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.
and Keyes has won how many elections?
Q&A: Alan’s thoughts on ‘reparations’
What is the truth about Alan’s reported position on so-called “reparations”? Is it true that Alan supports reparations for descendants of slaves?
This question reflects a misunderstanding.
Alan does not support “reparations” — which he calls “an effort to extort monetary damages from the American people.”
The confusion arises from an occasion when Alan was asked by a reporter what he thought of controversial statements about reparations that other black leaders were making when Alan was running for the Senate from Illinois in 2004.
At the time, Alan had no formal “position” on reparations, never had one, and has none today — other than to say that he has long opposed monetary awards for descendants of slaves, a disastrous policy promoted by various black leaders.
Without altering his opposition to monetary reparations, he instead offered the questioner a hypothetical solution to the potential need to help disadvantaged descendants of slaves have a more level playing field upon which to better themselves economically. He offered this proposition as a descendant of slaves, himself, one who believes that blacks as a group have been undeniably discriminated against in overt and subtle ways since the days of slavery and Reconstruction — despite modern strides to improve the situation.
The hypothetical solution Alan offered his questioner was this:
To right a historical injustice or imbalance in the marketplace that tends to give blacks certain disadvantages, Alan suggested allowing descendants of slaves an income tax break for a limited period of time — by which they might have the means to invest capital, create new businesses, and otherwise escape the destructive dependency on government welfare that Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society had created within black culture during the 1960’s, and which continues undiminished today.
Although Alan’s remarks were widely interpreted as an endorsement of monetary reparations, they clearly were not, nor were they a departure from sound conservative principles. One of the most common conservative solutions to verifiable inequities or desirable societal ends is positive incentives that avoid the “heavy hand of government,” any kind of handout, or an increase in regulations. Conservatives therefore typically favor tax breaks over monetary redistribution or government intrusion.
That’s all Alan was proposing — to deal with a real legacy of injustice. His answer to the reporter’s question was a thoughtful application of conservative principles to correct the consequences of historic injustice.
He does feel, however, that if his hypothetical solution were ever implemented (something he does not anticipate), it would bring about a swift and decisive end to the federal income tax for all Americans, since once the American people saw the economic energy that suspension of the income tax unleashed for Black Americans, they would clamor for abolition of the federal income tax and implementation of the Fair Tax proposal Alan has long advocated to replace it. This would free Americans from the liberty-destroying shackles that make us all wage-slaves of the federal government.
You know, we keep electing people that have won elections before. We keep sending office-holders to Washington, and we keep getting screwed. Have fun with your insanity.
Dr. Keyes’ interpretation of what the Court said is misleading IMHO. The Court did acknowledge it had no authority, under the state constitution, to “change the law.” But pay attention to what it meant when it said that (to follow).
In a decision written by Margaret H. Marshall, chief justice (and spouse of a senior left-progressive NYT editor whose name now escapes me), the Court declared that the Massachusetts Constitution does not permit the state to deny citizens the right to same-sex marriage! They didn’t see their decision as “changing the law,” but of enforcing it by striking down the already-existing marriage laws of the Commonwealth on the basis of their unconstitutionality.
On November 18, 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4 to 3 that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and gave the state legislature 180 days to change the law. The court found that Massachusetts may not “deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry” because of a clause in the state’s constitution that forbids “the creation of second-class citizens.”
The Legislature was unable or unwilling to act to create legislation that would have recognized civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage within the court-ordered time frame. Understand that the legislature was overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage, but didn't want to legislate it because they knew the fury of the voters would have been unbelievable had they done so. The people of Massachusetts, in an earlier referendum that the legislature completely ignored, had voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage. So the legislature gladly passed the buck to the Court to do its dirty work for it.)
And so, the Supreme Judicial Court ruling went into effect by default. Governor Romney, as chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth, evidently thought he had no choice but to enforce it.
Some would say that, under our system of separation and balance of powers, the governor could have tried his luck in refusing to implement the Court’s order. Ours is a dynamic system involving the relative strengths of contending branches. I am of that opinion myself, and was sorely disappointed when Romney didn’t take on this fight. All hell would have broken loose here had he done that. I would have enjoyed that very much. :^)
But evidently Romney believed that, as governor, he must follow the law. I know, I know — it’s not even a “law” if it hasn’t been passed by the Legislature. The SJC has no constitutional mandate to create new law, which they claimed in this case not to have done, but which in fact for all practical purposes they did — all the while claiming that the Massachusetts Constitution, if properly understood, actually says that the pre-existing marriage laws in Massachusetts were the ones that were “unconstitutional,” not this radical new innovation.
Just goes to show you how tortured semantics can lead to repulsive changes in the fundamental social situation.
Anyhoot, I think Dr. Keyes’ statements WRT the history of gay marriage in Massachusetts, and Governor Romney's role, are substantially incorrect and misleading.
Thanks so much for writing, Jeff! I hope this may help clear things up a bit.
Please don't anybody get me wrong here. I hold Dr. Keyes in the highest esteem. Thus I'm a little surprised that he would give us such a superficial reading of the actual political facts.
I think it's fair to say that the gay marriage law in Massachusetts can only be understood against the back story of the collusion between the Legislature and the Judiciary of Massachusetts, against the interests of the people of Massachusetts, who clearly expressed their will in this regard, but were roundly ignored and rebuffed. This is getting be a standard M.O. here: The government does not see itself as implementing the directions of the citizens, but as the adversary of the citizens (who are not as enlightened as the ruling elites you see), coercing them into more "enlightened behavior," by hook or by crook.
Even a Republican governor cannot halt this runaway, intransparent, seemingly unstoppable train. Note that the people of Massachusetts often elect Republican governors, one thinks because they hope the governor can act as a check on the Democrat machine's unbridled lust for power and position at all costs (underwritten by the taxpayer of course) that has consolidated itself over the past century. All things considered, Romney was a highly effective governor in fiscal matters. On social questions, however, he had no allies in the government: He was a man standing alone. Evidently he found that he could not make his position on this matter -- no gay marriage -- politically effective. Evidently he subscribes, as I do, to the theory that "politics is the art of the possible." And Romney is a clear-eyed political realist....
No wonder Massachusetts has been exporting its population to other states for years now. That's likely to include my husband and me sometime within the next 5 or so years. This state is increasingly becoming unliveable for decent people who care about the rule of law.
Thanks so much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!
Thanks Betty, this is pretty much what I had thought and how I had interpreted what they did. As one who lived under it, I respect your thoughts and explanation and accept them.
I think Dr. Keyes’ statements WRT the history of gay marriage in Massachusetts, and Governor Romney's role, are substantially incorrect and misleading.
Agreed.
This is pretty much as I had read it too.
Romney has been out a week. Huck continues to run slimy push poll ads against him. The media continues to bash him at every opportunity. And Keyes joins in. Why are they all so afraid of Romney?
It has been a long time since Keyes had anything revelant to say about anything. He is also misinformed as are most of the Romney bashers. Either they are ignorant or they know exactly what they are doing.
Maybe this question is naive; but: How could such an intelligent man perpetrate such an inversion of reality as this? For what reason? Who benefits?
Just asking....
As to your poor opinion of Keyes for, apparently, talking about the Romney-gay marriage matter after Romney graciously suspended his campaign, I respectfully note that he was answering a question on that very subject posed by a radio show host who was interviewing him. If the host had asked a different question, perhaps Dr. Keyes would not have mentioned Romney at all in that interview. The archive of that interview, by the way, is in the audio archive section of alankeyes.com.
Your reply to me, refers to "you people". Elsewhere in this thread, Lonesome Rhodes refers to Keyes' "paid serial posters that infest this forum". I just want to let folks know that my posts in support of Alan Keyes have been as individual an effort as can be. I've long admired Alan Keyes, and was delighted to learn of his decision last fall to try to get on the ballot in as many states as possible. I went to his campaign website, contributed a hundred bucks on the spot, and downloaded a Keyes for President banner ad to put on my website. Shortly thereafter, I also contributed the same amount to Duncan Hunter. If Keyes' participation hadn't spurred my enthusiasm for what was possible, I would not have contributed to Hunter. I get no renumeration from anybody for my support of any candidate. I'm glad that Alan Keyes -- who is the candidate who seems to me to be the one who best represents my views -- is still in the race. The notion that Keyes can't win seems silly to me, because I think tens of millions would vote for him if they get to hear him talk about the issues. There's going to be a debate on energy issues in Texas on February 28, called the Houston Presidential Summit. If you'd like Alan Keyes to be included, please email the summit organizer john.Ambler@fleishman.com and the Greater Houston Partnership media contact kbaker@houston.org
The website for the debate is houstonpresidentialsummit.com.
If there's another candidate who best represents your views, I'm not trying to dis you. I've long admired Ron Paul's understanding of the Constitution, but differ with him very much about how to proceed with the war in Iraq. I've long thought of McCain as what I call a snake, and while I agree with his views on how to proceed with the war in Iraq, I disagree very strongly with him on such important issues as political participation (aka campaign finance reform), climate policy, and his throwing in with the Democrats on how judge nominations would be handled. I like Huckabee more than I liked GW Bush at this stage of the 2000 contest, but that's not saying much. Bush won me over early in his first term by nixing the CO2 alarmism espoused by his Treasury Secretary and EPA Administrator. I think it would take similar performance, not words, for Huckabee to earn my vote. If a brokered convention produced Cheney as candidate, I'd be delighted. I also like Condi Rice and that outspoken Mr. Bolton who Bush wanted as Ambassador to UN.
You can assert things, but without any evidence, logic, or a sound argument, you are just whistling in the breeze.
Answer the argument, if you can. Explain how a governor can break the law. In California, a Mayor tried this — what happened? Explain why nobody knew the court’s ruling was meaningless when it happened. Explain why a court would make a ruling that had nothing in it, and then “stay” that ruling if it did nothing?
Show me you can do something more than simply restated conclusions.
Who ordered the Justices of the Peace to allow gay marriage in Massachusetts? Alan Keyes says that it was Mitt Romney. At least one of the other posters here apparently say this is dishonest because Romney could not do anything else. Keyes strongly disagrees. He states that Romney did not have to order the Justices of the Peace to allow gay marriage. After reading the posts in this thread, Keyes’ opinion on the matter still seems reasonable to me. I am glad that we have freedom of speech to discuss these matters, and I don’t begrudge anybody their opinion. The court said the marriage law was unconstitutional. The court did not say that the Governor must ensure that gay marriages be allowed. You apparently say that Romney would have been breaking the law if he had not so ordered gay marriage. I respectfully disagree. The court decision did not create a legal mandate for gay marriage, It said the current law was unconstitutional. the legislature did not make a new law. So what law is it that you claim Romney would have been breaking had he not ordered Justices of the Peace to allow gay marriage?
Of course it was Mitt Romney. He’s the chief executive, charged with implementing the laws of the commonwealth.
If the law didn’t allow gay marriages, how do you think he could get away with ordering them to do so? Do you think governors have dictatorial powers, and a king-like ability to simply decree what the law is?
Keyes can say whatever he wants, but there is no legal argument which backs his position.
You make a statement about what the court said, but I see no evidence you have read what the court said. I have read the entire opinion, and will tell you that the court explicitly said that the words “man and woman” were to hereby be construed as being “person”.
Show me any evidence for your claim that the court did not do this. The only people who are saying otherwise are people who are against Romney, some kooks in Massachusetts who give no legal argument and make a ludicrous claim that NO lawyers have actually read the court’s opinion.
In contrast, I have made posts to FreeRepublican in which I provide the entire text of the judgment section of the legal opinion, and where I annotate point by point exactly what the court has said, and why it instituted Gay Marriage. I’m no lawyer, and it doesn’t take a lawyer to do this — just simply common sense.
The idea that a court would rule, and then “stay” the ruling for 180 days, when that ruling did nothing, is absurd. You don’t “stay” “nothing”. You only “stay” if there is an action which will be taken.
This isn’t ancient history. We lived through it, it was just a few years ago. We all KNOW that the court instituted Gay marriage. We all remember the news stories, we all remember how conservatives everywher were up in arms and calling for action.
And now here come Keyes and some nutcases in Mass., saying that all the conservatives were stupid, that no action was needed, but that the evil Mitt Romney violated the law and the constitution and illegally forced the justices of the peace to issue gay marriage licenses that he personally and without legal authority re-wrote.
How ANYBODY could read that and believe it is beyond me. How any body can insist this is the truth without providing even the simplest of evidence, like a LEGAL opinion from a court finding that Romney has violated the law (from the obvious lawsuit that a citizen of Mass. could easily file if his Governor had violated the law so blatantly).
Your main point appears to be that Romney had to order the Justices of the Peace to allow gay marriages, that he had no choice. Keyes disagrees. I find Keyes' contention much more reasonable than yours. I have no doubt that Keyes would not have chosen the same course as Romney. Are you familiar with the story about President Andrew Jackson saying "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
I see you infer that Keyes is some Johnny-come-lately to the Massachusetts gay marriage issue. But he too was there at the time. Here's an article reporting on his activism in Massachusetts:
The Boston Globe, May 11, 2004, p. B4
ADS HIT ROMNEY EFFORT IN GAY MARRIAGE FIGHT
by Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff
Criticisms of Governor Mitt Romney from supporters of gay marriage have been routine for months. But now, the governor is getting heat from the other side, too.
The Declaration Alliance, a conservative, Washington-based group headed by former presidential hopeful Alan Keyes, began airing $40,000 worth of ads yesterday on Boston talk radio stations, challenging Romney to support an effort to replace the four Supreme Court justices whose Nov. 18 ruling legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts. The group also plans to begin airing local television ads today.
"Governor Mitt Romney promised us that he would fight for traditional marriage and not leave any stone unturned in resisting the powerful homosexual lobby," Keyes says in the 60-second spot. "It's time to speak up, Mitt."
The spot urges listeners to call Romney's office and tell him to speak up for removing the judges. By 4 p.m. yesterday, the governor's office had received 160 calls from gay- marriage opponents who heard the radio ad, said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. But the governor stands by his original position against removal of the judges, his spokesman said.
"While we appreciate the fact that people have strong feelings on the gay marriage issue, we don't think the answer is to impeach the justices responsible for the Goodridge decision," Fehrnstrom said. "That goes too far."
The initiative to remove the majority of judges in the Good ridge case, urged by a local group of gay-marriage opponents called the Article 8 Alliance, has not garnered much support among legislators on Beacon Hill. The bill has one sponsor, Representative Emile J. Goguen, a Fitchburg Democrat.
"We're asking Governor Romney to speak out in support of the Article 8 initiative," said James Lafferty, spokesman for Declaration Alliance. "He has made some serious efforts in some areas, but in others he has surrendered way too quickly."
Meanwhile, a new University of Massachusetts poll indicates that support for gay marriage has increased among voters. The survey, taken of 400 voters between May 2 and May 6, asked for their preferences on gay marriage. Forty-five percent of the respondents said they wanted gay marriage to be legal and opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. A similar survey, taken between March 29 and April 5, found that 40 percent supported gay marriage and opposed an amendment banning it. Both polls had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percent.
--- end of Boston Globe article ---
I don't know why you try to paint Dr Keyes as a Johnny-come-lately to the Massachusetts gay marriage matter. Maybe you don't know any better. But you seem to say you were there. Your use of the phraseology "And now here comes Keyes and some nutcases in Mass." seems artfully crafted, just as did Rush Limbaugh's combining Keyes and kook into the same breath a couple of weeks ago without actually overtly calling Keyes a kook.
An audio file of a speech he made in Boston May 4, 2004 is available on the Keyes website -- http://media.renewamerica.us/archives/mp3/04_05_14boston.mp3 -- Towards the end of the speech, he excoriates the acquiesence by the executive to abusive judiciary. I find his criticism reasonable.
I have indeed not read the court decision. I have paid scant if any attention to the political goings-on in Massachusetts for a long time, except to occasionally lament the sad state of affairs that changed the home of such leaders as John Adams to the state that keeps re-electing Ted Kennedy.
I appreciate your questions asking "If the law didn’t allow gay marriages, how do you think he could get away with ordering them to do so? Do you think governors have dictatorial powers, and a king-like ability to simply decree what the law is?" And you later refer to the lack of an "obvious lawsuit that a citizen of Mass. could easily file if his Governor had violated the law so blatantly". You mention you're not a lawyer, yet you talk about obvious lawsuits. I'm not a lawyer either, but I presume that one needs to show standing to succeed in a lawsuit in Massachusetts. Can you name anyone who would have obvious legal standing in this instance? Can you name anyone whom a pro-gay marriage Attorney General might not contest regarding standing?
So true, A-G: "Take caaaaaare of meeeeeeeeee!" they scream; especially on the Left.
Thanks for the great post for Jeff.
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.