Alan Keyes comes out in support of President Bush, denounces Democrats, "our survival is at stake!"

Transcript of Hannity & Colmes ^ | Feb 4, 2004 | Alan Keyes

[Fledermaus]

Well, the Dems run on immediate legalization of aliens and they get votes. They also get laws struck down by those 2-1 polled that deny welfare to illegal aliens.

Kerry would just put more judges on the bench to knock down those laws.

You can't even get a bill through a state house to even stop bilingual education, affirmative action and other benefits to illegal aliens.

Sure, it polls well nationally, but it doesn't win out in the states and, as I've pointed out, there are always Kerry loving judges.

So your solution is much better, blame Bush and sit at home and watch it get worse.

And by the way, I don't give a crap if your are "finished on this topic anyway" oh king of posts. But then that's usually the response from someone losing the debate.

[GeronL]

You do remember how the Republicans got pilloried by the liberally-biased media the last time that Congress was "gridlocked", don't you?

Yes, a Republican Congress was re-elected

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

You are entitled to your opinion, but the last sentence turned me away from several logical points you made earlier.

[FairOpinion]

Here is an excellent analysis by Lando Lincoln:

"I said it was simple, not short. But, I believe history will tell us that the leadership from this administration has been remarkable in the face of incredible pressures. This president has the press/media always looking for weakness, the left and democrats are constantly undermining his efforts, many of our so-called allies abandoned the U.S. at a critical time of need, and, the UN was worse than worthless. At a time when the economy was reeling from a cyclic recession coupled with the costs of September 11. Yet, through it all, we have removed a despot, planted the seeds for democracy in the “swamp” of the Middle East, and the economy is on the upswing.

And – I think this gets overlooked sometimes – this President and his advisors understand POLITICS. Tim Russert said last nite on the Dennis Miller Show that demographics have changed considerably since the 2000 election. More elderly, more “minorities”, more urban voters, etc. Russert said that if the 2000 vote were held with today’s demographics, GWB would lose the popular vote by over 3 MILLION votes!!! That struck me. It is easy to carp from the relative security of the sidelines over GWB’s proposed immigration plan, or his changes to the prescription drug plan, or his proposed social security changes, or even the Patriot Act. But this President knows that to see his WOT through his potential 8 years in office, he must appeal to those “margin” groups that the democrats have so successfully exploited since at least FDR. To do otherwise is to surrender the 2004 election – at great peril for our nation. I believe, with all my heart that our President understands this intuitively, instinctively and intellectually. I can’t imagine a Hillary or a Gore or a Kerry or a Dean or an Edwards in charge over our very survival.

So I ask, what is the real cost of GWB’s proposed spending?

My new best FReeper FRiend has it right (apologies to all my other best FReeper Friends). This is the most important election cycle since 1940. I will vote for GWB and the republican ticket. If I were to do otherwise, I would be denying my young sons what I believe is the best shot at a secure future."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1071128/posts?page=24#24

[Sabertooth]

The worst electoral damage to Bush's cause here is done by overzealous Bush supporters, not the third party recruiters.

Well, they wouldn't be so damaging if you would think more like they do, or, failing that, shut up and vote.

[GeronL]

But their argument sounds more like listening to Hiemmler and Goebbels argue Hitler wasn't killing enough Jews for their taste

Oh thats real nice and logical. We're too conservative so we must be national Socialists.

[FairOpinion]

"Well, they wouldn't be so damaging if you would think more like they do, or, failing that, shut up and vote. "

==

I see -- you think that those who criticize Presient Bush should be allowed to shout from the rooftops, but those who support him should shut up?

[Fledermaus]

Oh thats real nice and logical. We're too conservative so we must be national Socialists.

I should have figured you'd see it that way. Hopeless.

[FairOpinion]

Both you and the socialists have one aim: to prevent Bush's reelection -- so how are you different from them?

[Johnny_Cipher]

Yes, a Republican Congress was re-elected

Sure. And even in the times when Newt Gingrich and the so-called "conservatives" ruled the roost on Capitol Hill, Bill Clinton was still the President. Funny that no legislation to curb the illegal alien problem was ever submitted by that august body then. Incredible that all the ills of liberalism weren't swept from the Earth since Our Guys Were In Charge then.

You can keep your "gridlock" - it does us no good. And expending our time talent and treasure on this endless, ridiculous metadiscussion and ****-waving contest about My Conservative Is Better Than Your Conservative isn't going to break the dam. Either you're with us or you're against us, friend.

[Trinity_Tx]

I'm with you on the immigration, (and other issues on which he's let us down) but when you say:

"It's much better to have your "friends" screw you over than your enemies, at least they smile when they put the knife in your back, eh?"

...I have to say that the screwing over we'd get from Kerry's type would be a lot more repulsive. To carry your analogy, I'd say that a rational person would face the reality that if you're gonna get screwed, yes, it's better to choose the one that's least injurious and humiliating to oneself and the loved ones than to ask for the holy nightmare scenario, simply out of resentment that it's happening at all.

IOW, don't bite off your nose to spite your face...

[Texasforever]

Why didn't Clinton do it?

He did. At least 5 of his EO's including arsenic standards were Kyoto based. The ONLY reason Japan and Russia opted out was because Bush gave them the cover to do so. For a guy that says he is going to vote for Bush you sure don't find a lot to support him. Why is the blue blazes would you vote for him anyway? Kyoto

[Viking2002]

Agreed. I think Keyes is right on the money.

[Simcha7]

Your Post # 4...

GOD FORBID!

[GeronL]

I do not aim to prevent Bush's re-election. Where did I write that?

I said I want him to be more conservative, thats a big difference.

[FairOpinion]

You have a choice: Bush as he is, or Kerry.

If you are not voting for Bush, you are helping Kerry get elected.

[windchime]

Have I heard these points made here before? Thanks for posting this!

Mathluv, here's the Keyes transcript we were talking about earlier.

[Trinity_Tx]

"But people, good people like GeronL, are honestly going to have doubts from time to time, just like good Christians are sometime beset with doubts. Do you call your doubting brothers in Christ satanic or muslim? No. You talk with them kindly and provide guidance and wisdom that helped you through similar times in your own life.

I totally agree... but (lol, sorry)

"I've said it before and I'll say it again now. The worst electoral damage to Bush's cause here is done by overzealous Bush supporters, not the third party recruiters."

I cant go there with ya... I think we forget that FR is reflective of a segment of the ideological spectrum that is right of the majority of Americans. I think if we were honest we'd have to admit that if Bush held to the standards of conservatism most of the "true conservatives" here do (who are the ones most likely to encourage third-party support), he wouldn't have an electoral prayer.