Posted on 02/10/2008 5:52:17 AM PST by Brian Sears
Keyes talks about Romney's exit and McCain's record
Says McCain has put ‘knife in the back’ of conservative base
February 8, 2008
On Thursday, Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes commented on Mitt Romney's decision to bow out of the presidential race, saying he never bought into the former Massachusetts governor's "whole phony business" of "reinventing himself" in contradiction of his record.
Keyes also addressed Romney's hand in instituting same-sex-marriage, repeating his charge that Romney pushed through same-sex marriage in Massachusetts without obligation or authority to do so, in violation of state law.
Keyes' remarks were made on KGNW's Thor Tolo show, which is based in Washington state.
Keyes also weighed in on Sen. John McCain's recent emergence in the presidential race, saying, "There's not a constituency of true conservatives that doesn't have one of John McCain's knives sticking out of [their] backs" — due to the senator's "determined effort to shut down true self-government in this country, so people can't organize, can't fundraise, can't associate, and can't communicate about the records of their representatives."
The former Assistant Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan called McCain's record an "assault" on conservatism and "a deadly blow against the possibility of self-government and constitutionalism." He added, "And we're just supposed to forget about it now and listen to his words . . . that he speaks to please and placate people, but I don't think people are that stupid. I really don't."
Keyes suggested that conservatives won't forget McCain's "work and record" when they go to the voting booth in the general election.
Asked if he personally would vote for McCain, Keyes said, "I'll just make it very clear: I'm not going to support John McCain, and that's just simply that."
Host Tolo led off the interview by raising the issue of Keyes' allegations that Romney forced same-sex marriage upon his state.
Said Tolo, "Alan Keyes believes that Mitt Romney single-handedly instituted same-sex marriage while governor of Massachusetts. . . . Keyes — who lobbied against that state's adoption of same-sex marriage 3½ years ago, when most people were unaware of the way Massachusetts had come to adopt same-sex marriage — believes that [the perception that] the state's Supreme Judicial Court [instituted same-sex marriage] is absolutely, positively a false perception."
Asked why this perception persists, Keyes said, "I think it persists because people don't actually look at what the court said in its decision."
Keyes noted that the court acknowledged it had no authority, under the state constitution, to change the law, and that when the legislature refused to comply with the court's directive to revise the law, "Mitt Romney, without any basis in the law, . . . ordered the justices of the peace to perform gay marriage, even though that order itself was unconstitutional and illegal."
As a result of Romney's public record, as well as the governor's lack of credibility in professing numerous changes of heart regarding his positions, Keyes said he couldn't support him for president.
Keyes Ping
bett, yoou lived there. Is htere any truth at all to Keye’s assertions here?
Wow. What class. Romney drops out of the race putting country in front of personal ambition and Mr. Keyes feels the need to continue the dishonest attacks. No wonder he can’t win an election.
Truth HURTS!
McCain Fiendold,
McCain Kennedy,
McCain Lieberman.
McCAin Edwards
Opposed overturning Roe v. Wade, Would not have nominated Ailto, Gang of 14, Opposed Tax cuts for the “rich”, Opposed repeal of death tax. More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
“But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because ‘he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.’
“Therein lies the problem that many conservatives have with John McCain.
“It is the nagging feeling that after all of his years of chummily bonding with liberal reporters and garnering favorable media coverage from them that the Arizona senator is embarrassed to be seen as too much of a conservative. …”
On Roe v. Wade, here is another McCain Gem,
WASHINGTON (Sept. 13) - Senator John McCain (R-Az.), a leading contender for the Republican nomination for President, said on August 19, “Certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade,” the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand.
On Taxes, McCain sounds pretty much the same as Teddy Kennedy. I invite your attention to the following.
Second, Senator McCain’s stated reason for opposing the Bush tax cuts rhetorically allied him with the most radical anti-growth elements of national politics. Senator McCain argued, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.”[7] Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) sounded a similar theme, saying, “Now, they are proposing more of the same, more tax breaks benefiting only the wealthiest among us,”[8] as did Democratic Representative Maxine Waters (CA-35): “I voted against the Republican tax cut plan, which is an irresponsible tax cut that will further undermine the nation’s struggling economy at the expense of middle-class American families.”[9] Senator McCain’s eager embrace of grossly inaccurate class-warfare demagoguery demonstrated, at best, a painful ignorance of pro-growth economic principles.
Third, Senator McCain not only voted against the Bush tax cuts, he joined leading liberal senators in offering and voting for amendments designed to undermine them. All in all, Senator McCain voted on the pro-tax side of 14 such amendments in 2001 and 2003. These included such odious measures as:
An amendment sponsored by Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) to prohibit a reduction in the top tax rate until Congress enacted legislation to provide a prescription drug benefit[10] An amendment sponsored by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) against full repeal of the Death Tax.[11] This vote is in keeping with Senator McCain’s 2002 vote against repealing the Death Tax[12] An amendment sponsored by Tom Daschle (D-SD) and co-sponsored by Senator McCain to limit tax reduction in the top tax bracket to one percentage point[13] Finally, John McCain recently claimed that he has never voted for a tax increase,[14] but the congressional record tells a different story. As Chairman of the Commerce Committee in 1998, he sponsored and voted for an enormous 282% tax increase on cigarettes.[15] Senator McCain defended the proposal as a “fee”[16] rather than a tax increase, but his semantic tap dance doesn’t change the numerical facts. Despite his occasional constructive votes on tax policy, Senator McCain’s vigorous opposition to and misguided rhetoric against the most pro-growth tax cuts in twenty years should make economic conservatives very worried about the tax policies that would emanate from a McCain presidential administration.
I was talking about Romney, not Mr. McCain.
Yes, I know, but any chance to slam McMexico, I do so. Thanks for the opportunity.
Just one good reason why Keyes should not be considered Presidential material -- the willingness to believe absurd notions. Like a 9/11 truther.
No.
First, the court didn’t “acknowledge” that it could not change state law. They said they couldn’t re-write state law. It’s a subtle but important difference.
The could for example re-interpret the law as it is written, or they could throw the law out in whole or in part.
They specifically decided NOT to throw out the law, and instead chose to re-interpret “man and woman” to be “persons”. They didn’t re-write the law, they simply changed the definition of words in the law.
They provided justification for that definition by claiming “man and woman” was a common law construct, not a specific choice of the legislature, and that “common law” has always been interpreted in the light of current norms. They even brought in a Canada court ruling about that very common law construct, to show how other courts were interpreting it (something that we loath here, but which makes a modicum of sense for items which ARE truly common-law rather than specific legislation.
Their ruling specifically granted relief to both the parties in the lawsuit, and all other similarly situated parties.
You can go read the entire thing and it will be clear. However, you can save some time if you just apply a little bit of logic.
We all know that, WHATEVER the court did, it “stayed” it’s ruling for 180 days, to give the legislature time to act.
If the court’s ruling had absolutely no effect, if it did not in fact require gay marriage, what would they have been “staying” for 180 days? In order for something to need to be “stayed”, there had to be some effect of the ruling which would otherwise be implemented.
And if that logically doesn’t do it for you, then simple look at the historical record. This was one of the most monumental rulings in this decade. EVERY lawyer worth his salt was going to read over this ruling, and discuss it. The idea that nobody would “notice” what the court did or didn’t do is ludicrous.
And what did EVERYBODY say the day after the ruling, after thousands of lawyers and pundits read every last word? They all said the court had just instituted gay marriage, but given Mass. 180 days to FIX it.
And what did the legislature do? Grudgingly started the process of a constitutional amendment to overturn the court decision — a move backed by all the groups opposed to gay marriage — and kind of an ODD thing to do if the court ruling in fact did not INSTITUTE gay marriage.
But somehow, a lot of Freepers still argue in the face of logic, common sense, and the rule of law that the court spent years of time to rule about NOTHING, and they stayeed NOTHING, and that Romney then illegally, without legislative backing, instituted gay marriage and threated to fire people over it, and yet NOBODY successfully sued him over it, or got him thrown in jail for breaking the law.
You might as well believe 9/11 was an inside job — at least that theory is complicated enough that there is some reason for intelligent people to get confused by it.
Believing Mitt’s phony conversion fairy tale is believing an absurd notion. Guess that takes you out of the running as well.
Mitt instituted gay marriage in MA when he didn’t have to and then spent two disingenuous years ‘leading the fight’ against his own work. You may not want to believe it, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s true. This is a prime example of the kind of gutless ‘leadership’ that comes from electing a RINO like Mitt Romney to anything above the position of dog catcher.
Alan Keyes has been over for years but especially since he supported reparations for Blacks in Illinois in 2004. Look it up.
Romney specified that he was “suspending” his campain. To me, that means he has not completely dropped out. Right here in one of the Keyes threads today, I notice a poster saying he still plans to vote for Romney. If your disappproval of Keyes’ comments is really based on the status of Romney’s “dropping out”, well, I think you’e off-base. There are, of course, other reasons to disapprove of any comments by candidates about others that go beyond the voicing of policy difference — the so-called “11th Commandment” popularized by Ronald Reagan: Thou shalt not speak ill of thy fellow Republicans. The Keyes campaign has a real nice feature — public conference calls on Tesday and Thursday nights (10 pm eastern time). I’ve really enjoyed Alan’s direct and thorough answers to questions from participants (including one I asked him last week about an issue raised here in FreeRepublic). If a question is important to you, Alan Keyes is providing a very public venue for you to ask him about it. I suspect he has thought a lot about Reagan’s precept, and that he does not violate it without honorable and compelling reason.
As for your claim that Keyes’ opinion of Romney is “dishonest attack”, well, what’s dishonest about pointing out that Romey chose to be proactive in changing the definition of marriage in Massachusetts? Keyes says Romney could have chosen differently. That seems a reasonable criticism to me. My understanding of Romney’s claim, that he had to act as he did, is that it is indeed a phony claim.
No, some are actually. Some are probably on this thread as a matter of fact.
The big stumbling block .... as you pointed out ... he played the race card in 2004. I washed my hands of him from that day.
Romney suspended his campaign so he can still get money contributions to make up for the amount he put in from his own bank account, not to get delegates.
LOL
So Keyes is what, 0-5 in elections???
As to Mr. Keyes' claim that Mitt Romney is to blame for gay marriage in MA, it is a flat out, bald faced lie and Mr. Keyes and those who promote it are fully aware of that fact.
That they continue to promote this idea despite the historical record tells me and any other reasonable person that those who continue to push the notion are themselves DISHONEST. Like the people who insist that 911 was an inside job or the people who say that Bush lied and people died or the people who insist that George W Bush served the troops a fake, plastic turkey on his first visit to Iraq. Its all the same mentality. Score political points for your side, the truth and consequences be damned.
For what its worth, once again, here are all the facts about Mitt Romney and gay marriage and not just the cherry picked facts and half truths that so many here on FR and other sites rely on:
Rebut the Notion that Gov. Romney's Inaction Allowed Same-Sex Marriage to Become Law in Massachusetts
http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#DOM
IssueSource.org is a website co-produced by MassINC and The State House News Service and is a project of MassINC's Civic Renewal Initiative. It is a non-partisan, not-for-profit, free public service.IssueSource.org has a remarkably detailed chronological journal of the legal actions and legislative events in Massachusetts regarding same-sex marriage following the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health on Nov. 18, 2003 (Issue: Gay Marriage: Prior to May 17, 2004). The journal records in great detail the actions taken by people both for and against the same-sex marriage court ruling up to the date the ruling became law on May 17, 2004 making same-sex marriage legal in Massachusetts.
The journal is a very long read with several examples where Governor Romney opposed the ruling and attempted to delay the implementation with statements and directives; actions that were openly defied by others at times. However, focus on the events after March 29, 2004 when the constitutional convention in Massachusetts approved an amendment to ban gay marriage. Note the legal action Gov. Romney initiated immediately after March 29, 2004 to prevent the SJC's Goodridge ruling from becoming law on May 17, 2004. More importantly, note that Gov. Romney's efforts were thwarted because the Democrat Attorney General Tom Reilly and Senate President Robert Travaglini refused to cooperate and blocked the required legislative action.
Excerpts from the journal of events are presented below:
"On Mar. 29, the Legislature, meeting in constitutional convention, approved the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions. The measure must still be approved a second time, during the 2005-06 session of the Legislature, in order to be placed on the November 2006 ballot for ratification by voters.
----- snip ----- "Immediately after the vote, Romney called on AG Reilly to go before the SJC to halt the start of gay marriages on May 17, but Reilly quickly responded that he would not seek the delay, arguing that the SJC's two rulings, in November and February, had made it clear that the court would tolerate nothing less than marriage for same-sex couples. A week earlier, on Mar. 22, Travaglini told the State House News Service that any attempt by Romney to halt the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses on the SJC's ordered timetable would probably fail. "It is my understanding that no matter what legislative action we take, we cannot affect the issuance of licenses come the 17th of May. If the governor believes that he has the capacity or the authority to stop the issuance of licenses, then that’s a personal political decision that he can make; I don’t necessarily agree."
----- snip ----- Office of Gov. Mitt Romney, "Romney Files Emergency Bill to Seek Goodridge Decision Stay," Press Release, 4/15/2004
"Romney announced April 15 that he would seek emergency legislation to allow him to appoint a special counsel to ask the Supreme Judicial Court for a 2 1/2 year delay of its gay marriage ruling set to take effect May 17. Romney's plan was to bypass AG Reilly--who refused to name a special counsel in March--and name his own special counsel, retired SJC Justice Joseph Nolan. Romney said the legislation would allow him to "protect the integrity of the Constitutional process" and return the decision on gay marriage to voters. "We believe the people have the right to have their position heard and that as the governor, I should have right to have my position heard. Look, people that don’t have any income are entitled to representation. Everyone in the Commonwealth is entitled to representation. But somehow as governor of the Commonwealth, it’s deemed that I can’t represent my view before the courts--I think that’s a mistake," said Romney.
"State House News Service reported April 22 that Romney's special counsel bill was "languishing" on Beacon Hill. The main obstacle was the Senate, which failed to admit the bill in its last two sessions. Senate President Robert Travaglini dismissed the legislation when it was announced and said the governor was only trying to push his "political agenda." If the bill was not admitted, then there would not be a joint committee public hearing on it.
"Romney said April 21 that he would not file a supportive brief or otherwise get involved in a petition brought by the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. The League was attempting to persuade the Supreme Judicial Court to delay the start of gay marriages until November 2006, when voters could vote on the issue. Romney said he preferred to make the case for delay himself. On April 23, Romney renewed his call for the Legislature to grant him the authority to appoint a special counsel so he could launch his own effort to persuade the court to delay gay marriages from taking effect May 17. "I call on both branches of the Legislature, particularly the Senate. . .to give me the opportunity to preserve the choice of the definition of marriage to the citizens and make sure that the hard work the Legislature went through to pass this amendment to allow the citizens to have a voice is worth something," Romney told reporters at a press conference.
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.