So, in brief, yes, I agree that it is the ideals and the principles that come first......But we need scores of individuals who actually believe in the founding principles enough to act on them to be raised up in the months and years ahead. Alan is just one of them...but a very capable one.
I agree with you totally.
But if you sincerely share this worldview with Alan, and I believe you do, I just don't understand why you dislike him so much.
It's more a disagreement with his methods than with his beliefs. I go back to the "rude and arrogant" label he's gotten. I know some people take this as evidence of Alan's "refusal to play politics" and devotion to his principles. The problem is, if you alienate all your would-be allies, who is going to help you?
By the way, if you were referring to Alan 'being rude' to Jocelyn Elders, I have no sympathy...I don't know how any sane thinking individual could be civil for long to that woman. She is a deceiver and a totally despicable human being.
I share your opinion of Jocelyn Elders - and will add that IMO her voice and mannerisms are supremely irritating. However, I was referring to Symix's comments (see posts #57, 79, & 90) and I don't think they were limited to the exchange with Jocelyn Elders. My point was, if Symix, who is by no means a "Keyes-basher", perceives Keyes as being rude from time to time, what must someone who is not familiar with Keyes think?
Symix, I apologize, I'm really not trying to "pick on" you.
By the way, I just listened to Alan on Jan Mickelson's program in Des Moines, Iowa (Jan's show is the premiere conservative talk show in the state). Alan and Jan had a great time together, joking and enjoying each others company and intellectual stimulation. At the same time, they discussed in depth great issues and principles and beautifully put them in the context of our current political landscape.
That's the Alan I love and admire...and there wasn't a lick of arrogance or any of that associated with it at all. I hate to be like a broken record, but I just think the man is a national treasure.
I don't think I ever used the term "rude" - just like I discovered on the second viewing that my initial interpretation was wrong, you (I think) took my words of "the host should be gracious to his guests" as me saying Alan was rude. But I did not say and certainly would not mean it - you did, you interpreted it that way. People have a tendency to interpret events in the familiar to them fashion through a prizm of their own bias.
But to more important thing - in 140 you stated:
Better, IMHO, to tie the movement to IDEAS, or to SEVERAL leaders, than to one man.
We are down to only one leader, our last hope.
Your statement has several meanings - one of them is "let's get rid of Keyes because having several leaders is better than one" - the same arguement Democrats used to kill a proposal to cancel a "temporary" gasoline tax where they claimed they would rather support a large 50 cent tax cut that a measly 3-cents... As a result the tax was not canceled. I am afraid you are trying to do the same to Keyes.
Regarding my critique of Keyes - I want him to be better at what he does with the show. What he already does with the show is far above anything anyone else is doing - but he can do it even better! You complain that he is not a perfectly tactful, completely neutral tv host (or a politician). He should not be. A perfect team player never becomes a team leader. It is always personalities who would not pass the ball (I refer to basketball) and take it upon themselves to win the games that become true leaders. Alan Keyes is such a leader. The Republican party (and not its back-broken leadership) should "find" him - this show is an excellent exposure.