Alan Keyes comes out in support of President Bush, denounces Democrats, "our survival is at stake!"

Transcript of Hannity & Colmes ^ | Feb 4, 2004 | Alan Keyes

[Sabertooth]

You have your facts slightly wrong. The Senate never voted on Kyoto. Clinton refused to submit it to the Senate for ratification, since he knew it would be rejected, and he wanted to keep it alive.

The 97-0 vote was not on Kyoto, but rather on the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which was phrased in a way that made opposition to the resolution politically impossible

Thanks for the correction. I should have read a little deeper while I was Googling.

while the Byrd-Hagel amendment got 0 votes against it, the support for it could be better guaged by the vote on McCain/Lieberman's "Kyoto Lite" bill S.139 which got 43 votes. Not enough support to get it through yet, but close enough for worry.

It's still a far cry from the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, or the 67 needed to actually ratify the Kyoto Treaty.

Which is why it was good, and important, that Bush put a stake through the heart of Kyoto.

Fair enough, I'll retract my National Pickle Week comparison. However, I still maintain that "Bush killed Kyoto" is highly over simplified. A lot of people killed Kyoto.

[FairOpinion]

"Given the amount of lurking done on FR by folks like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and a slew of others, including politicians, our forum is only made more relevant when we are willing to confront difficult truths about our party, our candidates, and our President.

Additionally, FR is a hothouse indicator of the mood of the most politically interested party rank and file. Negative feedback is good, because it gives an opportunity for correction."

===

Note the latest FR poll: 83% plan to vote for Bush.

Yet, judging from the very vocal, loud, some rather vicious minority, reading FR gives a false impression, that at least half or more of "conservatives" are upset enough with Bush, that they plan to not support him.

Also, precisely, because of the points you made, that many influential people read FR, your comment that Bush supporters, and defenders should just "shut up and vote", but not express our support, or correct the misconceptions, some attempt to present as facts, while encouraging and praising those who attack Bush, because they are merely "disagreeing passionately" shows that you are the one, who wants to make FR one sided: make it a site with its primary mission of criticizing Bush. We already have such a site: it's called DU.

[FairOpinion]

This was a terrible run-on sentence, but you the the idea.

I need more coffee.

[Sabertooth]

Note the latest FR poll: 83% plan to vote for Bush.

I'm among them. So?

If Bush onely gets 83% of the GOP (as an example, not claiming the FR poll is scientific), he needs to run the table on swing voters to be reelected.

Yet, judging from the very vocal, loud, some rather vicious minority, reading FR gives a false impression, that at least half or more of "conservatives" are upset enough with Bush, that they plan to not support him

First of all, the viciousness is far worse among the "see no evil, speak no evil" stalwarts who who are wildly intolerant of dissent.

Second, you're assuming, incorrectly, that everyone who is bothered by one thing or another that the President has done intends not to vote for him. That's not the case. Consider your poll in light of these...

Question ...

Do you approve of the plan to let some of the eight million illegal aliens in the United States move toward legal status without penalty -- but with social security benefits?

Yes
132 votes - 8%

No
1,352 votes - 85%

Undecided
97 votes - 6%

1,581 votes total
Poll 35

Question ...

After hearing President Bush's speech, do you approve of his immigration reform plan?

Yes
703 votes - 21%

No
2,269 votes - 67%

Undecided
368 votes - 11%

3,340 votes total
Poll 36

It's not a false impression that there is immense disagreement with some of the President's policies, even among his supporters. It doesn't take a lot of voter defections to flip a close election, so it's important that the source of that disaffection be identified, early, and corrected.

Free Republic can be a valuable contributor to that process, or it can be a simple-minded rah rah site.

Also, precisely, because of the points you made, that many influential people read FR, your comment that Bush supporters, and defenders should just "shut up and vote", but not express our support, or correct the misconceptions, some attempt to present as facts, while encouraging and praising those who attack Bush, because they are merely "disagreeing passionately" shows that you are the one, who wants to make FR one sided: make it a site with its primary mission of criticizing Bush. We already have such a site: it's called DU.

You've completely misunderstood my comment, and mischaracterized what's been transpiring at FR. It's not the dissenters that are telling others to "shut up and vote," it's those who can't bear criticism of the President and his poliicies who distract, dissemble, and attempt to stifle debate at every turn while demanding lockstep conformity.

I'm encouraging folks like you to get your fingers out of your ears and get a handle on the possible danger to the President's reelection. You're all in a panic because the debate has raged beyond the control of those posters who want control. Relax, this is politics, and disagreement comes with the territory.

[William McKinley]

Fair enough, as long as we can agree that rumors that video killed the radio star were vastly overstated.