Keyes hedges towards CP

Rumors of Keyes’ entry into the Constitution Party presidential nomination abound. Meanwhile, he has added the Constitution Party’s National Convention to his calendar of events on his front page.

One wonders who his Vice Presidential pick would be. While we will all be hoping Moore—I doubt Moore would accept a VP spot behind a candidate he’d likely beat in a nomination race. I suspect another longtime friend and member of the party.

86 Responses to “Keyes hedges towards CP”

  1. Jason Says:

    They better take his interest and run with it. Let the VP slot work itself out. I don’t see how the CP can afford not to stoke his interest in running on their ticket.

  2. NewFederalist Says:

    Based on what I just read at Ballot Access News, I would think Rick Jore would be an excellent choice. I would think a Moore/Jore ticket would be even better than Keyes/Jore.

  3. Trent Hill Says:

    NewFederalist: Jore is not interested—he’s working on a Constitutional Amendment in Montana. I suspect,though, that he will run for State Senate or some lesser State-wide office.

  4. Trent Hill Says:

    Jason,

    Im coming around to Keyes the more I look into him. Is he a Straussian? Yes. Is he pro-war? Yes,but not in a nation-building way. To him,its pure “offense as defense” way—which is easily reversible, that is how most pro-war conservatives saw the war before becoming anti-war.
    And he has the speaking skills and media accesibility that no one else has.

  5. Mike Gillis Says:

    Do folks in the CP believe that Keyes will come around on Iraq if he wins the nomination?

  6. silver Republican Says:

    The problem with Keyes is that he can very easily become a joke. His showing in the last Republican debate in Iowa was rediculous.

  7. Jason Says:

    I concur completely. Now’s the time to make some noise. It’s either Moore, Keyes or both, but beyond those two leaves the CP exactly where its always been at—just out of sight of everyone else.

  8. Red Phillips Says:

    I have said it before, and I will say it again. A Keyes nomination would be a disaster. The CP needs to stake out it’s territory as a truly conservative and Constitutionalist party. Keyes is just “three legged stool” GOP style conservatism on steroids. Keyes is not a Constitutionalist, and his Straussianism should be unacceptable to thoughtful paleos.

  9. Andy Says:

    “Trent Hill Says:

    March 22nd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
    Jason,

    Im coming around to Keyes the more I look into him. Is he a Straussian? Yes. Is he pro-war? Yes,but not in a nation-building way.”

    If you guys & gals in the Constitution Party nominate the warmonger Alan Keyes you are going to lose a lot of credibility. This will be a clear case of style over substance.

    Candidates like Chuck Baldwin and Don Grundmann may not be as well known as Alan Keyes, but at least they get your party’s philosophy right.

    If I were you I wouldn’t even consider Alan Keyes as a candidate unless he publically denounces the war, foreign interventionism, the Bush administration, and probably a few other things.

  10. silver Republican Says:

    One thing I do like about the Constitution Party is that you folks value expirience and electability over being really nit picky over issues.

  11. Dylan Waco Says:

    Another thing for traditionalist conservatives to remember about Keyes is that he actual race baited Obama and ran to his left for the Illinois Senate seat on ethnic issues. He said flat out Obama’s pro-choice position was inherently self loathing and came out in favor of reparations for slavery. Not sure how the CP could work with that.

    Honestly I’d rather vote for Obama than Keyes.

  12. Mike Gillis Says:

    “One thing I do like about the Constitution Party is that you folks value expirience and electability over being really nit picky over issues.”

    I’m not in the CP and politically, I’m practically a socialist, but I take issue with this.

    What you call “nit picky over issues” I call principled. I may think that they’re wrong about 95% of the issues, but I have more respect for folks who refuse to settle for candidates that don’t represent them (and even stand against them on issues important to them) than someone who’ll vote for crap simply because it’s on “their team”.

    And experience is a worthless thing if the quality of the experience is bad.

    These are precisely the reasons that I’ll be voting for Ralph Nader over the major party options. And it’s the reason that the CP cares about the caliber of candidate they run.

    And electability? I’m voting for president, not betting at the track. I won’t win any money or a door prize if I vote for the candidate that wins. All I have is my ability to get as many folks as I can to vote for WHAT I BELIEVE IN so that whether that candidate wins or loses, that they can force important issues into the national debate and force the other candidates to either take better positions on issues or to expose them on the issues on which they’re bad.

    I know that support of imperialist foreign policy and preemptive war is something that I refuse to compromise on and I certainly won’t blame the members of the Constitution Party for taking the same stand.

    If I wanted to settle for the least worst candidate, I’d join a major party.

  13. Bri Says:

    Mr. Gillis, the concept you state is difficult for some people in the CP to understand; respecting some one for having principles even if you don’t agree with those principles. While I agree with you, I’m not a CP member BTW, some in the CP would refer to you as a “hypocrite.”

  14. Laura Says:

    Wasn’t Alan Keyes roommates with Bill Kristol in college? Enough said.

  15. Jared Says:

    I hope I don’t go to the ballot only to see: Clinton, McCain, Root, Keyes, McKinney, Nader. Writing in someone may be my only option…

  16. Andy Says:

    “Laura Says:

    March 22nd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
    Wasn’t Alan Keyes roommates with Bill Kristol in college? Enough said.”

    Maybe that’s where Keyes got his neo-con ways.

    “Jared Says:

    March 22nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
    I hope I don’t go to the ballot only to see: Clinton, McCain, Root, Keyes, McKinney, Nader. Writing in someone may be my only option…”

    I’d probably write in Ron Paul.

  17. Trent Hill Says:

    “Candidates like Chuck Baldwin and Don Grundmann may not be as well known as Alan Keyes, but at least they get your party’s philosophy right.

    If I were you I wouldn’t even consider Alan Keyes as a candidate unless he publically denounces the war, foreign interventionism, the Bush administration, and probably a few other things.”

    And what if Keyes selects someone like Baldwin as his VP, renounces the War and foreign intervensionism? (He’s been anti-Bush)
    Keyes WILL NOT get the nomination without turning against the war: Period. Its enough to kill any candidate in our nomination process. However, if he renounces intervensionism, pledges to stay in the party and help BUILD it, and selects a party-insider as his VP—-he’ll be a strong candidate. His ability to fundraise and get media coverage will be far above and beyond anything we’ve ever had. Baldwin or Grundmann,on the other hand, would gaurantee a Phillips-2000 showing,a step back from Peroutka-2004.

  18. Jared Says:

    Why would Baldwin be a step back from Peroutka?

  19. silver Republican Says:

    How do you folks think Keyes would do compared to Moore? Electoral wise, not issues wise.

  20. Andy Says:

    “And what if Keyes selects someone like Baldwin as his VP, renounces the War and foreign intervensionism? ”

    Wasn’t it just a few months ago that Alan Keyes attacked Ron Paul for being anti-war and anti-foreign interventionism?

  21. Trent Hill Says:

    “Why would Baldwin be a step back from Peroutka?”

    Baldwin’s VOTE totals. Not the candidate himself. Baldwin has less money and less connections. Although he might get a fair amount of Paul voters—so I retract that part of my statement.

    “How do you folks think Keyes would do compared to Moore? Electoral wise, not issues wise.”

    Keyes wont perform as well as Moore. And he definetly wont cross the 1 million vote threshold without the PERFECT STORM of issues. He could do well though.

  22. Trent Hill Says:

    “Wasn’t it just a few months ago that Alan Keyes attacked Ron Paul for being anti-war and anti-foreign interventionism?”

    Paul supporters, for the most part, assumed everything was an attack. Neither Keyes nor Tancredo ever ATTACKED Paul. But they disagreed.

  23. Jeremy Young Says:

    I think CP voters should consider that Moore got a higher percentage of the vote in a Republican primary than Keyes ever has, anywhere. Also that Moore has been elected to statewde office. Just sayin’.

  24. Trent Hill Says:

    Jeremy,

    Moore is the hands-down favorite. Unfortunately,he isnt the one taking aim at our presidential slot—-Keyes is.

  25. Andy Says:

    “Paul supporters, for the most part, assumed everything was an attack. Neither Keyes nor Tancredo ever ATTACKED Paul. But they disagreed.”

    OK, Keyes DISAGREED with Ron Paul on foreign policy just a few months ago. Now are we to believe that he’s had a sudden change of heart?

  26. Jeremy Young Says:

    Trent, be that as it may, it strikes me that Moore may be waiting for the same reason Ruwart was waiting and Barr is waiting for the LP: to see whether any of the other candidates catches fire. Ruwart jumped in there because there was a perfect opening for her: a weak field led by a candidate not well liked by the party’s base (Root). The thing that could have most easily kept her out would have been an early surge for Kubby or Phillies.

    Where I’m going with this is: I don’t think it’s a situation of Keyes versus not-Keyes for the CP. I think the only way to keep Moore from entering and winning would be to orchestrate a surge for a credible Keyes alternative like, say, Steve Stockman. Keyes is not going to keep Roy Moore out of this primary; in fact, if he is the favorite going into the convention, it’s that much more likely that Moore will enter and win.

  27. Red Phillips Says:

    If Keyes renounces the War and foreign intervention then won’t he loose some of his base. From what I can tell on his discussion site, they are very pro-intervention.

    Also, shouldn’t Keyes have to renounce Lincoln and Strauss? Peroutka was and is a member of the League of the South and has addressed the organization on several occasions. Keyes is a certified Lincoln Cultist. If they run Peroutka in 2004 and Keyes in 2008 it makes them look schizophrenic and unprincipled.

    Does the CP believe secession was/is a legal option? Howard Phillips does.

  28. Travis Maddox Says:

    First off all the CP chooses their VP differently. The Delegates vote for him just like the President nominee.
    I would not be in favor of Keyes and might not even vote for him. First of all he is a Republican and continues to be one. He was at the Iowa meeting I was there I know. He could have joined us then. He knew he had no chance of a Republican nom but he has stayed with them. Secondly his political career is mostly defeat. He has almost become a joke politically because of his continual running for office and barely making a showing. I just don’t think it would be a good move. I would like to see Moore, Smith or Baldwin in the two top spots.

  29. Ronald Monroe Says:

    I have set through two of Alan Keys speeches for the Constitution Party National Conventions. He praised the party for being the very last opportunity for our nation to be transform back to what our Founding Fathers attended it to be. Each time his last statement was ,” but I will give the Republican Party one more change”.

    Since then he has done little to nothing to help build our party. I think Allen is going to have to convince the Constitution Party Delegates that he is going to show us action and deeds not just words.

  30. Trent Hill Says:

    Ronald,

    I agree that Keyes should not get a free pass. However, let me lay out a situation in which he would recieve the enthusiastic backing of most delegates.
    He declares BEFORE the convention,sometime in the next 3 weeks, that he is with the CP and running for their nomination. He hits the State-Convention circuit and encourages his most dedicated activists (of which their seem to be about 5000) to start helping the CP. He puts money/effort into the ballot-access show in Texas. He renounces the War and embraces non-interventionism. He swears to stay in the party and help build it,regardless of wether he gets the nomination.

    Race over.

  31. Laura Says:

    If Keyes was to change his neo-con mind, no one with half a brain would believe him.

  32. Jose C. Says:

    “Trent, be that as it may, it strikes me that Moore may be waiting for the same reason Ruwart was waiting and Barr is waiting for the LP: to see whether any of the other candidates catches fire. Ruwart jumped in there because there was a perfect opening for her: a weak field led by a candidate not well liked by the party’s base (Root).”

    Don’t you mean not liked by the party’s establishment? . . . not liked by the party’s elite? I have not herd the “base” does not like him. He has been the winner in to many straw polls, primaries, and caucuses’ for this to be the case.

    As to the issue being discussed here, I would urge the Constitution Party to take a pass on Keyes. He is not worth the trouble he will bring to the party.

  33. Ronald Monroe Says:

    Trent,

    Your right if he actualy did make the circuit of the states displaying activity and energy in supporting our party. Also if he puts money/effort into the ballot-access in Texas and other states. If he modified some of the believes our delegates have a little trouble in accepting and then vowed to stay in the party and help build it. He would become a valuable resource for years to come. I am the first to admit that he is a charismatic speaker with a wealth of knowledge about our country’s past and I have no doubt he is a patriot ,

  34. Dave Williams Says:

    “The problem with Keyes is that he can very easily become a joke. His showing in the last Republican debate in Iowa was rediculous.”

    Agreed SR.

  35. Jason Says:

    The CP has an obligation to run a competitive campaign, especially in light of the “meetings.” This is 08 and everything has worked out as planned regarding the GOP, the religious-right and so forth. 08 has been the year since 06 and a lot of predictions have come to pass. They have to piss or get off the pot very soon. It’s that simple.

    So wether the candidate is Keyes or Moore or both, the CP has the obligation to spill the chest and let those two names try and get 5 million votes. With today’s atmosphere 5-million should be the minimal goal set. That will be a very respectable and party-building outcome.

    Anything less than that, and those names mentioned…it would be time to permantly move on as the people just aren’t buying in.

  36. Deran Says:

    I guess my question I always ask my self when a “major” or “minor” public name seeks the nomination of an alternative political party. Money.

    Does that potential candidate have a history of successful fundraising for their causes, etc? Does that candidate have anysort of grassroot base that would contribute to a campaign, thaqt is not already tapped by the party?

    I know this sounds sort of sordid; but if I was active in an alternative political party, and some one from out side the party wants our support, I’d want to see if they can bring any potential money to the table. Fame and name recognition are very good too.

    I’m sure the folks in the CP have considered this as far as Keyes goes? And of course one would not want that person using the campaign to sell their own thingues, and not generating funds for the campaign.

    It is a pity Se, Smith idisclamined interest, as is Mr. Moore’s lack of interest.

  37. Trent Hill Says:

    “So wether the candidate is Keyes or Moore or both, the CP has the obligation to spill the chest and let those two names try and get 5 million votes. With today’s atmosphere 5-million should be the minimal goal set. That will be a very respectable and party-building outcome.

    Anything less than that, and those names mentioned…it would be time to permantly move on as the people just aren’t buying in.”

    Bullshit Jason—you’re attempting to raise the standard,which wont work. 1 mill is the highest the LP has gotten, and if the CP gets over 200k,it’ll be a mile-stone. With that said, I expect this to be far-and-away our best year. But there is nothing special about this election year really—the GOP picked an authoritarian liberal and we’ll pick someone better,as always.

  38. Jim Duensing Says:

    Does anyone remember Keyes coming out for “torture warrants” after the attacks of 9/11? Go back to his short lived MSNBC show and watch the episode with (I believe) Dershowitz.

    The CP doesn’t support torture warrants do they?

  39. Trent Hill Says:

    “I know this sounds sort of sordid; but if I was active in an alternative political party, and some one from out side the party wants our support, I’d want to see if they can bring any potential money to the table. Fame and name recognition are very good too.”

    This is precisely what im considering. Regardless of the Presidential candidate, the party’s down-ticket candidates will remain the same. But in this case,our down-ticket will benefit from the up-ticket name recognition and media access. Keyes will get more radio time than anyone in our history and will be capable of raising more money for this race than any race in our history—well above the $700,000 the Peroutka camp raised (with $120,000 from Peroutka himself).

  40. Red Phillips Says:

    Trent, Keyes will forever taint the CP. It will become know for long afterwards as the Keyes Party. Peroutka may not have been able to raise much money, but he did nothing to discredit the Party.

  41. Trent Hill Says:

    How about I reframe the question to you Red: Who else?

  42. Larry Breazeale,Msgt.(ret.)USAFR Says:

    Keyes would be a great Presidential candidate for the C.P. He can debate ANYONE hands down, on the issues. Sure, he probably has a bit of ego about him but, so what! So did General Patton but, he got the job done!
    I will support him in as much as he supports the platform and helping to build the party at all levels, nationally. The C.P. has SURVIVED because, we do NOT surround ourselves around ONE MAN like the Reform party did
    with Perot. WE in the C.P. have a PLATFORM on the REAL ISSUES….
    “THAT” is what it is all about. THAT PLATFORM, does NOT change with the wind, for political expediancy. Go to

    www.constitutionparty.com

    and READ IT! The PLATFORM tells the nation and the world what “we” are all about. It is not about ONE MAN, any man. It is about saving this REPUBLIC before it is too late. It is all about the “CONSTITUTION”.

    I think Chuck Balwin would be a great V.P. I think Jerome Corsi would be the very best however, he can not run, however, he has found a permanet home in the Constitution party, and we love him.

    -Larry Breazeale, Msgt. (ret.) USAFR
    NATIONAL VETERANS COALITION
    of the Constitution party..www.nvets.org

  43. Red Phillips Says:

    MSgt B., once again I am not impressed with the “support the platform” line. Would you back Nader if he suddenly declared he supported our platform? Some track record and credibility is required. Keyes currently does not support our platform. Read his. And his followers clearly do not. Go look at the Keyes forum. Honestly, I doubt Keyes is as much of a muddle headed “world tyranny police” ideologue as are his sycophantic followers. He is too smart to be that naive. But he has attracted that crowd for a reason. He has never in his rhetoric lead them to believe otherwise.

    Trent, I would support Grundman (no dis intended) before I would support Keyes. I would beg Howard to run again. Anyone but Keyes?

  44. Trent Hill Says:

    Keyes does advocate nation building or policing the world. He supports the War in Iraq (although he urged a Declaration of War) based upon a “only good defense is a good offense” medium. Its not non-interventionism though,and thats a sad fact.
    Grundmann does not have the money, speaking ability, time, or name recognition (even within the party) to run. His vote total would be less than 100,000,and all of our down-ticket races would suffer—as would the future of our party.

  45. matt Says:

    Keyes will be every bit the long-term albatross for the CP that George Wallace has been for the AIP.

    An alternative party needs to pick up independents, and once they hear the name Alan Keyes most of them will tune out, as I think they ought to.

  46. Trent Hill Says:

    Im not going to defend the choice of Keyes, as I certainly dont prefer him for the nomination—but he seems to be the best/only choice.
    Don Grundmann/Max Rieske/Diane Beall Templin will all campaign in there hometowns or home states—and no further. They wont have the time or money.

    I’ll take a Keyes/Baldwin ticket or something.

  47. silver Republican Says:

    I have a rather off the wall comment. There are not enough conservative third parties with truly different possitions. Most are very small government, and isolationist. There NEEDS to be a party for neocons. Currently all they are doing is trying to take over other parties. They need to find a way to estabolish their own group. That is the party Keyes should run in.

  48. Fred C. Says:

    Neoconservatives don’t need to start a new party at the moment. They have one they’ve done well with, and have at least made par with another one.

  49. silver Republican Says:

    My bet is that over the course of the next ten years, both parties will turn their back on neoconservatism.

  50. Andy Says:

    “There NEEDS to be a party for neocons.”

    There already is. It’s called the Republican Party.

  51. Jason Says:

    “Bullshit Jason—you’re attempting to raise the standard,which wont work. 1 mill is the highest the LP has gotten, and if the CP gets over 200k,it’ll be a mile-stone. With that said, I expect this to be far-and-away our best year. But there is nothing special about this election year really—the GOP picked an authoritarian liberal and we’ll pick someone better,as always.”

    Exactly Trent, raising the standard. Doing away with the honorably loser mentality.

    Nothing special about the election year? Have you read what the CP and other like-minded folks have been writing and publishing since 06? Everything has happened according to plan, in fact, so much so that it’s eerie.

    Immigration, the war, the border fence, MCCAIN!, liberal democrats taking over congress and the Senate. etc.

    So you bet, I’m raising the standards, and why shouldn’t I. Like I said this will be the year and the only year in my opinion if there really is a desire for “another” party in America. Like I said last year, I’m willing to wait around until April to see how serious the people of the CP are.

    “Bullshit Jason—you’re attempting to raise the standard,which wont work.” Give me a break, Trent…you’ve apparently fit it rather comfortably.

    “But there is nothing special about this election year really”
    You’re joking…you have to be joking..

  52. Ronald Monroe Says:

    You bet Jason, I’m also raising the standards. I also feel that this is the year the Constitution Party becomes a legitimate third party in America. However I am not willing to wait around until April to see how serious the people of the CP are.

    The U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan is having its State Convention on May the 3ard when we will have our nominees for the state political office chosen. We are working right now at getting more potential candidates in our state.

    We have 70 potential candidates attracted to us at this time. Our party has to make its presents felt in each state one by one. We have to have a presidential candidate with name recognition, be it Judge Moore our Allen Keys. Now is the time, as the old cliché goes, “Strike while the Iron is hot.”

  53. Sivarticus Says:

    I can’t believe the CP would even consider Alan Keyes. What does he bring to the table besides a low amount of name recognition? Only his cultists, who will exit the party anyway (if they ever even enter it) the moment the 2008 race is over if Keyes if the CP nominee. Otherwise, he’s nothing but a neo-con with a long track record of epic failure behind him. Nothing more than that.

  54. Kevin Thompson Says:

    Ok, let me ask you this - if Alan Keyes got absolutely no recognition when he ran for the Repulbican nomination, why on earth do we think he would gain any recognition during a general election?

    I still think Chuck Baldwin is our man. He does not have name recogintion, but he certianlly derserves it. We need to work hard to make him recognizable to the public.

  55. Jason Says:

    Kevin,

    Ok let me ask you this, If Alan Keyes got absolutely no recognition when he ran for the Republican nomination, why on earth do we think Chuck Baldwin would gain any recognition during a general election?

    Most CP folks= Because he deserves it, he’s safe, and making a statement about our principles is actually more important than winning, or even to be competitive. We really never intend to win, we mainly like to write manifestos and talk about our beliefs and the honor it takes to run on virtue alone. You see, we save money that way because we don’t really campaign or run in a way to win. As long as there are those who vote their conscience. we’ll remain in business.

    This is precisely the reason why I left and I bet there will be more to follow. There are not many people whom enjoy donating money to simply help run a website. There is no practical purpose to the CP if they fail to realize that they need a insider, a nationally recognized name to promote their ideas and exploit the dissatisfaction among voters. Even if that name is Alan Keyes.

    I was assuming that I would hear a remark like this. What’s scarier than that, I wonder how many feel the same way. How much will it cost the CP to get those 100,000 votes that Baldwin may get?—$850,000 - $1,000,000 if this comes to pass it would be a total rip off to very loyal, passionate and deserving supporters.

    I’m not saying I’m in, but if this happens you can count me out for sure and forever.

  56. Trent Hill Says:

    “Nothing special about the election year? Have you read what the CP and other like-minded folks have been writing and publishing since 06? Everything has happened according to plan, in fact, so much so that it’s eerie.”

    The CP has been printing the same party-building articles since 1992, as have the LP and GP. 2000 wasnt THE YEAR for the Greens and 1988 wasnt THE YEAR for the LP.

    “Immigration, the war, the border fence, MCCAIN!, liberal democrats taking over congress and the Senate. etc.”

    How is this any different from 2004 Jason? Liberal Bush, the War, liberal democrats in the House and Senate, liberal Republicans everywhere else, immigration problems—its a cop-out to claim that “this year is the only year” that we can prove ourselves. You’re a Republican, one who is trying to raise the bar for us because you want your party to be the home of conservatism again, but it wont be. Your website advocates for McCain, Gilmore, and Beatty—Liberals all.

    “So you bet, I’m raising the standards, and why shouldn’t I. Like I said this will be the year and the only year in my opinion if there really is a desire for “another” party in America. Like I said last year, I’m willing to wait around until April to see how serious the people of the CP are.”

    The ONLY year? I didnt realize you were both a fortune teller AND a political odds-man, strange.

  57. Michael Says:

    First, to Matt, Wallace made the AIP. It exists and is continuing because of Wallace. Second, Keyes bring money, media, a national name, and a willingness to run as the CP nominee.

  58. Trent Hill Says:

    Michael,

    Wallace did make the AIP—but he also doomed it with his segregationism, he labelled those members as racists forever, despite the fact that his own running mate (Curtis LeMay) worked to desegregate the Army.

    Frankly—I see only a few negatives to Keyes,and many many more positives. The key here is to make sure that the Old School paleos still outnumber the Keyes people,which they always will.

  59. matt Says:

    To Michael,
    The first claim is amazing. Yes, Wallace founded the party, but there’s no possible way to say that it’s continuing because of him. He’s a long-dead, nearly forgotten presidential candidate from another region. I think the AIP’s leadership today are far more responsible than the ghost of Wallace.

    Secondly, Keyes has the worst reputation in American national politics today. I don’t think he’s the most loathesome figure, but if aggregate reputation is the yardstick we’re using, then yeah, it’s him.

  60. David Says:

    Keyes supports the Antichrist United Nations and is a member of the Whore Vatican Church. He is unfit to be nominated by the Constitution Party.

  61. Trent Hill Says:

    Whore Vatican Church? Thats it—im casting my vote for Keyes, just because of you. =)

  62. Jason Says:

    “Whore Vatican Church? Thats it—im casting my vote for Keyes, just because of you. =)”

    haha….

    Trent, your’re wrong about my intentions, and that is not my agenda. Secondly, I’m sure the GOP does not fear the CP. You give me too much credit if you think I’m conducting espionage on behalf of the GOP. You remember that I invested in the CP. I donated four times in two years. So I kind of have a dog in the hunt.

    But the questions still remain, if it’s not this year than when.? If hoping for a competitive ticket to gobble up the folks on the fence who are hoping for alterternative then I’m guilty. If aiming for 5-million votes is pushing it, guilty again.

    You unwittingly summed up the whole operation…setting an achievable but ambitious goal is guilty of raising the standards and going too far. That’s crap.

    Would you have me put Randall T. Hayes on my site? Now that is a candidate. That there is another reason why 5-million seems out of touch—when you entertain hacks. Statement candidates do not win elections.

  63. Jason Says:

    One more thing, yes I’m back in the Republican fold. Secondly, don’t be too quick to criticize when you yourself was part of the Ron Paul R[evol]ution who is in fact a Republican. Don’t give me the…well he’s only a Republican because…..blah.

    The fact is he is a Republican, maybe for the same reason I am. It’s simple, you have to win in order to make the changes you desire.

    Politics should not be a hobby, it’s a means to an end. Anything less than that is a bitch session. And most third-parties are exaclty that, an organized group of whiners and thinkers…not do’ers and winners.

  64. Larry Breazeale,Msgt.(ret.)USAFR Says:

    Hey ‘Red’ and ‘Matt’, etc.
    SOME people just don’t get it! It seems you guys want 100% perfection.
    Face reality, it isn’t going to happen as ‘perfect’ as you want it. One thing for sure, with the likely outcome of ‘losers’ the voters are stuck with, with the ‘republicrats’...Hillary-dillary-billaries…and Obama-nations…and McAmnesty McCain…..Alan Keyes…looks REAL good indeed!
    Keyes will get a lot of the conservative vote, Christan vote, dissatisfied taxpayers vote, “AMERICA FIRST” vote, Ron Pauler voters, some Black voters, military voters, anti-free traders, anti- nafta, N.A.U. ers, and a big chunk of the middle class! I would say that is VERY good for starters.

    ‘Red Phillips’....YOU say you are tired of hearing me stressing the C.P. “PLATFORM” issue? I guess SOME people just don’t get it. There will always be “nay-sayers” no matter what. You can lead a mule to water but, you can’t always make it drink. We say in the military, “LEAD, FOLLOW or GET OUT OF THE WAY”. If you don’t like Keyes because , in your opinion, he is NOT so squeeky clean, then, maybe YOU should get off your duff and become a C.P. delegate, go to the convention, and ‘draft’ and ‘support’ the right candidate, that meets your criteria. GET INVOLVED. DON’T JUST COMPLAIN, DO SOMETHING. No, Alan Keyes is NOT a saint! However, HE is the only candidate, who will be running on a national political party (NOT worrying about trying to get equal billing in the GOP), as a CONSTITUTION party candidate, doing his part, politically, to help preserve the Constitution. I intend to be at the C.P. National Nominating Convention in April, in Kansas City, as a Cailfornia delegate and representative of the NATIONAL VETERANS COALITION (of the C.P.). I will make it doubly clear, to other party leaders there, the NVC stand against perpetual, no-win, un-declared wars, and the waste, fraud and abuse that they bring about.
    “We” veterans are sick and tired of no-win, undeclared wars. If as President, Alan Keyes wants to go after terrorists in some part of the world, that is a DIRECT THREAT against our country, fine, do it! But, it better be backed-up with a DECLARATION OF WAR, per the Constitution.
    Congress needs to get its butt on the line, for once in its life, and be responsible for its actions, right or wrong.
    THAT would be 100% backing of our troops. It does NOT mean we as a nation, need to run around the world, seeking out dragons to slay under every bed, as the ‘world policeman’, but there will be circumstances when we will have to do something when American lives and security demands it.
    Korea, Vietnam,Kosovo, Gulf War I and Iraq are un-declared wars….no one in Congress or in the White House are held responsible for the ‘cluster foxtrot’. They should be. The Keyes campaign has already approached the C.P. leadership on those concerns. I will support WHOMEVER gets the C.P. Nomination. -Larry Breazeale, Msgt.(ret.) USAFR

    National Veterans Coalition of the C.P.,
    www.nvets.org

  65. Jason Says:

    Well there you have it…shoot for the stars while you have the ammo.

  66. Trent Hill Says:

    “Would you have me put Randall T. Hayes on my site? Now that is a candidate. That there is another reason why 5-million seems out of touch—when you entertain hacks. Statement candidates do not win elections.”

    Randall Hayes is a paper-candidacy, like that of the Republican legislative candidates in San Francisco.

    “One more thing, yes I’m back in the Republican fold. Secondly, don’t be too quick to criticize when you yourself was part of the Ron Paul R[evol]ution who is in fact a Republican. Don’t give me the…well he’s only a Republican because…..blah.”

    I supported Ron Paul and his allies. Still do,even though im outside the Republican party. That is because im principled,not a party-hack. Im willing to vote for Republicans or Democrats—as long as they are constitutionalists. Secondly, dont compare your sell-out to my joining the Republican party. You support Beatty, Gilmore, and McCain. Liberals all.

  67. Red Phillips Says:

    MSgt B., I think I “get it” more than you believe. Any third party needs a niche. It then hopes that niche grows into a viable continuous presence on the political scene and then one day overtakes one of the “major parties.” Part of the work of growing a party is defining that niche. What is the CP’s niche? We can all agree that it is the social conservative/anti-abortion party. But what is it beyond that? Is it the Reconstructionist Party? Some believe it is. In the ultimate irony, is it the Mormon Party? Some believe it is? Is it the disgruntled and disaffected Republican Party? Many believe it is. Is it the Buchananist Party? Ditto.

    IMO, the CP has not defined its niche well. I am under no delusion that it necessarily is, but I would like the CP to be a traditionalist/classical/paleo conservative and Constitutionalist party that is unashamed of America’s particular Christian heritage and is willing to “conserve” that. I do not want the CP to just be “three legged stool” GOP style “conservatism” on steroids.

    The problem with Keyes, IMO, IS NOT THAT HE IS NOT PERFECT. I do not demand or expect perfection. The problem is that he moves us away from that niche and definition of the brand that I would like to see. In fact, he moves us in the disastrously wrong direction. My opposition to Keyes is about protection of the brand. If that means temporary losses then so be it. There are plenty of Straussian “conservatives” out there babbling away in the GOP. There are very few truly traditionalist conservative voices. Why on earth would I want to empower one more of the former at the expense of the latter?

    Keyes is not a traditionalist/classical/paleo conservative. He is a Straussian. The mortal enemy of all things paleo. Straussians are a type of Enlightenment liberal dressing up their philosophical exultation of liberal universals with conservative sounding appeals to unchanging natural laws. It is a charade. It is putting a conservative face on Enlightenment liberalism. Strauss was blatantly hostile to tradition and Revelation.

    In the same light, Lincoln is NOT NEGOTIABLE. If you are pro-Lincoln you are on the wrong side of one of the most fundamental political issue in the history of this country. Much follows from where you stand on that issue. That is why it remains such a contentious issue and a sure fire way to drive up your reply count. Again, Keyes moves the party in absolutely the wrong direction.

    Think of it like this. For a long time the LP struggled to convince people that it was not the party of drugs and vice. If a conscientious LP member wants his product to be less government, and not drugs and free love, then he is likely going to object if the LP wanted to nominate Madam Brothel Pot Head. He would not be objecting because she was not a perfect candidate. He would be objecting because he wouldn’t want his brand associated with her. He might think she would actually do harm to the brand he is trying to define even if she is bound to get a lot of contributions from the John lobby and corner the horny young man vote.

    That is an exaggeration, but I hope it illustrates my point. My objection to Keyes is not that he is not perfect or differs with me on a few issues. My objection to him is that he moves the party in exactly the wrong direction and risks tainting the party for good. He risks ruining the brand. Howard Phillips was right on these issues. Peroutka was right on these issues. Keyes is oh so wrong.

    I may have some issues. I may be too strident. I may have my head in the clouds. The average Joe may not know or care what a Straussian is or object to it if he did. But I hardly think that my problem is that I don’t “get it.”

    I do get it, and that is why the idea of a Keyes’ nomination sends chills down my spine.

    BTW, I attended the Georgia CP convention, and I would like to attend the national convention if it works out. I am all over the internet with my objections and more are to come. What else exactly do you want me to do? I suspect before all is said and done you will wish I would just shut up.

  68. Michael Says:

    Matt: Yes, Wallace was amazing. He may be dead, however he will never be forgotten by Americans.

  69. Trent Hill Says:

    “BTW, I attended the Georgia CP convention, and I would like to attend the national convention if it works out. I am all over the internet with my objections and more are to come. What else exactly do you want me to do? I suspect before all is said and done you will wish I would just shut up.”

    It wont amount to much Red. If Phillips, Odom, Clymer, and Baldwin are all backing Keyes—it will likely be Keyes. The largest delegations are from Texas, CA, NY, and FL. All are led by long-time party folks who will likely follow the lead of the big-wigs. TX will follow Bryan Malatesta, a Keyes follower. CA will follow Odom and Clymer’s leads. NY will follow Rosenberg’s lead,and Rosenberg is a longtime friend of Odom/Clymer. FL will follow Baldwin.

  70. Red Phillips Says:

    Trent, I have a very hard time believing Phillips is on board. If so, I will be very disappointed. Will Doug Phillips back Keyes?

  71. Trent Hill Says:

    We’ll see Red. I suspect he will be,for the simple reason that he will see no real alternative. However, I suspect a fairly big compromise. Keyes renouncing the War and picking a party-VP.

  72. NewFederalist Says:

    Trent- who do you view as the likely “party-VP”? Would Chuck Baldwin take #2 again?

  73. Gary Odom Says:

    Matt: Yes, Wallace was amazing. He may be dead, however he will never be forgotten by Americans.

    He’s not at all forgotten by a lot of us! Those of you who never saw George Wallace speak at a rally really missed something. (Actually, if you didn’t live in the 60’s you missed out on almost everything interesting) I was in more than one high school gym where I thought the walls were actually shaking from the crowd noise—thunderous crowd noise during his speech. OK…I’ll tell you what it was like…check out Youtube..the Beatles at Shea Stadium. It was like that only not as big, of course. Yep, like a red neck version of a Beatles Concert.

    By the way, Wallace was the first standard bearer, but William K. Shearer founded the party.

    And finally, Red, people do change on foreign policy. In ‘68 Wallace was “win the war and bring the troops home.” In ‘72 he was “bring the troops home.”

  74. Trent Hill Says:

    NewFederalist, who knows. Baldwin, Starrett, Clymer—could be anyone.

  75. Red Phillips Says:

    Gary, if Keyes changes on Lincoln and Strauss then I’ll be all over it. Somehow, I don’t think that is going to happen.

  76. Cody Quirk Says:

    Yes Gary,

    Bill founded the Party, NOT Wallace.

  77. Trent Hill Says:

    Red,

    Lincoln and Strauss are intellectual positions that recquire alot of nuance and they’ll take time for Keyes to educate himself on, if indeed he is interested in re-educating himself on those issues.
    Lets put the War front and center.

  78. Andy Says:

    “In the same light, Lincoln is NOT NEGOTIABLE. If you are pro-Lincoln you are on the wrong side of one of the most fundamental political issue in the history of this country. Much follows from where you stand on that issue. That is why it remains such a contentious issue and a sure fire way to drive up your reply count. Again, Keyes moves the party in absolutely the wrong direction.”

    The Constitution Party is on the same page as Abraham Lincoln when it comes to protectionist tarriffs.

  79. Trent Hill Says:

    Andy,

    But not when it comes to right-to-govern, War, and war-crimes.

  80. Red Phillips Says:

    Andy, all constitutionalist conservatives should oppose sovereignty sacrificing trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT. The Constitution is very clear that the power to regulate trade is vested in the Congress and they can not cede that. The same way they can not cede the decision to go to war to the President with an authorization to use force.

    That does not mean all CP members are “protectionists.” Some are. Some are not. Personally, I don’t have a problem with a revenue tariff to partially cover the small cost of running a constitutional sized government. Since obviously there would be no income tax. But I do not support protectionist tariffs. Don’t mistake principled constitutional opposition to NAFTA and GATT with protectionism

  81. Andy Says:

    “Red Phillips Says:

    March 24th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
    Andy, all constitutionalist conservatives should oppose sovereignty sacrificing trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT. The Constitution is very clear that the power to regulate trade is vested in the Congress and they can not cede that. The same way they can not cede the decision to go to war to the President with an authorization to use force.

    That does not mean all CP members are ‘protectionists.’ Some are. Some are not. Personally, I don’t have a problem with a revenue tariff to partially cover the small cost of running a constitutional sized government. Since obviously there would be no income tax. But I do not support protectionist tariffs. Don’t mistake principled constitutional opposition to NAFTA and GATT with protectionism.”

    Believe me, I KNOW the difference between real free trade and NAFTA, GATT, WTO, CAFTA, etc… I’m not for those agreements either because they are a sham. However, this does not mean that I favor jacking tarriffs up really high.

    You and Trent are the only people that I’ve ever heard from the Constitution Party who are not for protectionist tarriffs. Every other person from the Constitution Party that I’ve ever heard speak on the subject favors jacking tarriffs up higher, which puts them right in line with Abarham Lincoln.

    I don’t like any taxes period but if there are going to be some taxes a low tarriff is something that I can deal with better than say an income tax or a national sales tax, however, tarriffs are still a tax and still get passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Higher tarriffs just mean higher prices for consumers and more money for the government, neither of which I desire.

  82. jr Says:

    Re: “You and Trent are the only people that I’ve ever heard from the Constitution Party who are not for protectionist tarriffs.”

    I am a CP member. I’ve never supported protectionist tariffs, though I don’t mind a small revenue tariff on the order proposed by Frederich Bastiat … ranging from 5% for necessities to 15% for luxuries.

    I know a number of CP members who agree that protectionist policies divide domestic manufacturers of exports against domestic producers of raw materials …. and are therefore opposed to them.

    JR

  83. Trent Hill Says:

    jr,

    I think most in the CP feel similarly. The real old-school types prefer protectionism, the younger or more classically educated folks prefer low revenue tarriffs.

  84. Gary Odom Says:

    Red,

    If I had lived 140 years ago I would have fought Lincoln, too. My family was also from Georgia. Why now? He’s been dead a long, long time. As far as Strauss—I guess I’m stupid—please explain—to me that sound like he likes to Waltz. I take it this Strauss guy was an interventionist, huh. Well, I hope they hung him!

    Trent,
    “The real old-school types prefer protectionism”...You think you’re real funny don’t you!

  85. Red Phillips Says:

    Read this Gary. It explains the Strauss and Lincoln problems in one article.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods28.html

    Particularly satisfying, at least to this reader, is Norton’s discussion, quite contrary to the misleading conventional wisdom, of the lack of conservatism among today’s Straussians:

    “Appeals to history and memory, the fear of losing old virtues, of failing to keep faith with the principles of an honored ancestry, came to seem curious and antiquated. In their place were the very appeals to universal, abstract principles, the very utopian projects that conservatives once disdained. Conservatives had once called for limits and restraint; now there were calls to daring and adventurism. Conservatives had once stood steadfastly for the Constitution and community, for loyalties born of experience and strengthened in a common life. Now there were global projects, and crusades (p. 174).”

    Norton could have pursued this line of argument a bit more vigorously. She correctly notes that with the passage of time Straussian academics have been drifting further and further away from positions that have traditionally defined American conservatism, but she leaves unexplored the issue of just how conservative they really were in the first place. Norton speaks at great length about the fundamental conservatism of the Straussianism of the 1980s, but a substantial literature exists within the conservative movement that argues otherwise.

    Most famous, perhaps, was the celebrated debate in Modern Age between Straussian Harry Jaffa and traditional conservative M.E. Bradford over the legacy of Abraham Lincoln. Bradford argued that Lincolnian rhetoric, particularly the Great Emancipator’s teleological language (e.g., his description of the United States as a nation “dedicated to a proposition”) was a recipe for ongoing revolution that a genuine conservative could not embrace. The idea of the federal government as an engine of equality enforcement rather than as the modest, purely nomocratic agent of a confederation of sovereign states, endowed with strictly limited powers, amounted in Bradford’s judgment to a revolutionary overthrow of the original constitutional order.

    In Lincoln’s day the principle of equality may have referred to equality before the law, but tomorrow it could be forced busing and the destruction of neighborhoods; and once the Pandora’s Box of ideological crusading by the federal government had been opened there would be no way to keep it under control. Jaffa, on the other hand, positively embraced the revolutionary implications of the Lincolnian idiom, thereby lending further support to Norton’s description of the Straussians as revolutionaries rather than conservatives (p. 177) but revealing that this tendency among Straussians extended much further into the past than Norton’s narrative allows.

  86. Phil Sawyer Says:

    The War of Northern Aggression is over with (and has been over with for 143 years). Red Phillips and his (or her) fellow Old Guard members of the Constitution and Libertarian Parties need to wake up and smell the coffee.

    Political parties are like living life forms; if they do not adapt, evolve, and change with the times, they will die out.

Leave a Reply