You're getting very sleepy. Your eyelids feel very heavy. I'm going to count down from 5 to 1 and when I get to 1 you're going to enter a deep sleep. You will do as I say and listen only to what Alan Keyes says.
Posted on 09/15/2007 4:08:21 AM PDT by Man50D
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – After two previous runs for U.S. president, former Reagan diplomat Alan Keyes has announced he's again seeking the White House in the 2008 election, and he'll take part in Monday night's Republican presidential debate here.
Keyes told syndicated radio host Janet Parshall he's "unmoved" by the lack of moral courage shown by the other candidates, among whom he sees no standout who articulates the "key kernel of truth that must, with courage, be presented to our people."
He added, "The one thing I've always been called to do is to raise the standard ... of our allegiance to God and His authority that has been the foundation stone of our nation's life" – and he decried the lack of "forthright, clear, and clarion declaration" from the current crop of presidential contenders.
As a result, Keyes said, "We're putting together an effort that's not going to be like anything before, because it's going to be entirely based on citizen action. We're going to be challenging people to take a pledge for America's revival," and elevate them from spectators in the political arena to participants.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I would ask for a retraction, but that would mean admitting something that is not true, that Voigt or I are sycophants. Your continued invective is noted, however.
same here... he got my primary vote in 2000, but no more. He’s a bright chap and strong conservative, but no chance.
Illinois was a bad mistake.
jw
The Know Nothings were a third Party and were not affiliated with either Whig (Lincoln denounced them) or Democrat.
They were also anti-Immigrant, and anti-Jewish as well.
Every once in a while, we need a reinforcement of central gummint power. Not in the sectional crisis, nor in the late unpleasantness of the rogue "Union" conquering the Southland, not in perpetuating the New Deal or getting all glassy eyed over the likes of Eisenhower or JFK or LBJ but definitely in defense of the nation's power to wage foreign wars and to stop substantial interstate criminal activity of the (malum in se) traditional criminal variety rather than the (malum prohibitum) "wrong just because we prohibit it" variety.
I think putting down a rebellion and ending slavery is a legimate use of Federal power.
As to Eisenhower, not only did he irrationally restrain Patton from finishing various vital jobs in WW II and undermine the efforts of Joe McCarthy and many others like him, but he advocated what he hilariously referenced as "modern Republicanism" which amounted to Harry Truman in GOP drag with less public attitude. It turned out thankfully that "modern Republicanism" was neither as demonstrated most forcefully by the success of Ronaldus Maximus.
Eisenhower saved U.S. lives by not going into Berlin which was going to be divided anyway, wheather we took it or not.
I think the Nation did pretty well under Ike.
Had not the Democrats stole the 1960 election and lied about a phony missle gap, Nixon would have won that election and who knows how different history would have been.
What killed the Federalists and the Whigs and will probably eventually kill off the GOP is a slavish devotion to the interests of financial elites at the expense of everyone else. Cost of labor too high? Send the jobs to Bangladesh where willing five-year olds can be enslaved at 10 cents an hour with no benefits. Need a better bottom line, ditto. Join GATT and WTO so that there will be like-minded money peple governing our economy internationally rather than populist politicians. No more elections having an impact on keeping the steel industry and other defense industries here when other nations will take our investments and protect us from the public.
Can't argue with that, but it was slavery that made the Whig Party irrelevant, since they tried to avoid dealing with the issue, the most pressing issue of their day.
Teddy Roosevelt's idea of centralized gummint power was exercised in favor of nationalism, the Great White Fleet, the emergence of the US as an international force to be reckoned with. He created national parks (not constitutional but big deal!) His trustbusting sided with the public against the usual elitist gang of suspects. If you think he was a Hamiltonian, you are wrong. Nonetheless, if one GOP POTUS can define the party, then we offer Andrew Johnson, U. S. Grant (to a limited extent), Rutherford B. Hayes, Chester Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, William Howard Taft, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Ronaldus Maximus as defining counterexamples to your thesis if not to TR who was a rather good president.
Johnson was not a Republican.
The other's you mention were in favor of high tariffs, a strong role of the Federal government in internal improvements
Which were Hamiltonian!
Trust busting was anti-Free enterprise, which even Hamilton would never had been for!
The only thing the Federal government should have been concerned about were special privileges granted by the State governments which hindered competition.
So, your view of what constitutes Hamilitonian doctrine seems quite selective.
Did you know that George McGovern in his ranting against the Vietnam War, plagiarized large sections of Lincoln's speeches ranting against the Mexican War without attributing the quotes to Lincoln: "This chamber stands knee deep in innocent blood," blather, blather, blather.... Lincoln and McGoo were in some respects political blood brothers. It is highly ironic in that Lincoln launched the most savage illegal war in American history and one that killed only Americans.
LOL!
Lincoln was against the U.S.-Mexican war because he was suspious that it was going to be used by the Democrats to increase the spread of slavery.
Lincoln didn't launch any war, the Confederates did that when they fired on an U.S. military fort and illegally took over Federal property (owned by all the States).
Lincoln upheld the Constitution and the only reason there is a United States of America today is because he had the moral courage to defend it, a benefit you clearly take for granted.
“The artillery of Brigadier General Pierre Gustave Toutaint Beauregard began to bombard Fort Sumter only when the Yankee occupiers refused to leave South Carolina’s Fort Sumter.”
occupiers? This was federal property, bought and paid for by the United States Government. I could declare Yosemite park part of my newly invented country too, but if I shoot at Park Rangers and claim US property, I’ve started a war with the US. Never mind that there actually is no Constitutional provision for secession (10th Amendment says nothing on it), despite what you say; the Confederacy was a stillborn illegitimate child of slavocrat extremists, a concoction whose power over the southern people soon became everything the confederates claimed to be against; and the blame for the Civil War and its aftermath should fall to those who set the wheels in motion and fired the first shots. You say Lincoln destroyed the Constutition, and yet the Constitution and our country endures, better for his effort and having saved our Union. So that we could live and argue over history.
‘Nuff said.
Blessed is the man
Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly,
Nor stands in the path of sinners,
Nor sits in the seat of the scornful
“Continue to ignore all the bottom feeders, and decide between Fred, Rudy, Mitt, and John.”
“God help America.”
He’s stating reality. one of Rudy, Mitt or Fred will be the nominee. Alan won’t and the other 1% candidates wont. Newt wont either, and he’s smart enough to figure that out and so wont run, unlike some other perennial candidates.
God helps those who help themselves. It would be wise to help make sure the best winnable candidate is helped.
“I can tell you with certainty that Dr. Keyes highly respects Duncan Hunter, and would support him with all his might were he the nominee.”
Keyes would be a much more powerful force then if he endorsed Hunter and helped him along to *become* the nominee. How many splinter right-wing candidates does it take before we get divided and conquered by the Rudys and the Hillarys of the world?
Well said, even if the whole topic is OT to the thread.
WOSG chapter three, verse two?
God helps those who trust Him and call upon Him.
Congressman Hunter, as much as we all love him, has had a year to show that he could confront and defeat the RINOs who are taking over our party. He has failed. It's time for a new plan.
I had the privilege of spending some time with him yesterday. As always, he's as solid as a rock, and as gracious as any man could be. But, he just isn't going to be able to get this job done.
OK, so I’ve been on vacation in California with The Lovely Wife, so just got back to see my ‘page’ to this thread.
I worked for Alan’s campaign in the 2000 Presidential run at a fairly high level, so I think I know a little bit about this.
Here’s the straight skinny, folks: He’s one helluva guy. Brilliant. Probably smarter than you all even believe him to be.
He’ll also never win an election. He is handled by a small group who have consistently given him incredibly bad, inane advice (which, for some reason, he continues to take).
Alan needs to be a visiting professor at several large universities. That’s his venue. He’s unequaled there. NO one can take young, malleable minds and mold them positively like Alan Keyes. Period. He’s just absolutely incredible in that setting. He’s an academic, and academia is where he belongs.....and where he is SORELY needed.
He’s a truly good man with great ideas and a formidable mind; he also has no business running for President. His “handlers” full well know it and only push him to do this to further their own agendas. It’s sad.
I wish Dr. Keyes nothing but the best, but I’ll never lift a finger to help him campaign for public office again. I’ve seen the damage first-hand. Let him prosper where he SHOULD be.
Alan......for God’s sake, listen this time.............
LOL. If they joined forces, they might crack that elusive 10 percent barrier. I wouldn't bet on it, but it's possible.
How many splinter right-wing candidates does it take before we get divided and conquered by the Rudys and the Hillarys of the world?
How many have you got?
Times change.
Ambassador Keyes, as much as we all love him and enjoy hearing him speak, has had...um...MANY years to show that he can confront and defeat...ummm...ANYONE. He has failed. It's time for Dr. Keyes and YOU to accept that. He should pick a good conservative candidate and become his advisor and speechwriter. Possibly set himself up for some nice appointment if that candidate wins. But his run for President AGAIN is just stupid. Flat out stupid. It's a distraction. It peels away conservative voters from other conservative candidates. It diverts donation dollars away from more viable conservative candidates. Plus, it just makes him and anyone who has ever supported him look stupid.
Right on, RightOnline. You nailed it.
ping for later
Congressman Hunter, as much as we all love him, has had a year to show that he could confront and defeat the RINOs who are taking over our party. He has failed. It’s time for a new plan.”
Hmmmm. If the ‘new plan’ is to recruit another 1% candidate, one who’s never been elected, that sure is about as likely to succeed as the British battle plan at Gallipoli. Or Custer’s last stand.
“I had the privilege of spending some time with him yesterday. As always, he’s as solid as a rock, and as gracious as any man could be. But, he just isn’t going to be able to get this job done.”
I’m not sure whether you are talking about Amb. Keyes or Rep Hunter there, but it seems to be applicable in either case. Good men. Won’t make a difference.
Keyes was interviewed on Medved’s show yesterday and came off as angry, impatient, and cynical. He had NOTHING positive to say about the GOP or Republicans in general. His attitude seems to convey “Look you morons, vote for me or you’re a bunch of morons!”
I don’t think I’m “smart enough” to vote for Alan Keyes ;’}
Keyes is a true Republican/conservative. He wasn't truely accepted by the state party, so the votes he got were by the conservatives left in the state. The Republican party in Illinois would probably resemble the Democrat party in any other normal state.
With Topinka getting less than Keyes, I think those who did vote for Topinka just held their noses. I think the rest of the party stayed home.
The fact that Keyes got a larger percentage of R votes than Topinka speaks volumes. He came in soooo late into the campaign he never had a chance. He never was truely backed by the party. And yet he got a larger percentage of the R vote. That tells me that the Repubs/conservatives who did vote were more interested in what Keyes had to offer and his direction than they were for Topinkas.
Topinka reminds me of a (somewhat) female version of Richie Daley. She's no different than any democrat in the state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.