Last thoughts on Kansas City

Here are some sporadic last thoughts on the Constitution Party’s convention in Kansas City.

First: Alan Keyes. Myself and Red Phillips advised Keyes’ supporters and staff members for weeks. We gave them a very simple rubric by which they could avoid dissapointment, know their opposition and it’s strengths, and even avoid an embarassing 3-to-1 loss. None of this advise was heeded, nor was it even understood. Despite weeks of trying, Keyes’ advisors and supporters took him down the exact path we urged them to avoid. I would have never thought that the Alan Keyes campaign would be as unprofessional as it was.
Amongst the major mistakes were Keyes’ non-committal attitude towards the party. At least as bad was his tendency to lecture, rather than speak with, the delegates that he so desperately needed in order to preserve his political career. Time and time again, Alan Keyes would patronize Ron Paul-friendly delegates (or even his own) rather than trying to win their votes. This doesn’t mean we expected him to pander to us, but we certainly weren’t prepared to listen to how “ignorant” or “unrealistic” we were.

Second: Denouncing Ron Paul. I cannot think of a more reckless decision, than when Keyes spoke against Ron Paul and his various acts of legislation. Ron Paul is a virtual rock-star within the Constitution Party and would’ve easily captured our nomination had he wanted it. This would be similar to walking into the Mises Institute and denouncing Murray Rothbard. I know Keyes and his supporters were aware of this because I personally warned them about not doing such a foolish thing.

Third: Contrasting Chuck Baldwin with Alan Keyes. One of the dominant arguements among both Keyes’ followers and his close-knit circle was that Alan Keyes was a better candidate for party-building. This was, at first glance, a decent point. We all uniformly accepted that Keyes was most likely capable of attaining more votes than Chuck Baldwin. However, it backfired almost immediately. In a late-night conversation with a Keyes-delegate from Kentucky, I emphasized the difference between “higher vote totals” and “more party members”. The difference, I concluded, was that Keyes would get more votes but that the party and other candidates would not benefit from down-ticket voting or long-term donors. Chuck Baldwin, on the other hand, would attract many Ron Paul supporters, who would be largely homogenous with the party, and who would be voting down the ticket in favor of our candidates and donating to our various campaigns—and they’d likely do the same in 2012,rather than abandoning us in favor of Republicans, as the Keyes people were already hinting at doing.

Fourth: Keyes needs new advisors, or supporters, or both. I don’t know who keeps encouraging him to run for President (or Senate), but they do not have good advice to give. Even now, his supporters are brainstorming ways to get on the ballot using the Reform Parties, American Heritage Party, and dissafilliated Constitution Party affilliates. Having recieved only $250,000 for his presidential run so far, perhaps he should’ve considered a run for Congress instead?

Fifth and Last: There is nothing as exciting in politics as a contested convention. It has opened my eyes to many personalities and conflicts within the party, and I hope to see everyone again in 4 years.

97 Responses to “Last thoughts on Kansas City”

  1. Trent Hill Says:

    For the record: It was most interesting to interact with Randall Stufflebeam, who is a true patriot.

  2. NewFederalist Says:

    Excellent report, Trent. Thanks!

  3. Mike Gillis Says:

    Interesting commentary.

    It seems the biggest issue that CPer’s had with Keyes was his pro-war stance. Was this ever brought up to him and if so, how did he respond?

  4. Trent Hill Says:


    Oh yea—it was probably brought up more than anyone else. Keyes would answer a question with a 40-minute speech berrating the non-interventionist position, and then someone would come in and ask again.
    The fact is: He never said anything that even SLIGHTLY sounded like Constitutionalism on the issue. He just kept talking about how the founders viewed “wide powers” for the presidency concerning War. And we kept telling him, the founders didn’t view “wide powers” for anyone.

    Frankly, I could say much more harsh things. But in the end, I just don’t think they were prepared.

  5. Libertarian Joseph Says:

    Alan Keyes only cares about Alan Keyes.

  6. Trent Hill Says:

    That much is painfully obvious. The confusing part is this: Why do his several dozen supporters and advisors feel the same?

  7. Alicia Says:

    AK was dancing (never joining) with the CP only looking to enhance his speaking fees. He must be panicking now that there is really very little for him to talk about, except for his failures (which he blames on everyone EXCEPT himself and his advisors).
    Wow, he may be forced to get a real job after sucking all the cash out of his donations (like he did previously), and irrefutable fact that will follow him forever in politics.

  8. Fred Church Ortiz Says:

    Hey Trent, before the convention ballot-access news suggested there’d be a draft Paul effort. Did you see any signs that anyone gave a serious shot at courting him?

  9. Trent Hill Says:

    I just dont see where his career goes from here. After losing to a no-name pastor from Florida for a minor-party nomination by a 3-to-1 margin, he can’t possibly do anytihng but run for a State Legislative office successfully.

    Of course, thats never stopped him before.

  10. SovereignMN Says:

    Alan Keyes spoke down to anyone who dared to disagree with him. He’s an Ivy League educated man after all! Trent is absolutely right…you ask Keyes a question and he delivers a 30 minute speech.

    I had to laugh when Keyes people would refer to Ron Paul as a “nutjob”. Rule #1 in politics (or just about any profession for that matter): KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE!

    You aren’t in the GOP anymore.

  11. Sean Says:

    Stufflebeam is awesome. All the Gubernatorial candidates were impressive.

  12. SovereignMN Says:

    Ron Paul’s name was submitted for nomination but just prior to the vote a motion was made to remove him from consideration since he had was not present at the convention and had no desire to seek our nomination.

  13. Mike Says:

    As someone who once campaigned for Alan Keyes in 2000, I now fully support Ron Paul. I planned on voting for Keyes, but he decided he didn’t want to be on the SC this time around, so I had to find another candidate. I am glad I went to Ron Paul’s site to learn about him. Although I didn’t think I would choose him, due to my preconceptions of him gained from the media, I found that I agreed with Ron Paul more than I agreed with Keyes. I finally understand the Prolife issue as never before: Prolife and anti-death penalty. Also Ron Paul had the track record of consistency and was known for his humility. I guess I have to thank Alan for his poor campaign which helped me to choose the right candidate. Alan’s actions in some of the debates were embarrassing and un-Christlike. I hope that he finally quits running.

  14. Sean Says:

    The Ron Paul candidacy at the CP was sponsored by one of Trent Hill’s partners in crime… (perhaps Trent was involved as well)... it was, I believe, primarily to make people sweat bullets…

  15. Doremus Jessup Says:

    “Keyes needs new advisors, or supporters, or both” - I just hope he keeps Tom Hoefling out in the boonies, er, Iowa.

  16. Jason Says:


    Nice job. Can’t say I agree with the Baldwin outcome. Predictable, as I said weeks back. Of course there is a good argument when speaking about the long term future of the party. To be ugly for a sec, there is no future if the the CP doesn’t start winning and producing real candidates. MHO.

    Good job on your reporting. If you don’t mind this is going on my site—cited to you of course.

  17. Libertarian Joseph Says:

    Alan Keyes was a fool for speaking out against Ron Paul, what can I say? That’s like running for the GOP nomination while trashing Reagan.

  18. Craig M. Says:

    Thank you, Trent, for your updates. Is it safe to assume this is where all of the resources went when failed to be a website a few months back? It was a favorite of mine but now this one is. In your opinion, isn’t it best if the CP starts getting candidates elected at the local level at a minimum? I joined the CP in December of 2006 and I know that people dog the LP for only winning dogcatcher elections, but at least they have some recognition. Their dilemma is that they have been around for a long time and are still not winning federal elections. How soon do you think the CP will start winning state house and state senate elections?

  19. Trent Hill Says:

    “Hey Trent, before the convention ballot-access news suggested there’d be a draft Paul effort. Did you see any signs that anyone gave a serious shot at courting him?”

    Originally,yes. I’ll not repeat the names of the small group that endeavored to do this, but i’ll fully admit: I was one of them.
    We spoke with someone very close to Paul, who then talked to Paul and got back to us, Paul wasnt interested until after the RNC—by then it’d be too late.

  20. Trent Hill Says:

    “To be ugly for a sec, there is no future if the the CP doesn’t start winning and producing real candidates.”

    Agreed, Jason. However, those wins won’t come at the top-level, especially not from a candidate whose primary followers are NOT going to vote the down-ticket races.
    Our focus should be almost entirely upon local races.

  21. Trent Hill Says:

    ““Keyes needs new advisors, or supporters, or both” - I just hope he keeps Tom Hoefling out in the boonies, er, Iowa.”

    Me and Tom had some vehement disagreements, thats for sure.

  22. Trent Hill Says:

    “The Ron Paul candidacy at the CP was sponsored by one of Trent Hill’s partners in crime… (perhaps Trent was involved as well)... it was, I believe, primarily to make people sweat bullets…”

    I was deeply involved,yes. And originally, no it was not meant to make anyone sweat bullets. Originally,it was meant as a real draft effort and a real alternative. After learning of Paul’s intentions, we dropped it as a real alternative,but submitted his name out of respect also.

  23. Trent Hill Says:

    “It was a favorite of mine but now this one is. In your opinion, isn’t it best if the CP starts getting candidates elected at the local level at a minimum?”

    Yes,this is paramount. I see no point in contesting Federal elections where we haveno chance. Obviously raceslike Gilchrist’s are different, but we should endeavor to have several hundred electedlocal officials in 4 years.

  24. Craig M. Says:

    Thanks Trent. I met Randy Stufflebeam at a state party CP meeting in 2007 and he gave a passionate talk. Hats off to the man who received 19,000 write-in votes. Glad he is still in the party!

  25. Jason Says:


    I agree.

  26. Trent Hill Says:

    19,000 write-in votes is pretty impressive. I think if Randy would have been on the ballot, he probably would have recieved 60,000+

  27. citizen1 Says:

    It took me until I returned home from the convention to make this observation. One of the thing that we were told is that Keyes would garner more media attention than any of the other candidates that were vying for our nomination. I think that the amount of media coverage at the convention shows just how much more media there would have been if Keyes was the candidate and not Baldwin, because the truth is that there was less media than in 2004. In 2004 we had an uncontested convention, how boring, and C-SPAN at least taped it although they showed very little. This years convention would have made much more exciting television. If Keyes had of been able to deliver the media at the convention I think that would have helped him and he would have had a higher vote total. The Keyes people should have been all over the media requesting that they be there.

    Along that same line, Keyes could have had many more delegates at the convention. On the conference calls that were put together by his campaign I ask about getting lists of Keyes supporters, contributor, etc. in my state Tom Hoefling, Keyes’ chief handler not sure of actual title, said to email him and he would get me the information. I talk to others that request information and none of us received any information. The vote in my state was 6-2 Baldwin over Keyes. Had this information come my way and some of them wanted to be delegates the vote could have been 6-2 Keyes over Baldwin. If this happened in several states this also could have tightened the race.

    I truly believe that if I was in charge of Keyes attempt to get the Constitution Party nomination I could have delivered it. The fact is that there were about 250 credential delegates at the convention out of the possibility of about 530 counting the states that no delegation present at all. My strategy would have been to get as many Keyes supporters to fill those positions as possible not trying to convince those that had problems with Keyes to vote for him.

    This brings me to my last point. I was not 100% for Baldwin even though I was leaning that way from the moment he announced that he would accept the nomination. I am more sure of my choice to vote for Baldwin than I was when the vote was cast. I think that Keyes would not be a good president not because of the issues, and let me add that I believe he is honest and sincere man, but he would not be a good president he does not surround himself with the right people. Now as Baldwin assembles his team I hope that he proves me right that he can surround himself with the right people.

  28. Trent Hill Says:

    Im hoping Baldwin will put together a great team and REALLY GO AFTER this election. Of course, he cant win—but he CAN continue the R(LOVE)UTION.

    Already, Paul supporters are talking about moneybombing Baldwin—ofcourse it’ll bea very small moneybomb.

  29. Gene Berkman Says:

    Alan Keyes did a real service for the Constitution Party. By rejecting Alan Keyes, the bloviating neocon warmonger, the Constitution Party and Rev. Chuck Baldwin have gained new respect among a wide range of Libertarians and antiwar conservatives.

    Good report, Trent.

  30. Trent Hill Says:


    I actually agree alot. I see many Ron Paul-people now saying, “well, they DID reject the neocon in favor of a Paul-supporter”.

    Not to mention,we were leading the fight in alot of ways. Here in LA, CPers were the State Coordinator, District 6 coordinator, and grassroots leaders. In Texas, Bryan Malatesta led a meetup and had a radio show on RonPaulRadio.
    Its like that all over. Especially with Chuck Baldwin, who recorded an endorsement and advertisement for Ron Paul to be used in Florida and spoke to pastors on hisbehalfin Iowa and SC.

  31. Deran Says:

    “Chuck Baldwin, on the other hand, would attract many Ron Paul supporters”

    Ahem, isn’t Baldwin a religious rightist? An authoritarian? How does that fit with Dr. Paul? Or is Paul really pretty much a of a religious conservative too?

    And how the heck does religious fundamentalism fit with any libertarian tendency? Or, was that fellow mentioned in a previous post that has quit the LP correct? That the LP is becoming increasingly a rightist political party?

    I think the CP is going to need a rebirth, like the GP needs. A broader, multi-tendency political party, in order to be an actual force in US politics.

  32. Reform Party Member Says:

    Dear Trent Hill: Alan Keyes, the [failed] Patrick and Bay Buchanan award for 2008! Alan Keyes, the Ralph Nader fails to get on the California ballot staff SNAFU award for 2008! CP in my not so humble non CP opinion, is SOOOOOO much better off with out him. [As I have told an unresponsive Pro Keyes backer Ed Noonan, of California’s CP affiliate, American Independent Party, numerously.]

  33. Red Phillips Says:

    Trent, Mitch Turner said that Howard Phillips actually told Alan Keyes not to come to the Convention. Had you heard that? I had heard he sent Keyes a letter saying he couldn’t support him.

    I am now fascinated by what Keyes and his advisers were thinking. Did they really think they were going to pursuade us? Or did they just realize they had no other options and this was a Hail Mary? Did Tom really think he could win?

  34. Trent Hill Says:

    “Ahem, isn’t Baldwin a religious rightist? An authoritarian? How does that fit with Dr. Paul? Or is Paul really pretty much a of a religious conservative too?”

    Baldwin is a Federalist conservative—and Dr. Paul likes him alot and vice versa. Baldwin has pledged that his issues are pretty near Paul’s.

  35. Trent Hill Says:

    “I am now fascinated by what Keyes and his advisers were thinking. Did they really think they were going to pursuade us? Or did they just realize they had no other options and this was a Hail Mary? Did Tom really think he could win?”

    Iv no info on the Howard Phillips thing, but I wouldnt doubt it.
    As for what his advisors were thinking…good luck with that. Im not sure they were thinking about anything at all.

  36. SovereignMN Says:

    Red, my thoughts are that:
    1) They believe so much in Keyes and his speaking ability that they cannot believe that anyone who listens to him for more than 5 minutes will not be converted.

    2) They had no idea that Baldwin was so well liked by the average CP delegate.

    3) They figured they could convert a couple more state chairman like California’s Ed Noonan to give all their proxy vote to Keyes. They didn’t realize that it was the state chairman who were the most opposed to a Keyes candidacy.

  37. Trent Hill Says:


    I think that is a fair statement—but they clearly hadn’t done their homework. Watch any video of Howard Phillips or Michael Peroutka campaigning and you’ll see them LAMBAST interventionism.

    As the state chairman, I can only think of two who backed Keyes. Missouri, Alaska, Maryland, and California. He did get half of Pennsylvania’s delegates too though.

    Almost all other state chairmen were opposed to him. Chuck Baldwin’s full states? Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
    Those were the FULL DELEGATIONS that went for Baldwin.
    If one were to count ONLY Baldwin’s full delegations, he got 180 votes. That is to say, hegot 1.5 times what Keyes got OVERALL.

  38. Ben Says:

    I agree w/ citizen1. Had Keyes been better organised, I think he could have brought enough of his own people to swing the vote his way or at least to a 50/50 split that would have convinced some people to swing Keyes’ way on the 2nd ballot. I don’t know what percentage the CP requires for a Presidential candidate to be endorsed, however.

    I guess one has to wonder what Keyes’ purpose was in coming to the CP convention. Did he expect to get the nomination despite some serious philosophical differences between the CP’s leadership and himself, or was he trying to convert a few people to his Straussian philosophy?

    There is something to be said for noble defeat, but by observing the comments and behaviour of his strongest supporters, they are obviously stunned and surprised that he was not greeted w/ open arms by the CP and its leadership.

    It is quite interesting to read their comments about getting Alan Keyes on the ballot as an independent. They are now trying to convince many state CP affiliates to break w/ the CP and place Keyes on the ballot in lieu of Baldwin.

    It truly is amasing how foolish and naieve his supporters are. The only smart ones out of the bunch are the ones that have started contacting their own state Election Boards and inquiring about ballot access requirements for an independent Presidential candidate. The rest think that they can convince some one else to do the work for them just like they thought they could hijack the CP. Any one remember the parable of the Little Red Hen? It is a favourite of mine when considering politics in general and third party politics in particular.

  39. Trent Hill Says:

    Even the ones who are contacting their SoS about ballotaccess seem incredibly shocked.

    “Ohio takes 16,000 signatures!”

  40. Ben Says:

    I’ve never met a Republican that understands ballot access. In Minneapolis, Greens are the 2nd party and the GOP is a third or even fourth party, but the GOP only has to find one clod to run (and lose) a legislative race. The Green Party has no problem finding candidates, but just can’t get enough signatures for their candidates. Using Minnesota’s 2000 signature requirement for state-wide races, a state house race should only require 12 signatures, and a state senate race should only require 24 signatures. Minnesota requires “independent” candidates to gather 500 signatures for a legislative race. All I ever hear when I point this out to Republicans is, “It shouldn’t be too hard to gather a few signatures.” I always then challenge them to show me just how easy it is. Prove me wrong, I tell them. In Minnesota, a Republican/Dem/IP legislative candidate that can gather 500 signatures can waive the filing fee. I’ve never met a Republican that will take me up on the challenge.

  41. Alicia Says:

    What may be the funniest thing in a long while is the Keyes supporters debating who is “privileged enough” to run as his VP!
    The names they are tossing about is hysterical. Yeah, Rice would just LOVE to run as Keyes VP….....suuuuuuuure….....and some of the others….wow!

  42. Lal Wynstrom Says:

    The insights and information detailed here is not either surprising or new. For almost a decade now, Alan Keyes has been ill-advised by what I believe is the theocratic/neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party. Unfortunately it also appears that the good ambassador/doctor- as brilliant as he supposedly seems- is either unaware of this, or has chosen to follow the ill-fated advice of these people.

    It also appears that Alan Keyes himself has either joined the Neo-Con camp of the GOP, or was (at least in some ways) with them for some time on certain issues. His continued support for the war, for foreign aid (especially as it applies to Israel), and for remaining in the United Nations are examples of this.

    Personally, after being a long time supporter of Dr. Keyes, must say that I am glad that the CP rejected these neo-con philosophies, even if it came wrapped in the “logic” (and what now increasingly appears to be a theocratic bent) of Keyesianism.

  43. citizen1 Says:

    Trent the full delegations voting for Baldwin may not be a fair comparison. Do you think that if Virginia had a delegate that wanted to vote for Keyes that their chairman would have cast a vote for him? No, he would have gone with winner take all. We have no idea if more delegates supported Keyes. The delegation leader has full discretion on even how much each delegate’s vote counts. In fact according to the rules he could have different delegates vote count for different amounts. The PA delegation had a split vote for president then the delegation leader tried to do winner take all for VP but the delegation protested and he changed his stance.

    Ben, the nomination for both president and VP require a majority vote of the eligle delegates. If no one gets it on the first round the lowest vote getter is eliminated and a new vote is taken.

  44. citizen1 Says:

    Also I do not know about any letter from Phillips, but I do know that Keyes was told by exective committee members that they did not support him on a conference call.

  45. Douglas Says:

    Chuck Baldwin’s essays and sermons can be found on his site, Chuck Baldwin Live , where you can learn more about his political philosophy.

  46. Ben Says:

    Citizen1, thank you for the information. I wasn’t sure if they needed some sort of supermajority to endorse.

  47. -J- Says:


    Do you think that Keyes would have fared better against Baldwin if he actually JOINED the party and showed some sort of dedication to party building rather than his wait-it-out approach which reeked of opportunism? Or do you think that had he joined the party back on April 15th the results would have been the same?

  48. SovereignMN Says:

    Armed Alaskan (love the name BTW). I’ve been hearing some of the same things. We were told by the Keyes people up until the convention that “we don’t differ much. let’s unite where we agree”. So they don’t get the nomination and now they are trying to split the very party that up until 7 days ago they said “we’re pretty much the same as you guys”.

    Let’s ask ourselves this…what kind of person(s)/organization would attempt to split a national organization with which they supposedly have so much in common? It’s obvious that it would be done by people who were wolves in sheeps clothing. So what is that 1 difference? Foreign-invervention. Keyes wouldn’t be backed by the globalist interests now would he? Phillips is proving to be 100% accurate.

    I don’t think Ed Noonan speaks for the California AIP. That’s why he’s so desperate for the Keyes people to sign on as county chairman as quickly as possible.

  49. SovereignMN Says:

    That’s odd. I was responding to a post by a man named “Armed Alaskan” who was warning that the Keyes people are attempting to split some of the state affiliates from the CP.

  50. Trent Hill Says:

    “Do you think that Keyes would have fared better against Baldwin if he actually JOINED the party and showed some sort of dedication to party building rather than his wait-it-out approach which reeked of opportunism? Or do you think that had he joined the party back on April 15th the results would have been the same?”


    Things definetly would have been different. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and California all would have gone MORE in favor of Keyes than they did. I still think they would’ve lost—but not by much.

  51. Trent Hill Says:


    We talked about this at convention,remember? Keyes got about 20 delegates to travel TO convention. Of course, none were from California. I suspect he’d only have the power to get 5 to state conventions elsewhere.
    With that said—no one should take it as a joke.

  52. NewFederalist Says:

    While Baldwin is a good choice it still seems to me that the convention should have drafted Ron Paul. Unless he had said he would send a refusal notification it would have still been a great idea. Waiting to nominate him until after the GOP was not an option but nominating him now and waiting for him to be “free” after the Republican convention would have been easy. Even if he wins the Republican nomination (not at all likely) he could decline the CP nomination at that point and the CP National Committee could select a replacement nominee. The only problem with that strategy is it might be too late to get his name off some state ballots. What a problem to have! I think the LP should draft him as well.

  53. citizen1 Says:

    Now I am wondering if Peroutka will endorse Baldwin. Not that I think it will have any real effect on the election. Baldwin was Peroutka’s choice for VP in 2004 and Baldwin in a Paul guy and Peroutka has talked up Paul alot on his show.

  54. Michael Says:

    Trent, did you ever find out when Governor Mecham offically join the Constitution Party?

  55. Trent Hill Says:


    I cant find anything on it,no.

  56. Trent Hill Says:


    Id bet Peroutka will endorse Baldwin.

  57. Alicia Says:

    hey - we made FARK.COM 11!!
    well, at least their pay version totalfark

    seems some post got removed - the one professing insider info regarding some Keyes stuff.


  58. Alicia Says:

    Note the CA contingent breaking away and reforming

  59. SovereignMN Says:

    Alicia, time will tell just how legitimate that effort is and whether it has legs.

  60. Sean Says:

    I did not care for the wonkette’s mischaracterization for why Keyes failed. Calling it blatant racism is downright dishonest :-(

  61. Trent Hill Says:

    Remember when I cited those concerns about Keyes losing?

  62. Sean Says:

    Sure do (and remember you had a counter for the racism but were working on anti-c), but I didn’t figure that a liberal pundit would be buying into the AK spheel…

  63. Trent Hill Says:

    Oh the anti-catholic one is just as easy to dispel. Catholic Jerome Corsi endorsed Chuck Baldwin.

  64. Sean Says:

  65. Sean Says:

  66. citizen1 Says:

    At one time Corsi was concidering a run for president. I would have supported him over Baldwin and I’m a Baptist. Corsi unlike Keyes joined the CP.

  67. kalipay Says:

    Goodness, Trent, I didn’t realize you were so anti-Keyes. It was very interesting to see the differences in the states’ division of their votes. Apparently some states in their conventions prior to the national pass motions with rules deciding how the votes will be split up.

    I heard before attending the convention that Phillips had told Keyes that he would not support him. I also heard that if Keyes won the nomination that Phillips would most likely leave, along with some other big names. I had hoped that differences could be resolved, but it was duly pointed out to me that this was a naive hope, since Keyes has been long established in his own right.

    Why do you think Peroutka will endorse Baldwin? I think it’d be great if he did, and I wonder how he could avoid it, but explain to me your reasoning.

  68. kalipay Says:

    citizen1, Corsi has “joined” the National party, but Corsi has not joined his local state party, a commonly misunderstood significant point. There really is no “joining” the national party: only state affiliates keep membership dues and records and hold meetings and run candidates.

  69. Trent Hill Says:

    “Goodness, Trent, I didn’t realize you were so anti-Keyes.”

    I didnt realize how interventionist Keyes was. Having spoken with him and his supporters, it became evident that if he led our party—it’d forever lose its Paleocon/Non-interventionist label.

    “Why do you think Peroutka will endorse Baldwin? I think it’d be great if he did, and I wonder how he could avoid it, but explain to me your reasoning.”

    Peroutka commands a small group in Ohio, Idaho, New York, Maryland, Oregon, and Montana—his word will mean alot to them. If he endorses Baldwin, it’ll help.
    And Baldwin will likely SEEK his endorsement. If he didnt, it’d be a mistake. I dont like the principles or policies of the various groups in Ohio and New York—but if they can vote, donate, and petition, i’d be happy to have them. Im confident that we now have the strength, as a party,to keep reconstructionists out of power.

  70. Trent Hill Says:

    “citizen1, Corsi has “joined” the National party, but Corsi has not joined his local state party, a commonly misunderstood significant point. There really is no “joining” the national party: only state affiliates keep membership dues and records and hold meetings and run candidates.”

    Kalipay—he considers himself a member of the party, has spoken at many national and state events, speaks about the party to the media, writes about the party, and donates to the national party—im not sure why his joining the state party would matter.
    kalipay? Who are you exactly?

  71. DaveC Says:

    Something that should not be overlooked when trying to divine the motivations of Alan Keyes is that he has several times stated that he has been “called by GOD” to run for President. It is easy for outsiders to dismiss that claim but his core followers seem to take it very seriously. It is an article of faith on his forum that with sufficient prayer GOD will direct their efforts to achieve the victory. In the meantime they believe that GOD is testing them to prove their strength. In the end, the sheer magnitude of the odds that Keyes must overcome in order to win this election will further glorify GOD’s power just as the impossible victory of Gideon’s tiny army (a frequent Old Testament citation among Keyes followers) served to glorify GOD. I kid you not.

  72. SovereignMN Says:

    “just as the impossible victory of Gideon’s tiny army (a frequent Old Testament citation among Keyes followers) served to glorify GOD. I kid you not.”

    Dave, I am not a Keyes supporter but I also frequently cite Gideon when explaining why I vote CP to my Christian Republican family/friends.

  73. Ben Says:

    Just because some one has been called by God to make a run for office does not mean that he’s been ordained to win. Keyes’ people need to realise that.

  74. Sean Says:

    Daniel Imperato says he was called by GOD as well. Ben’s comments are spot on. As for me, I was open to Keyes before the convention, but I will no longer support him EVER unless he gets rid of Tom H and runs for a smaller office. It would be better if Keyes were loyal to the CP rather than to Tom H! Castle’s comments about him are spot on (He sought the chief seat and was told to go to a less prominent spot, rather than picking a worse spot and being asked to a chief seat).

    I love the Gideon story (even more so as a former Gideon), and have recently recited it to my kids. It is why we can have hope as members of the CP.

    Btw, I heard the distinction between State / National is partially because being a member of National isn’t really so, some of the CP board were complaining that it was just a fund raising tactic and confused many people into thinking they were members, when membership is only at the state level.

  75. Trent Hill Says:


    That would depend on what you think “membership” is. If it consists of paying dues at the state level—then I think that is a rediculous way to count your supporters. It cant possibly consist of registered voters, cuz many states dont register into parties.

  76. kalipay Says:

    Sean has the right idea. Membership that matters and is effectual really is at the state level. Registered voters is another counting method, but you are correct that many states don’t have the CP as an option to register into. Why do you think that’s ridiculous, Trent?

    Let me make myself clear: I definitely claim Mr. Corsi as being part of the CP, and yes, one of our more prominent members. I was just being nitpicky and precise in clarifying the definition of joining. Many people are confused at the distinction between national and state (hello, that’s (one) reason why our country is in the confusion that it is!), and this confusion is exasperated by lack of communication and cooperation between the states and national people sometimes.

    There are so many anonymous names here… Why should I have to tell you who I am, Trent? I’m a new reader, and have to say that I do admire your being the only writer (is that correct?) to use your real name here.

  77. Neddy Says:

    Over at the Keyes site Tom was asked:
    “I’m sorry Alan didn’t win the CP nomination. Could part of it be because he never actually joined them, and only began to seek their nomination a couple weeks before their National Convention? I checked them out in-depth - they are also true conservatives and constitutionalists, like us. I’m dismayed folks here have started bashing them, just because Alan wasn’t nominated. If he had been elected the CP nominee, would you still be bashing them? Maybe he should have left the GOP a year or more ago, and worked within the CP for the nomination. Maybe he should join the CP and work for the next nomination, or jump in as the CP candidate for Senate? I think we should be kinder to our own fellow conservatives, and work together.”

    And Tom replied:
    “I’ll tell you what I’ve told everyone else: Move beyond it. We have too much to do to save our country to dwell in the past.”

    Seems that Tom knows he made a grievous error (again).

  78. DaveC Says:

    A couple more points about Keyes just for the record.

    The reason why Keyes will never answer a question with anything less than a 40 minute lecture is because it professes that one can not appreciate an answer without understanding the logic behind it. He made this clear several times during his monologues in the hospitality suite at the CP convention. His minions take it as a given that if only other people were able to follow Keyes logical thought processes they also come to agree with his answers.

    To understand the future of Keyes it is helpful to examine his past. Until last year the vehicle designed for Keyes supporters was the Renew America website. Unfortunately for Keyes, most of his carefully groomed supporters went swanning off after Ron Paul. The web site was essentially eviserated last fall by removing the Forum as a menu option in order to make it invisible to his new cohort. (It can still be reached by going directly to in your browser. Interesting stuff there.) The only notable person to follow Keyes from Renew America to America’s Revival was Joshua Herring who became a “Senior Policy Analyst” and on again / off again forum administrator. Joshua has not been heard from since the week of the Texas GOP primary. I’m sure there’s a story there waiting to be told.

    My point with the Renew America history is that Keyes has shown the ability to conjure up new legions of followers (Ok, platoons maybe) after being shunned by the previous group. America’s Revival is not likely to survive the dashing of their hopes this November but Keyes will go on. After another round of prayer and reflection he will be back with yet another website and another mission and another body of followers. Count on it.

  79. Trent Hill Says:


    Good to have someone who can frequently engage in polite discourse, rather than the mudslinging all of us regularly engage in.

    As for State vs. National “membership”—both have importance. Corsi, so you say, isnt a dues-paying member of the state party? If this is true,and if I am correct in surmizing your arguement (or rather, your point of information), then I am not a member either, as our party does not collect “dues”.
    Does New Jersey have registration? If so, im sure Corsi is registered CP—and therefore I’d consider him a member of the party. If NJ doesnt have registration, then i’d default membership status to the National level—where he certainly fits the bill.

    As for anonymity—no im not the only writer who uses his real name. Brad Winthrop, Thomas L. Knapp, Cody Quirk, and Stephen Gordon all use their names.

  80. Neddy Says:

    David, You are SO RIGHT.
    His old board at was filled with ultra right wing racists. Anyone who called the racists to task for their outright hate speeches or racism was banned (because they were adamant in refuting racism and hate). It’s still a mess over there.
    Texas was Keyes biggest embarassment to date, and the culmination of a string of embarassments.
    The same “hate” is breeding over at Keyes newer forum, but now it is directed at the CP party for not bending over and changing for his benefit of ballot access. Now Keyes is sucking up to the California contingent and others to break away from the CP. Watch for insider bargaining.

  81. Trent Hill Says:

    Keyes spent the ONLY money he had fundraised (240,000+) in Texas. And still only got 8000 votes.

  82. kalipay Says:

    Trent, New Jersey definitely has registration and state membership lists. Corsi is not on them. (To be completely accurate here, he was not on them a week ago when I was discussing this with NJ leadership.)

    Do you have any sort of membership process or at least a list of people who come to meetings, etc, for your state? I know that states differ very significantly in their leadership and membership standards and record-keeping. I understand both sides, that the national needs the support and wants all the names and addresses for their mailings; but being also closely tied with a state I see the equally great need for local participation and support and people interested in local candidates and races… All in all, I think we tend to require alot of our people, which is most likely why we have fewer. Quality over quantity, eh?

  83. Trent Hill Says:


    Iv a decent idea of who you are now. =)
    We have membership lists and registration lists—and we use both to determine “membership standards”.

    As for recquiring alot of your people—there is a balance that should be struck. We have people who do alot, and people who feel that they cant,so they just show up at a meeting or two, or donate some. Im ohk with that, but we do remind them that while work is important—there is a Republic to save.

  84. Sean Says:

    My understanding is that you couldn’t be a voting delegate unless you were a member of a state party, not the National. Likewise, the Rules Committee just this year changed it so you didn’t have to be part of a state party to be a candidate.

  85. Trent Hill Says:


    Then what about the Maryland and Oregon delegates? They were member of the national party,and members of state parties—but their state parties were NOT affilliated with the national party—so I think this sets the obvious precedent.

  86. Sean Says:

    There were all sorts of loopholes, and special cases going on. So some could do X and show commitment and be counted, and others (apparently those who had disaffiliated like Arkansas IIRC) had to go through the entire process, while others (like Alaska) had something to barter with.

    If you’ll remember, Howard Phillips actually moved to not have Maryland count because it wasn’t properly affiliated…

    Not sure that answers your question though …

  87. SovereignMN Says:

    When Keyes lost that Maryland delegate showed his appreciation for the CP by saying he would not be involved in building a party in that state afterall. Once again Howard was right.

  88. citizen1 Says:

    Because of the screwed up way my state does voter registration, in part of my town you can register with the state affiliate but not in others. We also have no state dues. So, unless you live in one of the six out of 151 state house districts that we have status you cannot be a member of the state party at this time. Since we no longer have state wide recognition some of our members of our state central committee including executives are not technically members of the state party. The way I currently determine membership is dedication to the principle of the party.

  89. DaveC Says:


    I think the most embarassing aspect of the Texas GOP primary is that Keyes only managed to pull out a 6th place finish in a field of 4 active candidates.

    John Maccabee - 709,477 - 51.23%
    Mike Maccabee - 523,553 - 37.81%
    Ron Paul - 69,954 - 5.05%
    Mitt Romney - 27,624 - 1.99%
    Fred Thompson - 11,815 - 0.85%
    Alan Keyes - 8,594 - 0.62%
    Duncan Hunter - 8,262 - 0.59%
    Rudy Giuliani - 6,174 - 0.44%
    Hugh Cort - 918 - 0.06%
    Hoa Tran - 623 - 0.04%
    Uncommitted - 17,668 - 1.27%

    (Official returns from

    The Keyestoners had to really stretch to rationalize that one away. When you consider that even a creature like Larry Kilgore got 79,236 votes in his Senate bid you have to wonder why Keyes couldn’t at least capture the Kilgore portion of the electorate.

  90. citizen1 Says:

    I talked to the MD delegate Saturday and he is interested in building a party. He is disappointed at some of the things that happened at the convention. He is not sure if he will use the CP name and said that he may ask to use another name. This does not sound like someone who will not build a party.

  91. Trent Hill Says:


    Saturday when? Becauseif you goto

    That guy recently said he wouldnt continue building the party.

  92. Sean Says:

    Keyes got only 300 more votes than my original candidate (Duncan Hunter) who dropped out over 3 months ago! Fred Thompson also dropped out about the same time and did twice Keyes.

    Thanks for the numbers…

  93. citizen1 Says:

    I do not see anything on his site that sats that. The latest post an his site is April 17. I talk to him at the ‘ball.’ He was not enthusiastic but he was going to continue. He was looking for a way to get young people involved. He thought about calling it the Cool Party.

  94. Trent Hill Says:


    Call him. I promise he has dropped out. I forgot where I saw the message,but i promise he has decided to not support the party.

  95. Sean Says:

    You can find it from the horses mouth in the comments of :

  96. citizen1 Says:

    That is a reversal of what he had said Saturday. He did not know that Keyes intended to keep running when he talk to me. Steve is being much more honorable than Ed Noonan though. One thing to remember is that Steve came to the CP because he wanted Keyes to be the candidate, so leaving and following Keyes is not surprising. He isn’t even taking what he build as small as that might be with him.
    I do agree with him about the Howard’s comments on the Fair Tax. I said that immediately. Not that the Fair Tax is without its problems. There are misrepresentations in the Fair Tax Book.
    Oh, and I prefer Timm.

  97. Trent Hill Says:

    Too bad. Im calling you Timmy.


Leave a Reply