downplay his intelligence!
Eisenhower understood that being perceived as “to smart” would work against him — at least in America.
The man who ran against Eisenhower, Adlai Stevenson, was touted by the media as “a ‘brilliant’ Princeton graduate”(etc.)as opposed to Eisenhower who “liked golf and cowboy stories”... Just an old general... that might “know how to win a war”... but would never be able to grasp the complexities of running a country.
In reality, ‘Stevenson’s resume was comparable to that of George W. Bush’
>http://www.vdare.com/sailer/041028_iq.htm<
Yes, Alan is “guilty” of being exceptionally bright or, more accurately, not hiding his light under a bushel.
And he’s probably also “guilty” of the ‘sin’ of being impolitic from time to time.(wasn’t Ragan ‘unpolitic’ when he called Russia ‘the evil empire?’)
The question I have is this:
Are we going to let a few human imperfections — that we all share to some extent — get in the way of our electing a candidate that stands for constitutional principles, and the American traditions that we all, supposedly, support?
I don’t believe we should.
STE=Q
I did some work with a group he heads. He sabotaged it, not my work, but the group. It was a member of that group that said words to the effect of,"It would be nice if he would join his movement." These were people giving sacrificially of their time and money to do what he had asked them to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.