Keyes’ Media Wrap-up

Alan Keyes announced last night that he was leaving the Republican Party. He negatively of the Republican Party’s leadership, presumptive nominee, and corruption. The announcement picked up far more press than I expected. Keyes is scheduled for 16 radio interviews over the next four days, and he caught a lot of print and online mention too. Here’s a roundup.
EDIT: Keyes has 25 radio interviews over the next week.

The Standard-Speaker, which is Hazleton’s local paper:

Alan Keyes announced his intention to run for president at a Hazle Township lodge Tuesday night in front of a crowd of about 60 supporters. He also said he is dropping out of the Republican Party.

The conservative activist said he is considering seeking the nomination of the Constitution Party, though he’d run regardless of his party affiliation.

His hour-long address at Genetti Best Western Inn and Suites was interrupted numerous times by cheers and applause. Each time, he tried to quiet the crowd and continue.

Keyes, a Harvard-educated former Reagan Administration official, said his main goal in running is to restore “the sovereignty of the American people.”

He had harsh words for the GOP’s eventual nominee Arizona Sen. John McCain, and the two Democratic front-runners, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

Keyes said he chose Hazleton to formally announce his run for the country’s highest office because of the attention it’s received for immigration. When he opened, he said it “feels good to be in Hazleton,” adding “this part of the country is representative of the deep solid roots America has.”

But Keyes also noted the strong immigrant heritage in the area, lauding “people who came here from different places to build a better life and discover the dignity of liberty, though they knew there would be those who sought to exploit them.”

The Chicago Tribune’s political Blog, The Swamp:

It’s fair to say Alan Keyes, a former Reagan-era State Department official, is a little different. Okay, he’s a lot different.
It now appears that he’s so different from not just most people, but much of the Republican Party, that Keyes will be announcing tonight that he is bolting the GOP for the Constitution Party.

The Kansas City Star’s political blog, prime buzz:

Keyes said, “I believe people deserve a choice. They certainly deserve a conservative choice—something neither John McCain, Hillary Clinton, nor Barack Obama can offer voters. All they can offer is empty promises based on liberal track records.”

The York Daily Record:

Keyes singled out the nation’s present “border issue” as a reason he is leaving the GOP, saying it is a “threat to the sovereignty to the American people.”

“There are clear signs that our leaders no longer have an allegiance to the sovereign people of the United States,” Keyes said.

“I kind of expected that on the Democrat side. .... And the Republicans are presumed to nominate somebody who is anti-Republican. It puts a lie to the label and puts me in a position where I must question my ability any longer to participate in a party that has departed from its own identity. “

The Los Angeles Times most popular blog, Top of the Ticket:

Alan Keyes, the former Republican who came within about 1,200 convention delegates of thumping Sen. Bob Dole for the GOP presidential nomination in 1996 and then came just as close to dismantling Gov. George W. Bush in 2000 for the party’s White House nod, is seriously considering trying to embarrass another political party.

Keyes announced TuePerennial presidential candidate and former Republican Alan Keyes says he’s now threatening to join the Constitution Party and run again this fallsday night that he was officially leaving the Republican Party, which was relieved to hear it.

Keyes is best-known recently as the former Illinois Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate singlehandedly responsible for halting the rise of a Democratic state senator there named Barack Obama. In their fabled statewide 2004 contest, Keyes came within 43 percentage points of tying Obama.

In what Keyes’ website billed as a “major announcement,” the outspoken abortion opponent said he was considering joining the Constitution Party.

“They’re considering me, I’m considering them,” Keyes told a conference call of several people Tuesday night. “We have so much in common, that I find it hard to believe we won’t be able to work out a common basis for working together.”

USA Today gave it the most coverage:

HAZLETON, Pa. (AP) — Former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes announced Tuesday night that he has left the GOP and is considering joining the Constitution Party.

Keyes, who also ran as a Republican to challenge Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate bid in Illinois in 2004, says he is talking with leaders and rank-and-file members of the Constitution Party.

CBS News’ main political blog, Horserace ‘08, also covered it:

GOP perennial presidential candidate (and 2002 Obama Senate opponent) Alan Keyes announced yesterday he is leaving the Republican Party and is talking to the Constitution Party about running for president under their banner.

Also, some more coverage by websites, major blogs, and small papers.
Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, and Here.

58 Responses to “Keyes’ Media Wrap-up”

  1. Texas Conservative Says:

    Thanks Trent!

  2. Texas Conservative Says:

    This was on the Los Angeles Times blog
    “Keyes announced Tuesday night that he was officially leaving the Republican Party, which was relieved to hear it. ”
    Although written to fracture the GOP furthre, it sadly is true. THE GOP is now officially with CFR, globalist types who stick to the clash of civilizations theory, and “moral conservatives” are an obstacle to a smooth globalist transition. How else can they pass their so called “free trade” and international mandates. How else can they have the UN enforce through secularist shame its mandates on proud and patriotic americans? I would say that although I am against any type of mental tyranny, I love freedom enough to say that the right wingers and the ant-globalists have alot in common, enough to push for American sovereignty

  3. Red Phillips Says:

    Trent, I don’t think he is going to seek the CP nomination. As I said in the other thread, he can’t afford to lose, and I don’t think he can win. He could have announced and then gone on all these radio program promoting his candidacy for the CP nomination, but he didn’t. He sees the writing on the wall.

  4. Texas Conservative Says:

    What writing? Red are you serious? This has been the tactic since he announced he was leaving the GOP. He has been openly saying he is seeking to join the CP, and the CP is seeking to nominate him. You can spin all you want, but the truth is KEYES and CP are two different political worlds coming together out of an urgent need to fight for the citizenry whose voice has been sqaushed by socialistic programs to burden Americans in order to prop up other countries. Globalism as its finest

  5. Kerwin Says:

    There you go again Texas - using spin to say others are spinning. The CP is not embracing Keyes. Get over it. Even you say it, they are two different worlds. I count about 20 supporters over at the AK site, and very few, VERY few, here.

  6. -J- Says:

    I don’t see it happening. The “announcement” last night was a bit of trying to save face in my opinion. If Keyes really felt the way he said about the CP (agreement on issues, home for conservatives, etc) he would have officially joined last night and let the nomination fight decide itself. If Keyes is only interested in the CP for the nomination (and in my opinion that became more obvious last night) then he should just move on.

  7. silver Republican Says:

    I would say that Keyes will be stopped if there was anyone out there to stop Keyes.

    Baldwin doesn’t seem to be going the distance to do it.

  8. Trent Hill Says:

    Baldwin is a great guy, and I’ll vote for him over Keyes—but I sure wish there was a Roy Moore or Walter Jones willing to run.

    ..Especially Walter Jones.

  9. NewFederalist Says:

    Chuck Baldwin may not be a “breakout” type of nominee but I don’t believe Alan Keyes would be either. Balwin, at least, won’t fragment the party.

  10. Trent Hill Says:

    Keyes will be AT the convention—wether he runs for President will probably rest largely on the delegates’ shoulders.

  11. Trent Hill Says:

    I will say this: Baldwin’s credentials pale in comparison to Keyes’.

  12. NewFederalist Says:

    Just what are Keyes’ “credentials”? He has never held elective office and hasn’t even held appointive office since the Reagan Administration. I disagree that Baldwin “pales” in comparison.

  13. Sean Says:

    Can you list what the credentials are for Baldwin?

  14. Trent Hill Says:

    Keyes was a Reagan appointed ambassador to the UN. That alone makes him more qualified. But he also is a former TV show host, Radio show host, President of Citizens Against Government Waste, served on the staff of the National Security Council, and served as Interim President of Alabama A&M.

    He runs two organizations that have wide reach RenewAmerica and the Declaration Foundation. He’s affilliated with the MCDC and the Declaration Foundation PAC.
    Keyes currently serves on the Board of Advisors for the Catholic League, a non-profit, Roman Catholic, advocacy group headed by William A. Donohue. He is also on the advisory board of Eagle Forum and the American Coalition of Life Activists.

    Baldwin—on the otherhand, is a Pastor and Radio talk show host.

  15. Red Phillips Says:

    “Baldwin—on the otherhand, is a Pastor and Radio talk show host.”

    And a very widely disseminated and read internet columnist.

  16. Kerwin Says:

    Keyes has NEVER had a job where he is paid for performance. Does ANYONE think that the CP has a chance to increase its base by having Keyes as their leader? Keyes has not even joined the CP yet. All he has done is leave the Republican Party. Other then that, name me one accomplishment Keyes has made that he can brag about? Go ahead - I dare you to find ONE!

  17. Trent Hill Says:

    “And a very widely disseminated and read internet columnist.”

    Amongst the Far-right perhaps. But not many people read Baldwin. He’s on NewsWithViews and RenewAmerica (and only on there because Keyes permits it,right?) and a few other minor sites.

  18. Trent Hill Says:

    I can find plenty of accomplishments Keyes can brag about. Esatablishing a TV show and Radio show with a listenership of several million people. Injecting Abortion into the presidential debate in 1996 and 2000. Creating the Mexico City Policy under Reagan. Being Interim President for Alabama A&M as well as President of CAGW.

  19. -J- Says:

    I questioned Keyes’ motives over on his webforum regarding the fact that he seems to be hesitating over a move to the CP because of the resistance to his nomination. I stated that it appeared to be more opportunism and they promptly deleted my posts. Makes you go “hmmm”.

  20. disinter Says:

    Keyes has 25 radio interviews over the next week.

    And he might get that many votes… if he is lucky.

  21. Sean Says:

    I’m personally inclined to someone who is more than an author or radio show host for President (although that is not an issue for me wrt to a Rep, Senator, or Governor). Can anyone cite examples of Baldwin’s effectiveness since his role hasn’t been blatantly requiring of Executive skill. (Granted, I’m not doubting he’d do the job in a principled manner, I’m just wanting a Constitutional + Effective candidate).

    Examples of effective + constitutional would be Roy Moore’s legal battles ( Right now, he is the candidate I am leaning towards.


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

    Alan Keyes appeared in the national newspaper USA TODAY and on their website! Also, the republican dominated news web site… carried his press release. The USA TODAY article was from Associated Press. Not too shabby! Anyway you look at it, it gives some light on the Constitution party. Welcome aboard Alan Keyes!
    There will be plenty of patriots desiring the nomination, including Keyes, at the Kansas City convention. May the Best Man win.

    -Larry Breazeale, Msgt. (ret.) USAF
    National Veterans Coalition
    of the Constitution party…

  23. Sean Says:

    Although I have just heard from a very reliable source that Roy Moore is not open to the candidacy. Any examples on CB’s effectiveness would be very appreciated!

  24. Red Phillips Says:

    Ugh! Ugh! Ugh! MSgt B., Donna, Ronald Monroe, Gary Odom, etc. all seem to belong to the happy face wing of the CP I guess. Can’t we all just get along? Work together despite our minor disagreements on policy. It’s perfectly OK that Keyes wants to pre-emptively slaughter innocent Muslims. The Party tolerates slight differences, you know. Welcome aboard Keyes? May the best man win. Keyes is a “patriot.” Good grief! Try not to get any of that blood that is on Keyes’ hands on you as you glad hand and back slap each other.

    Do I belong to the GOP now and someone forgot to tell me? All this big tent hand holding and kumbaya singing has me confused.

    Whether pre-emptive wars of aggression are an essential part of the War on Terror and if we don’t fight them we are “all going to die,” or pre-emptive wars are barbaric, un-just and un-Christian war crimes that actually make terrorism worse IS NOT A TRIVIAL MATTER, and no amount of “Keyes is a patriot” happy talk is going to make it so.

    That Keyes is even being considered diminishes the Party. Would someone please explain to me what is going on here? I must be missing something? There is no way the Party would entertain someone who is pro-choice. But we will entertain someone who is pro pre-emptive, unjust wars? How pro-life is that?

    Seriously, I’m confused. What is going on here? What am I missing? Someone please explain it to me? Do the above mentioned people actually support our actions in the Middle East as long as they are “declared” and “winnable?” Is it some pathological fear of looking too strident? Is it a willingness to extend the red carpet to any disenchanted ex-Republican? Is it an obsessive desire for a “big name?” An obsessive desire for press, any press? We can’t be seen as too anti-intervention or we will scare potential Republican converts away? Help me out here.

    And answering my question requires more than telling me I am a “computer coward,” or that I just need to come to the Convention so that I am no longer a non-entity, or that the delegates will decide. Either the Party is a non-interventionist party as its platform indicates or it is not.

  25. NewFederalist Says:

    Well said.

  26. Red Phillips Says:


    To be clear, I support the Constitution Party and have long advised that conservatives should vote third party and end their love affair with the GOP. But that said, at present an ideological third party candidate is not going to win baring Divine intervention. So it really doesn’t matter if Baldwin is “qualified” because he is not going to be President. Third Parties are presently for sending a message. Where he rhetorically stands on the issues is much more important as a third party candidate than is whether he is “qualified.”

    It is of more concern whether he is competent to run an effective campaign. If he were to actually win, he is more than qualified to veto almost every piece of legislation that crosses his desk, which is what a Constitutional President should do.

  27. NewFederalist Says:

  28. formermoslem Says:


    Since when are terrorists innocent moslems? How dare you compare killing murderous terrorists to protecting the unborn from murder? Do you have any clue what these “innocent moslems” have done to people of their own beliefs? While our troops are out there handing out soccer balls to kids, these “innocent moslems” are killing them and their family for accepting gifts from the “Great Satan” If they treat their own people that way what do you suppose they want to do to us who are infidels. You are either a communist infiltrator or just a plain crazy. To call Alan Keyes a person who has blood on his hands is despicable. I suppose you support Kerrys position that our troops are terrorizing Iraqis in the night? Maybe Alan is hesitant for due to the likes of you, but I am hoping that the CP is composed of patriots, not ranting lunatics like you.

  29. Ben Says:

    Red, you have summarised eloquently in just a few paragraphs why I decided to the leave the CP and cannot be swayed to come back. As some one a few months ago stated: Rip Van Winkle will wake up in 20 years and wonder why the GOP now calls itself the Constitution Party. I think he will actually be rudely awakened in 5 and wonder the same thing.

  30. Ben Says:

    How many news reports actually say that Keyes is joining the CP? I would guess all but a handful are simply saying that Keyes has left the GOP with no mention of where he may be going. Keyes leaving without mentioning the Constitution Party does not some how equate to good press coverage of the CP.

    Let me put it another way, a news story stating that the mayor has sold his Ford and has vowed to never buy another does not then equate to earned media for Honda when no mention is made of what he replaced his Ford with.

  31. Red Phillips Says:


    “Since when are terrorists innocent moslems?”

    So all the people who have died in Iraq were terrorists? Your kidding, right? Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. We justified invading Iraq on the trumped up pretext that they might have WMDs and if they did they might use them. That is pre-emptive war, and it is un-just and un-Christian. Even if we knew for a fact that Saddam had WMDs, it would not justify an invasion on the grounds that he might use them. Again, that is pre-emptive war.

    But thanks for illustrating my point. The non-interventionist and the interventionist position can not be reconciled. You think I am insanely naive. (Calling me a lunatic. Real nice.) And I think you are a fear mongering, war mongering, hate mongering Chicken Little. Where is the common ground there?

  32. Red Phillips Says:

    “...but I am hoping that the CP is composed of patriots, not ranting lunatics like you.”

    BTW, please note the insinuation that I am not a patriot. Gives me flashbacks to Free Republic. I wonder if Mr. formermoslem has ever worn the uniform.

  33. Texas Conservative Says:

    I can’t wait to the convention, just let Alan Keyes show his conservative battle scars, nothing can counteract that. Hey Red, you might think our soldiers are muderers, and are killing innocent moslems, but thats your right to think so. I support the troops, and welcome them back as heroes. Go ahead you and your fellow internet buddies keep calling them murderers, you have that right.

  34. kerwin Says:

    nothing NOTHING resulted from those “discussions” you call “accomplishments”.
    Keyes is NOT a leader or DOer

  35. Texas Conservative Says:

    Everything happened Kid Kerwin. Keyes managed to bring national attention to Terri Schiavo’s case, and now with the story of the Oklahoma boy being declared brain dead and coming back from whatever state he was in, one wonders about how far will science be allowed to rule in all aspect of our life if left unguided by moraility or ethics which have to be bult on some kind of higher foundation. OK and then the minutemen, who are taking action, yeah regular men taking up positions on the border to do what the government fails to do, and what about Judge Moore with the 10 commandments and the attention that received. These are all proxy wars in the battle in the media, you might not see them as accomplishments but for the quiet, family man type, these actions speak volumes especially when no ONE else is brave enough to step in.

  36. Red Phillips Says:

    Hey TC, I was a troop, were you?

  37. Texas Conservative Says:

    Then I welcome you back as a hero. I dont understand how you could call your boys murderers. You are a hero, and history will call you so, even though now the masses are too dumb to use perspective. I truly can’t buy that you would be so cold to call yourself a murderer if the people would receive you with parades , and the women threw themselves at you for being a warrior. Materialism has its costs, it calls you to die for it, but you receive no honor for it. I believe in the restoration of honor for the warrior class.

  38. Trent Hill Says:

    “Let me put it another way, a news story stating that the mayor has sold his Ford and has vowed to never buy another does not then equate to earned media for Honda when no mention is made of what he replaced his Ford with.”

    Um,sorry Ben—every article and blog post I read mentioned the CP.

  39. citizen1 Says:

    With all the Keyes bashing going on it is making me think about supporting him. Discuss issues and records with personal attacks.

  40. Ben Says:

    Just a question, really. I’m glad that for once the media has mentioned a defection from a majour party to a minour party and actually mentioned the party’s name. Usually they just say things like “independent” or “contemplating a third party run.”

    I really don’t care what party gets mentioned, when it comes to media attention to alternative politics, a rising tide raises all ships. Most candidates involved in third party politics realise that and will usu. mention a competing third party candidate to the voters.

    I remember in 2006 when the Green Party candidate and I both took the IP candidate to task for stating he was the only US Senate candidate that wanted to bring US troops home from Iraq. Ignorant kid actually thought that just because we weren’t invited to the debate that we weren’t listening.

    Besides, it’s all a spectator sport any way. We can all cheer for our favourite team (party), but its always the same two teams (parties) in the World Series every year. We can all pretend we’re in the big leagues, but we’re really just playing church league softball.

  41. formermoslem Says:


    Way to redirect and not answer any of my questions. For you information, I went to my local Navy recruiting office not long after 9/11. But that’s neither here or there and really none of your business. Patriots are willing to defend their nations against enemies foreign or domestic, rather than hide behind made up words like interventionalist and non-interventionalist like you do.

    As to the Iraq war, it was not my position to invade Iraq as a part of the war on terror, neither was it Alan Keyes position. Nevertheless, neither I nor Alan believe cutting and running is the solution. As for the innocent Iraqis that have been killed, they are mostly casualties caused directly or indirectly by foreign terrorist activity and weapons, not because of our troops are bloodthirsty murderers as you like to think. If you don’t like to be called a lunatic, quit with the crazy talk, or go spew it on the Village Voice or Move On where they will welcome you with open arms.

  42. Trent Hill Says:

    “like interventionalist and non-interventionalist like you do.”

    Red doesnt hide behind those words…mostly because they ARENT words.

  43. Red Phillips Says:

    So you’re against “cutting and running.” Wow, that’s original. I have never heard that before. Did you think of that terminology yourself? I guess you also want to “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” right? It is all completely mindless boilerplate. What is your end point Einstein? A stable self governing Iraq? Fat chance. It ain’t going to happen because they do not view the current government as legit. When we leave there will be chaos whether it is in 1 month or five years.

    The terrorist you mention in Iraq have absolutely no relationship whatsoever to the Al-Q terrorist of 9/11. They are battling us only because we are there. If we left, then they would immediately start battling for control of Iraq. We are in the middle of a civil war that we precipitated by toppling Saddam. What is going on in Iraq has nothing to so with battling international terrorism except for giving them one more reason to demonize us. (We obviously have an interest in the final government that does arise there being relatively friendly to us, but it is completely beyond our power to make that happen.)

    I am not sure how I redirected and failed to answer your question. Speaking of redirection, I never once said our soldiers are bloodthirsty murderers? Those are your words. I suggested that people who supported the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq which was illegal (undeclared), unjust, and un-Christian have blood on their hands. Show me some on the record statement from Alan Keyes at the time of the invasion that he thought it ill advised. I haven’t seen one. I would be very glad to know if one existed.

  44. Texas Conservative Says:

    Red your such a fake, its sad to see you try to act one way but fall apart and go schizo on us.
    First off this is more deeper than any of the labels we all use here. Don’t shame someone for using a label when you do the same, its so hypocritical. WHY do you insist on wars being JUST and CHRISTIAN? That is so stupid, who can honestly excuse a war and killing as a state as JUST and Christian? Red-iculous!
    Give me one example of a Just and Christian war?? WOW dude you need to check yourself.

  45. Red Phillips Says:



  46. Alicia Says:

    I’m not sure what he said either! He likes to rant - just like most AK followers.

  47. Trent Hill Says:

    Would not have chosen Iraq; would not have asked UN either. (Oct 2007) After military victory, should have had UN nation-building. (Oct 2007)
    Bush focuses on democracy for Iraq; not security for America. (Sep 2007)
    Kosovo sets precedent for more future intervention. (Jun 1999)
    NATO strategy against civilians in Kosovo is terrorism. (Jun 1999)
    Kosovo not based on human rights policy nor precedent. (Apr 1999)

    From Alan Keyes.

  48. formermoslem Says:


    You called our troops “bloodthirsty murdurers” on another forum. Why does the term cutting and running make you so angry? Isn’t that what you want our country to do? Your claim that the terrorist in Iraq have nothing to do with Al-Aquida is an absolute lie spread by the left. The “civil war is caused by a coalition of foreign forces that is fighting against us in Iraq. The proof is in latest effort to route the terrorist has created an amazing turn around there, but there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. The problem is you and your lefty buddies (unfortunately many lefties who run different government agancies responsible for our national security) refuse to see the problem for what it is: We are engaged in a regional war on terror. The real question is what shall we do about this war? Shall we continue to fight or continue to pretend it does not exist and leave Iraq with our tail between our legs?

    Your statement concering their “excuses to demonize” us is also quite telling. What excuse do you want to make for the terrorists that attacked our country and killed over 3000 of our innocent civilians? Or do you want to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job? Are you sure you are not a closet liberal? Anyone with any type of credibility in the constitution party should distance themselves from you and your leftist foreign policy views.

  49. formermoslem Says:


    You did redirect by insinuating that I don’t wear a military uniform and therefore my opinion is not valid, and you never answered my question about your comparison of us killing terrorists to those who murder the unborn. Instead you redirected by asking the idiotic question “So all the people who have died in Iraq were terrorists?” Here is another idiotic question for you: Are all babies that die in the womb die because of abortion?

  50. Red Phillips Says:


    “You called our troops “bloodthirsty murderers” on another forum.”

    No I did not. I would never use that terminology. You have me confused with someone else.

    I can’t address all your arguments because they are so disjointed and confusing and tedious. I will say this: I have never suggested that 9/11 was an inside job. I don’t believe that. But it is ridiculous to suggest that our foreign policy has nothing to do with Muslim anger and resentment toward us. It clearly does. To deny that would be like denying that the sky is blue. The concept is called blowback, and it is well accepted.

    Since I am having trouble figuring out your arguments, why don’t you just tell me what you think we should do. If you were King, what would you do?

    Also, I was not insinuating that your opinion was not valid because you have never been in the military. I was reacting to the implication that I am not a patriot because I oppose the War.

  51. Red Phillips Says:

    Trent, the articles skeptical of Iraq are dated 2007. I wonder if there are any articles expressing his concerns around the time of the invasion. Or is he benefiting from hindsight?

  52. Trent Hill Says:

    Probably benefitting from hindsight Red. Would you hold that against Rep. Walter Jones too?

  53. Red Phillips Says:

    Walter Jones came to his hindsight earlier and is now very solid on the issue.

  54. Trent Hill Says:

    Agreed. I wish HE were our Presidential candidate. He might be up for it if he loses his election this november.

  55. formermoslem Says:

    Apparently it was not the troops, but the folks over at the Free Republic that you called “bloodthirsty jingoistic imperialists” over on the Alan Keyes forum. Is that what you call all every patriot that disagrees with you? You are having trouble figuring out my arguments because you don’t want to hear me out. There was nothing disjointed or tedious about what I wrote. What you really mean to say is that you really have no answers, just platitudes like Non-interventionalism. I clearly stated my position. You are either disingenuous or too obtuse to figure it out.

  56. Sean Says:

    FWIW - Keyes was opposed to the war in 2004 (, although opposed is not exactly the right word. He also seems to talk about the brilliance of Bush’s strategy at some other point… so my guess is his view has changed in a cyclical way…

  57. Trent Hill Says:


    Keyes claims it was a bad idea to goto war in Iraq and that he wouldnt nationbuild—but now he wants to “get the job done”. Additionally, he recently stated that he supported intervention into Sudan to stop the genocide. He claimed it was our “moral obligation”.

  58. Sean Says:

    Yeah, I think he could make that claim, but let those who are called form an organization, raise their own money, and go over and help. Then the people who actually felt a burden would be involved…

Leave a Reply