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

[Little Ray]

Well, that seals it. In the 2000 primary I voted for Keyes over Bush. IF Keyes is on board, guess I'll have to hold my nose one more time...

I wonder if he can get Steve Forbes' endorsement, too?

[FairOpinion]

"I wonder if he can get Steve Forbes' endorsement, too?"

==

Bush has had Forbes' endorsement for some time.

I heard Forbes say so some time ago, I think it was on H&C, but may have been on the Forbes on Fox.

[George W. Bush]

And I don't know why you have to slam Keyes in the process for his principled stance.

I got into a little dispute with others over what I consider to be an overstatement of the threat by Keyes. I don't dislike Keyes at all. I recall talking to him once when he was a guest on CSPAN. Keyes had been on the campaign trail and, during the Sunday morning talk shows, George Will had made some nasty remarks about the Religious Right and evolution. Which I had recorded and written down and read back to Dr. Keyes. He exploded, called Will an 'intellectual snob' and so on. Will's remarks were the subject of considerable discussion among the Christian Right for several days.

So don't think I dislike Keyes. Besides, he's the only presidential candidate I've ever spoken to.

[smallchild]

By your use of the term "so-called conservatives",( who are "sinning" also by actually using freedom of speech to be "vocal"), are we all now to assume that these people did not "stop and think", (as by analogy you must be doing)?

Your "hero-worship" of Alan Keyes.....that he is so almightily "conservatively committed..and intelligent"

indicates a desire to have no need of indivual power of your own.

Many of the so called "so-called conservatives" seem very sincere and well spoken, even daring as they are to speak for themselves. Their approach seems very direct and principled. The main questions are obvious:

If merely electing Republicans becomes a substitute for the need for real representation of our interests, then what is the point of it all?

Any politician can just say anything and do something else. Simplying saying the Democrats would do worse, calling them RATS, etc......and demonizing the Clintons(and, how many years can that make sense?) may work for a while to "keep us in the fold" but hardly feels like Freedom!

The issues we are being presented with hardly constitute a description of the reality, political or other-wise.

You may feel more secure simply by picking a side and "winning" but this is a hollow feeling, and one I wouldn't endorse.

What if the politians all start acting "in cahoots" with eachother, when the meaning of the parties are more totally obscured? What would be the difference between this and "communism, socialism, liberalism, etc" or any tyranny?

Thinking means stepping "outside the box". Come out!

The future IS at stake!

But not in the trivial way in which it is being portrayed.

[EternalVigilance]

None of this is at all 'trivial'.

Dr. Keyes has been consistent in his beliefs, and has taken considerable flack for his (IMO correct) criticisms of this administration.

He is hardly your average politician, to put it mildly.

But he is right in this case as well.

The only course available to forward the conservative movement, to protect the security of our country, and to keep power from those who will destroy all of the above is to get behind the President and push with all our might.

That doesn't mean we abandon our principles. God forbid.

It means we deal with the world as it exists, not as we would like it to be, as all sane grown-ups do.

What you are seeing, and you call trivial, is the coalescing of the most powerful coalition in the world today--the Republican coalition. It is certainly not perfect, but it is all we and the world has got.

[Jim Robinson]

Retread troll, aka amerkid, onemoreday, truefrankness, loganmountain, et al, banned again.

[EternalVigilance]

Maybe next time he could try 'PersistentItch'.

Or if 'it' is a female, she could just add a 'B'...

[EternalVigilance]

Just to be factual, Keyes endorsed Bush a long time ago too.

[Happy2BMe]

I had heard that Alan was going to do this.

Dubya needs every vote he can get, and Alan will bring in substantial numbers.

I agree with Sabertooth, Bush is the only game in town resembling conservative values. Hope other conservatives get on board, hope Dubya listens (and acts) to what they are telling him.

[Constantine XIII]

No joke. Did gridlock stop Beezlebubba, or even slow him down?

Unfortunately, it is increasingly apparent that some, but not all, of these anti-Bush people are really wanting everything to go to hell to provide an excuse to start a shooting war, which is the probably the most retarded idea that has ever been put forward here.

If it were up to me, those folks would be zotted posthaste. You didn't build this place up to see it used in such a disgusting manner by those fools.

JMHO, though.

Sorry if I seem a bit agitated. :)

[Constantine XIII]

We all complain how the liberals have changed things oh-so-slowly over the last century, but that is how they get away with it. You can boil the frog whole if you turn up the heat slowly. We've all heard about "creeping socialism"

If we want to undo that damage, we will have to have an equally long-term outlook.

Call it "creeping liberty" :p

[EternalVigilance]

bttt...

[Johnny_Cipher]

Simplying saying the Democrats would do worse, calling them RATS, etc......and demonizing the Clintons(and, how many years can that make sense?)

About the same number of years that those US soldiers who were dragged through the streets in Somalia stay dead. I'll throw in Vince Foster and Ron Brown too.

Speaking of "dead", sorry about the zot. Better put some ice on that.

[MeekOneGOP]

:O)

[EternalVigilance]

bump...

[Amelia]

Hi, EV. I didn't see Keyes last night but I hear he did really well.

[Badray]

"...and gradually show the average Joe-voter that our ideas will truly work to make a better country for everyone."

I'd agreed with you IF Bush did that, but he didn't. Instead of showing that our way is better, he mimiced the dems. In fact he outspend the Dems. That doesn't make our case, it just shows that Bush thinks government is the solution - not the problem. It makes it more difficult to see why a conservative or a republican should even be elected.

[Badray]

Thank you.

(And BTW, it was great meeting you at CPAC.)

Your post was eloquent and right on the money. I just got signatures for to get on the ballot for a local committee position and NONE of the Republicans who signed were planning on voting for Bush this time.

At my discussion group, only about a third of those in attendance planned on voting for him and that was based on 'the lesser of two evils' and not anything like principle, trust, or admiration.

You just have to wonder who Bush is listening to.

[Badray]

That milkshake sounds tasty.

I am really angry at Bush for what he's doing, but I will never vote for one of these democrats. I just may sit out or vote third party. I don't think Bush has a snowball's chance in hell of winning PA anyway so maybe my vote is only symbolic anyway.

I do try to be reasonable on this board because we are allies on more issues than not. What we are disagreeing with here, IMO, is strategy more than anything else.

Pledging undying support to any candidate or party is self destructive to one's own interests and principles. If a pol can take you for granted, he can ignore you and most here don't want to acknowledge the position that puts us in.

Thanks for being reasonable (while being wrong) ;-)

[timydnuc]

A sane, and calm voice in the crap that the RATS dredge up. Thank you sir, you soothed my soul.