I really don't know how you're missing my obvious, bite-you-on-the-nose point, but here it is ONE MORE TIME: Keyes acts in a manner that shows him to be a full-of-himself, implacable, unpleasable purist who CANNOT form coalitions because ANYONE who is not in 101% agreement with him MUST be criticized at GREAT LENGTH and with FIERCE PASSION. (His stupid, stupid, stupid criticism of Bush's confession of faith — which you recalled — is a perfect example.) The effect he has on those most devoted to him (observable in this thread, as in all Keyes threads) is that they become Keyes Kultists. NOBODY is pure enough for them, NO compromise is really acceptable, NOTHING that varies from their Prophet's dicta can be acceptable. And variances are NEVER honest differences of opinion -- they are heresies! (Witness Keyes and Krew's total botching and almost slanderous misrepresentation of Bush on the "stem cell research" issue, to which I devoted a lengthy essay [where were you??].)
And so, proving my point, if any Keyester comments on this posting, it will be ponderous and humorless and painfully detailed (I've touched The Lord's Anointed, after all). No Keyester can say, "You know, you have a point. The guy has great points, but ruins his own case by being way too full of himself and Unable To Play Well With Others" -- any more than a Christian can say that Christ takes Himself too seriously. The difference being, of course, that Christ really is God.
Dan
In fact, I've heard him explain to conservatives that we can't expect to have it all today; that we shouldn't demand to have all or nothing. When he urged his fellow conservatives to vote Republican across the board in the 2000 election, he did so on this principle. He said that it's better to have someone like Bob Dole, who is a wishy-washy moderate, than Bill Clinton. He urged conservatives not to help the other side by holding out for 100% of what we want. "It doesn't work that way," he said. If you missed that speech, which was broadcast on C-SPAN and advertised here on FR, I can send you the transcript.
So the idea that he is an "implacable, unpleasable purist who CANNOT form coalitions," is complete hogwash. I saw him with my own eyes issue a "Unity Call" for the Republican party.
Now, on the second point you made about Keyes' "stupid, stupid, stupid criticism of Bush's confession of faith" is another thing that is easily disproved.
For instance, the issue at hand is that Bush said Jesus Christ is his "favorite philosopher." This is not a confession of faith. Calling Jesus Christ a "philosopher" degrades Him as no more than a theorizer, and He is generally only called this by those who do not feel He is a Divine Being. But Keyes didn't even make an issue of this; all he said was that Bush must have misunderstood the question, because Jesus Christ is not a philosopher, he is God. And Keyes didn't even volunteer this opinion. He was asked it in two interviews after the debate.
I don't know if you agree with Bush's misstatement that Jesus Christ is a philosopher--which I don't think Bush even meant in the first place--but it seems to me that Christians should avoid calling him such. That's all Keyes said, and he wasn't out of line in saying so, or the least bit disrespectful. I'll post two transcripts to prove this, if you want.
It doesn't bother me that you don't like Keyes; you're entitled to your opinion. However, my concern is that cutting him down the way you did hurts the pro-life cause. That's why I was confused about your joke. All it does is give fuel to the pro-choice, anti-Keyes crowd, who seem to have made it their mission to hunt him down on this forum and squelch his voice. I don't think you've been around on recent Keyes threads, where it's been clear that many of the most adamant Keyes-bashers are pro-choice. Ironically, however, last week's Keyes article about abortion drew the anti-Declaration of Independence crowd. But this just goes to show you that many of the Keyes-bashers simply hate his message. That's sad.
With pro-lifers like yourself, I'd suggest the analogy applies that I related to Southflanknorthpawsis. Certainly you can look over what you perceive as the character flaws of someone who is on your side, and join with him to further the cause. We all need to stick together.
...and what do I find?---some of the usual suspects...talking to one another, as they do, about how they can't stand Alan Keyes' personality. Of course, as usual, no substance...just rabid personality-based attacks, with no discussion of the critical issues of our day....anyways...I expect that...that's their thing, and they do it well...
But your post is extremely disappointing, BibChr...rescurrecting the old 'Keyes cult' slander. Maybe you ought to pick up your Bible, brother, and reread the part about 'not bearing false witness against your neighbor'.
I know literally thousands of people who supported Keyes in 2000. Of course he had his syncophants (just as Bush has more than his share of syncophants himself).
But for you to broadbrush Alan's friends and supporters as cultists is just plain wrong, my friend and my brother.
Again, I know these folks...as a group, they are among the most independent and principled I have ever met...most are committed Christians...committed to Christ and His Word, not to some 'Keyes cult'.
What makes you think you have the right to stand in judgement of them?
By the way, a large number of the people I respect most on Free Republic are past Keyes supporters as well...are they all cultists, too?