The comments on this post have become typical of what I can expect from FreeRepublic, and it is exactly the reason I've not been posting regularly in years.
We all talk a good game, but when push comes to shove many in this thread alone will cast aside reason and reflection in exchange for invective and misrepresentation. If I can only count the charges being leveled against someone who has dared to challenge those people and institutions no one else dared to challenge!
We should be reminded that it is not the candidate's job to win elections. It is our job to put the person in office whom we feel would be most likely to advance our causes. If we do not, we will lose, even if the candidate we "supported" is elected. Whatever the case, we will wind up with exactly the sort of government we deserve.
Those of you who prefer Duncan Hunter (or any other conservative candidate) to Alan Keyes respectfully, I readily acknowledge that we are on the same side. I look forward to seeing what happens when these two are in the same room. I expect them to agree more than disagree.
To the rest of you who feel compelled to serve lies about or otherwise misrepresent the circumstances surrounding a good man, you ought to be ashamed.
Here's a smattering of lies offered so far on this post that I was unfortunate enough to skim:
- Keyes pays himself out of campaign donations. First, it's false. He did it once and only once during his run for the Senate in Maryland. Second, it's perfectly legal. Third, it should remain legal and be considered acceptable. Regular folks (people who are not incumbents) must often quit their jobs in order to to run a campaign, which completely dries up their income source. Insinuating malfeasance for garnering a salary for running a campaign is not only wrong, it also ensures only the rich will ever be able to run.
- Keyes dissed Mary Cheney. False again. In an interview, Keyes was asked how he could support the Republican ticket even though some disagreements exist between himself and the administration, including on the issue of "gay marriage." Keyes explained that his support allowed room for disagreements with the Vice President over secondary issues. When asked for his defense of marriage, Keyes provided it clearly, honestly, and in a way I'd gather a good portion of Keyes' critics would agree with. During the course of his explanation, he pointed out that we create institutions in law because there is a compelling benefit to society (such as to provide rules and procedures dealing with the consequences of procreation), not just individuals, and that the advocates of gay marriage are concerned about what they can get for themselves. This, Keyes explained quite correctly, was "hedonism." Asked if this applied to Mary Cheney, he gave the only honest answer available. "By definition." Hedonism is not invective, by the way; it's a term that describes a philosophical belief that goes back to ancient Greece.
- Keyes is the cause of Obama's success. False. Obama was already being promoted in Illinois and in the U.S. after his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. Keyes came into the picture with less than three months to campaign, and he was welcomed by a hostile press and liberals, moderates, and even conservatives all too willing to believe such press.
- Keyes is a carpetbagger. False. The concept of a carpetbagger was started after the Civil War, when folks from the North were imposed upon the people of the South as condition for reconciliation. Keyes was invited by the Republican Party of Illinois. He acceptance of this nomination and the positions brought to bare by the debates that ensued may very well give the GOP the sort of ammunition they need to expose Obama as a hard-left socialist. Say what you will of Keyes' willingness to serve that role, just as long as you thank him when Obama is defeated.
- Keyes supports reparations. False. Although I do question the wisdom of answering this question with anything other than a resolute "no," Keyes simply was reflecting on a hypothetical scenario. However, what he really supports, what he has always supported (at least since 1999 when I first became aware of him), is the abolition of the income tax for all Americans, not just descendants of slaves. It was not a "plan" as breathlessly touted in the media.
- Keyes kicked his daughter out of his house for being a lesbian. His daughter was an adult, and he had no legal or moral obligation to either house her or pay for her college. I would argue as a parent that if a child behaves in a way that the parent deems harmful, it is the duty of the parent, as one who loves the child, to not enable that child's destructive behavior. I'm sure she can come home when she wishes to abandon her behavior, and Keyes will be overjoyed to assist her. First, though, she must make that decision.
- Keyes owes a ton of money from his last campaign. False. His campaign owing money is of no consequence to Keyes personally. However, last I heard (which was over a month ago) his campaign debt was something like $80,000 and falling. I wouldn't be surprised if he settled already with the FEC. That's certainly not a large amount compared with the amount raised throughout the course of a high-profile political campaign, especially one that required one candidate make up a lot of ground in less than three months against a hostile press that seemed to go out of its way to spread lies about Keyes (lies that keep conveniently showing up here).
That's the short list. I'm really disappointed in this board, but only because I had been holding out hope that enough reasonable, passionate people remained to have an intelligent discussion about the issues at stake. The attacks on Keyes' character are out of line and undeserved.
Once again, assuming this is still a board that appreciates truth and conservatism, all we really seem to covet is power. As long as this is true, except by happenstance, we will always have a government that works in the interests of their own power, not the people's will. And we still will deserve the government we get.
If you support a different candidate on principle and refuse to be swayed by the lies posted in this thread, then this post does not apply to you.