3 Cheers for Obama’s defeat-no cheer from the RINO victory - ALAN KEYES

Loyal to Liberty ^ | January 20, 2010 | Alan Keyes

[EternalVigilance]

Loyal to Liberty

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Alan Keyes

 

I can't help but look at Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts in the context of the larger strategy clearly being implemented by the RINO (Republican-In-Name-Only) clique that currently controls the GOP. Sean Hannity is the clique's bellwether media tool. It was no coincidence that he featured Mitt Romney on his program last night to revel in the Scott Brown victory. Scott Brown in Massachusetts is the advance guard for Mitt Romney in the White House (or vice-versa). He becomes the poster child for the RINO clique's archetypal GOP candidate who:

• Has no differences in principle with the socialist minded Democrats;
  
• Embraces the substance of Obama's socialist agenda, but "opposes" Obama by criticizing his implementation of socialism, especially when it comes to fiscal matters;
  
• Agrees in principle with the Democrats on the fundamental issues of justice and morality but employs the deceptive rhetoric of personal opinion to evade the questions of public law and policy they involve. Such issues include child-murder and other abrogations of the unalienable right to life, as well as the rejection of the God endowed rights of the natural family.
  

As long as the RINO clique can gull the conservative base of the GOP into identifying with and celebrating the success of such candidates, principled conservatives will never (or very rarely) win elections; conservative policies will never be implemented; and the tragic decline of America's liberty will continue to its inevitably ruinous conclusion.

[ColdWater]

I understand what Dr. Keyes is trying to say.

I don't think you understand Keyes.

[NeoCaveman]

I suppose we have our own ‘Taliban’ wing.

I don't agree. We do have our own "Kamikaze wing" though.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

He is decrying how Brown won. From someone who never has.

Yeah, but you got to understand what these threads are really about.

They're about self-important people getting to pretend that they're the Real True Conservatives, while everyone else out there - you know, the people who realise that red-meat candidates can't win in every last district in the country - get to be looked down upon as dirty, stinking RINOs who just aren't pure enough for them.

Along with it, of course, comes a lot of dishonest twisting of the candidate in question's stated positions, a lot of chest-thumping and misrepresentation of what other FReepers have said, and a whole boatload of pretentiousness.

They're an opportunity for the Keyes people (or the Ron Paul people, or the Pat Buchanan people, or the Batboy people, or whatever) to prove their moral superiority to all the people who actually believe that winning elections, rather than whining like babies, is the way to move forward the conservative agenda over the long haul.

[dirtboy]

Get active! Make sure that qualified conservatives and not dem-lites are put on the general election ballot.

Republicans are 12 percent of the electorate in Mass. Maybe, just maybe, Brown is about as conservative as one can nominate in a deep blue state like Massachussetts and still win the general election.

I've never seen such a long line of people queued up to look the latest gift horse in the mouth. Folks, THE DEMS LOST THE SWIMMER'S SEAT - something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime, let alone in the election right after he croaked - but all some folks can do is bitch.

[Carling]

I don’t see where he is decrying how Brown won. I think he’s decrying the fact that Scott Brown is a social liberal. I understand the enthusiasm for Brown, but my excitement has much more to do with Barack Obama losing than it does Scott Brown winning.

[dirtboy]

You nailed it.

[Kenny Bunk]

Scott P. Brown is
(a)Definitely a RINO. Can compromise with the best of'em. Comes out of the snake-pit MA legislature, which is composed of whores and hockey players ... and we ain't seen him skate yet.
(b) No "real conservative" stepped up to oppose Coakley.
(c)Now that Brown is in for the rest of Ted's term, it will be up to conservatives to hold his feet to the fire. Lotsa luck there, conservatives.
(d) Alan Keyes is the PIA that is usually right. Makes everyone uncomfortable. His philosophy is "Either you is or you ain't." No wiggle room there. Makes him a lousy politician. Like Joan of Arc. Jeez, Alan, shut up will ya?

The RINOs of the RNC are overjoyed, even though they have only been on the Brown band wagon for three weeks. They got themselves a big strong young white horse in the race. They want to ride this RINO to the White House. Boy o boy! Back to business as usual!

[the long march]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Republican_Party

Note inparticular the current years.... And note what happened in 2006 when Coakley ran for AG ( a post she still holds)

[dirtboy]

I don’t see where he is decrying how Brown won. I think he’s decrying the fact that Scott Brown is a social liberal.

Quite frankly, Brown's centrist position on social issues made him electable in a deep blue state (Brown is still somewhat pro-life, in being against partial-birth-abortion - and from what I have read, pro-life Catholics were hitting the bricks for Brown, so THEY were OK with him over a pro-death ghoul like Coakley). And that is what has Keyes in a twist. But Keyes tried three times to win statewide election and failed.

[Carling]

Reagan won MA in 1984. There hasn’t been a true Reagan conservative on a statewide ballot there since. I could just as easily say that history proves that a true conservative has won in MA every time they have fun in the past 25 years. ;)

[Hawthorn]

>> Clearly, Alan Keyes has gone off the rails <<

You’re just now noticing?

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Just as sure as conservatives have to make compromises to win elections in leftist strongholds, the conservative movement needs to have uncompromising voices to keep the movement moving rightward. Otherwise, compromise becomes an end, and not a means to one.

Keyes serves that purpose, and it's a valuable one. Leftists understand this with their "purists". We'd rather throw ours to the sharks. That's why they're in power and we're not.

Keyes does not seek to cost Republicans elections. He seeks to move the party to the right.

[Carling]

They're an opportunity for the Keyes people (or the Ron Paul people, or the Pat Buchanan people, or the Batboy people, or whatever) to prove their moral superiority to all the people who actually believe that winning elections, rather than whining like babies, is the way to move forward the conservative agenda over the long haul.

I'm still waiting for somebody to make the case how electing Scott Brown, who voted to have the people of MA fund abortions in RomneyCare,and advocating his ascension up the GOP ladder, advances the "conservative agenda". I can see how it advances the "GOP agenda", but not the "conservative agenda". They are not one and the same, IMO.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Answer the question. They are your words, not mine.

Well, first of all, I don't have to answer the question just because you - Mr. Dishonesty - think I should. Your question was a completely dishonest, misrepresentative attempt to completely spin what I had said to something completely opposite to what I actually said. In other words, you are either lying, or else too stupid to understand what you were doing because you didn't get what I said to begin with.

What I said was, "As for gay marriage - well, his position is the 10th amendment position. If you have a problem with that, then you ultimately have a problem with the Constitution, not with Scott Brown."

How you construed that I was saying that being against gay marriage means you are against the Constitution, I have no idea.

Let me spell it out for you.

Scott Brown quite openly says he believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

He also says that states should be the ones to decide.

States making this kind of decision is directly in line with the Constitutional principles of federalism, as outlines, for instance, in the 10th amendment.

Ergo, if we are going to ban gay marriage, it has to be done at the state level, since it's the states' call either way.

Nowhere in any of this does the concept appear that "being against gay marriage means you don't support the constitution." That was completely a bogus smokescreen that you invented, because it was apparently easier for you to do so than to actually deal with the issue honestly. Scott Brown has said he supports traditional marriage. He has nowhere said he support gay marriage. What he DOES support is addressing the issue by means of federalism - which is the legitimately constitutional way of doing it.

So again, why can't you address this issue honestly?

[dirtboy]

Keyes does not seek to cost Republicans elections.

He has never won an election. At some point, winning DOES matter. There are effective ways to work to hold the party on a rightwards tack, but taking issue with the GOP wresting the Swimmer's old seat away from the Dems is not one of them, quite frankly. It reeks of Keyes being an attention whore.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Thank you so much - I love Alan, but never saw myself on the wrong side of purist fence before and couldn’t quite explain what I was doing there. You said it far more eloquently than I could even think it.

[dirtboy]

If you cannot see how wresting the Swimmer’s seat away from a pro-death ghoul advances conservatism, I’m afraid there is little point in further consersation with you. I prefer to discuss politics with the sane.

[Hawthorn]

>> what happened to the intelligent, articulate, and sane fellow who used to bear that name <<

Aliens from Planet Zog have taken over his body and his voice?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I'm still waiting for somebody to make the case how electing Scott Brown, who voted to have the people of MA fund abortions in RomneyCare,and advocating his ascension up the GOP ladder, advances the "conservative agenda".

So, uh, you don't understand that opposing Obamacare, cap'n'trade, higher taxes, and more deficits is part of the "conservative agenda"? Am I understanding you correctly?

[Carling]

William F. Buckley never won an election either. What point are you trying to make? People like Alan Keyes serve their purpose, and I for one am glad to see at least some so-called conservatives are not swooning over Brown.

Rush Limbaugh is an embarrassment today. I'm hoping his glee is over Obama’s crushing defeat, and not having Mitt Romney Jr. elected to the Senate.