PDA

View Full Version : Alan Keyes the turncoat




Misesian
09-15-2007, 09:15 PM
I emailed the Keyes campaign and respectfully asked them why Alan Keyes chose to enter the race instead of endorsing Ron Paul.

The response from the official campaign "contact@alankeyes.com" stated the following
Recently, the Editor of RenewAmerica.us wrote the following comparison. It is by no means a comprehensive analysis, but gives a few of the reasons for the difference between the two candidates. and then included this article: http://www.renewamerica.us/forum/?date=070910&a=2

I was VERY upset after reading this. I responded back, and still polite, though I stated how I lost a lot of respect for Keyes after reading this and essentially consider him a turncoat now.

The response I received to that email was very much on the defensive saying that Alan Keyes did not write this and that he has never spoken out against Ron Paul, etc., etc.

I hope his lack of money drives him out of the race sooner than later. There are a lot of people getting all excited about Keyes now over at www.firesociety.com/forum/topic/4/2008-Election/ which doesn't surprise me, but I've just ignored it since I think it's just an initial buzz that would fade.

Qiu
09-15-2007, 09:26 PM
I thought that "Comparing Alan Keyes and Ron Paul" article was pretty weak.


Alan Keyes' main message is that America must return to its Declaration-based moral values or it will not survive. To him, this message is more important than the Constitution. He believes that we could follow the Constitution, in principle, and still collapse as a country, if we do not place primary emphasis on God-centered morality in public policy.Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Declaration mostly a list of misgivings about King George III? What does this have to do with governing America today? The other issues in the Declaration are very broad and the document itself is not law.

The notion that the Declaration of Independence is "more important" than the Constitution is absurd. The Constitution is THE law of the land. The Declaration just says that people should overthrow unjust government.

Ron Paul has some serious gaps in his understanding of the Constitution, despite his professed adherence to the document. For one thing, he claims that he is standing on the Constitution when he says that abortion and same-sex marriage should be left to the states. The Constitution does not sanction such a view.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the 10th Amendment say that all powers that weren't designated to the Federal government goes to the states and the people? Did the designated powers somehow include gay marriage or abortion?

SWATH
09-15-2007, 09:26 PM
Disclaimer: Whoever wrote this comparison is stupid, and parts of it actually reflect better on Dr. Paul, I don't want a president to claim the moral high ground and then support according legislation.

*******************
Comparing Alan Keyes and Ron Paul

September 10, 2007

By Editor, RenewAmerica.us

I was recently asked the difference between Alan Keyes and Ron Paul. The following is my basic response, spoken as one who sees merit in the positions of Dr. Paul, but sees greater merit in those of Dr. Keyes:

* Alan Keyes bases all his beliefs on moral premises — and in politics, he takes those moral premises from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. He further believes that it is impossible to understand the Founders' intent regarding the Constitution without placing higher priority on the Declaration.

Ron Paul never talks in such terms, to my knowledge, and if he does, such priorities are not central to his campaign.

* Alan Keyes' main message is that America must return to its Declaration-based moral values or it will not survive. To him, this message is more important than the Constitution. He believes that we could follow the Constitution, in principle, and still collapse as a country, if we do not place primary emphasis on God-centered morality in public policy.

Ron Paul never talks in such terms. I believe he is basically a moral individual — but the above is not the focus of his campaign.

* Alan Keyes wrote his Ph.D. dissertation at Harvard on the Constitution and understands it thoroughly. He is a genuine constitutional scholar, and he can articulate better than anyone else in American politics what the Constitution actually means.

Ron Paul has some serious gaps in his understanding of the Constitution, despite his professed adherence to the document. For one thing, he claims that he is standing on the Constitution when he says that abortion and same-sex marriage should be left to the states. The Constitution does not sanction such a view.

* Alan Keyes is adamant that abortion and same-sex marriage must be addressed nationally — not just state-by-state. He believes that these critical moral issues are comparable to the issue of slavery 150 years ago, and cannot simply be left to regions or states to address, but must be outlawed nationally, because they are so wrong, and because they threaten the very future of our country.

Ron Paul believes that abortion and same-sex marriage are legitimate states' rights issues (even though the Constitution does not support this view), and he would therefore allow the killing of pre-born children and the institution of gay marriage in any state that chose to legalize such things.

There is similar disagreement on a number of comparable issues — including fundamental issues of foreign policy. It is worth taking a look at the Issues page at AlanKeyes.com to understand Alan's thinking on a broad range of topics.

I personally think Ron Paul is an admirable, principled individual, but I also feel he is seriously wrong on some core issues that are vital to our nation's survival. Alan Keyes has much more understanding of domestic and foreign policy, as well as the intent of the Founders, and I see him as capable of turning our country around — morally, spiritually, politically, and materially. I don't see that in Ron Paul.

As far as which man would make a better president, the issue ultimately comes down to whether our country would be better served by electing a self-professed "libertarian" (Ron Paul) or a self-professed "moral libertarian" (Alan Keyes). The difference between the two perspectives is quite substantial.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-15-2007, 09:29 PM
Keyes is pro-war?

Ron Paul Fan
09-15-2007, 09:31 PM
It says that the Constitution does not support Ron Paul's states rights position on abortion and gay marriage. Where are these addressed in the Constitution and why is Alan Keyes interpreting it correctly when he wants to ban both of them nationwide? I don't think the author has read the 10th Amendment.

Corydoras
09-15-2007, 09:32 PM
First they actually RECOMMENDED that you read this trash article and then they tried to dissociate Keyes from it?

If that's how incompetently they go about things, their campaign is gonna sink without a bubble.

LOL!

Corydoras
09-15-2007, 09:35 PM
Keyes is pro-war?

Yep.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Obama-Keyes_War_+_Peace.htm

CMoore
09-15-2007, 09:35 PM
Keyes is a theocrat and is only going to appeal to that segment of the electorate wanting a theocracy. He did not stand a chance in previous elections, and he does not stand a chance now. There will be some candidate in the race who will appeal to these people, get their votes and then, if elected, kick them to the curb as has happened in all previous elections. I think Ron Paul can be elected without their votes. He is not the type of candidate who will pander to a certain group just to get their votes. We are wasting out time focusing on these people, I believe.

Shink
09-15-2007, 09:36 PM
There is no merit in a pro-war candidate. Nothing could redeem such a person for me.

Misesian
09-15-2007, 09:39 PM
First they actually RECOMMENDED that you read this trash article and then they tried to dissociate Keyes from it?

If that's how incompetently they go about things, their campaign is gonna sink without a bubble.

LOL!

YES!!

Though I wouldn't go and send a bunch of hate-mail to Keyes now. After Ron Paul he's probably the closest most of us could align ourselves with. Though after reading that article, and him entering the race at this point in time after Ron Paul has gained so much ground, I've lost just about all of the respect I'd had for him.

I do agree that in the grander scheme of things that the Declaration is more important than the Constitution. Ron Paul would've likely been an Anti-Federalist if he were alive now in 1787. He says the Constitution isn't perfect but it IS the Supreme Law of the Land.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist myself but also a Constitutionalist. I understand that getting back to the Constitution represents the greatest chance we have at experiencing pure unadulterated capitalism here in the U.S.

This "Declarationism" is something new I've never heard of before. Probably because I never closely followed Keyes nor the RenewAmerica.us organization that's based around Keyes.

He is a turncoat, and a shill.

Dustancostine
09-15-2007, 09:42 PM
What is the point of him entering the race at this point? Is he trying to take votes from RP? Who is paying him to do this? Or is it just his big head?

Misesian
09-15-2007, 09:47 PM
What is the point of him entering the race at this point? Is he trying to take votes from RP? Who is paying him to do this? Or is it just his big head?

Dustan. This is what I am wondering now for two reasons:

1.) His well laidout website that was put together instantly after his announcement (wasn't he just "thinking about it" a few days ago?!).

2.) The fact that his campaign fires off that response to the Alan Keyes supporter who is now supporting Ron Paul, and that it was written right before his announcement.

Very coincidental if you ask me. Keyes number one issue must be the war, so for him the importance could be stealing federalist votes away from Paul to keep a warmonger getting the nomination. If this is the strategy it's going to deliver us President Hillary.

Shink
09-15-2007, 10:11 PM
This is another 'they will stop at NOTHING' [as Ron put it] tactic to run everyone against RP. Fred has cancer, didn't want to run, BushCo pushed him to head off Ron. Gingrich will jump in and make duplicitous statements about his love of freedom if Ron gains much more momentum. Diebold changed its name to Premier Elections Solutions quietly to avoid the average voter's scrutiny, etc. etc.

Corydoras
09-15-2007, 10:15 PM
If this is the strategy it's going to deliver us President Hillary.

The GOP has been so self-defeating that I am beginning to wonder if they actually think there's an advantage in leaving Hillary holding the bag on Iraq.

LibertyEagle
09-15-2007, 10:18 PM
Leo Strauss and the American Right- book reviews

Washington Monthly, Nov, 1997
by Michael Lind

In the past half century, one of the most striking phenomena in American intellectual life has been the influence of European emigre intellectuals who fled Hitler (or in some cases Stalin) in the 1930s and 1940s. The American New Left of the 1960s would hardly be conceivable without the influence of Herbert Marcuse and other German Marxist emigres. Postwar-American conservatism also counts among its patron saints intellectual exiles from Europe such as Ludwig von Mises and Eric Voegelin. In Leo Strauss and the American Right, Shadia B. Drury, a professor of politics at the University of Calgary in Canada, examines the influence on the American right of one of the most celebrated emigre intellectuals, Leo Strauss (1899-1973).

Strauss, a German Jewish professor of philosophy, taught political science at the University of Chicago after fleeing Nazi Germany. The list of Strauss' students and admirers includes a number of luminaries of the conservative intellectual movement between the 1950s and the 1990s: Willmoore Kendall, Irving Kristol and his son William, Robert Bork, Harvey Mansfield, Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas, and William Bennett, among others. The late Allan Bloom, in The Closing of the American Mind, and Francis Fukuyama, in The End of History, have made the larger public and not just the intellectual community aware of Straussian themes.
For the rest:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n11_v29/ai_20017404

Lord Xar
09-15-2007, 10:23 PM
Disclaimer: Whoever wrote this comparison is stupid, and parts of it actually reflect better on Dr. Paul, I don't want a president to claim the moral high ground and then support according legislation.

*******************
Comparing Alan Keyes and Ron Paul

September 10, 2007

By Editor, RenewAmerica.us

I was recently asked the difference between Alan Keyes and Ron Paul. The following is my basic response, spoken as one who sees merit in the positions of Dr. Paul, but sees greater merit in those of Dr. Keyes:

* Alan Keyes bases all his beliefs on moral premises — and in politics, he takes those moral premises from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. He further believes that it is impossible to understand the Founders' intent regarding the Constitution without placing higher priority on the Declaration.

Ron Paul never talks in such terms, to my knowledge, and if he does, such priorities are not central to his campaign.

* Alan Keyes' main message is that America must return to its Declaration-based moral values or it will not survive. To him, this message is more important than the Constitution. He believes that we could follow the Constitution, in principle, and still collapse as a country, if we do not place primary emphasis on God-centered morality in public policy.

Ron Paul never talks in such terms. I believe he is basically a moral individual — but the above is not the focus of his campaign.

* Alan Keyes wrote his Ph.D. dissertation at Harvard on the Constitution and understands it thoroughly. He is a genuine constitutional scholar, and he can articulate better than anyone else in American politics what the Constitution actually means.

Ron Paul has some serious gaps in his understanding of the Constitution, despite his professed adherence to the document. For one thing, he claims that he is standing on the Constitution when he says that abortion and same-sex marriage should be left to the states. The Constitution does not sanction such a view.

* Alan Keyes is adamant that abortion and same-sex marriage must be addressed nationally — not just state-by-state. He believes that these critical moral issues are comparable to the issue of slavery 150 years ago, and cannot simply be left to regions or states to address, but must be outlawed nationally, because they are so wrong, and because they threaten the very future of our country.

Ron Paul believes that abortion and same-sex marriage are legitimate states' rights issues (even though the Constitution does not support this view), and he would therefore allow the killing of pre-born children and the institution of gay marriage in any state that chose to legalize such things.

There is similar disagreement on a number of comparable issues — including fundamental issues of foreign policy. It is worth taking a look at the Issues page at AlanKeyes.com to understand Alan's thinking on a broad range of topics.

I personally think Ron Paul is an admirable, principled individual, but I also feel he is seriously wrong on some core issues that are vital to our nation's survival. Alan Keyes has much more understanding of domestic and foreign policy, as well as the intent of the Founders, and I see him as capable of turning our country around — morally, spiritually, politically, and materially. I don't see that in Ron Paul.

As far as which man would make a better president, the issue ultimately comes down to whether our country would be better served by electing a self-professed "libertarian" (Ron Paul) or a self-professed "moral libertarian" (Alan Keyes). The difference between the two perspectives is quite substantial.

WAIT!! Wasn't someone here just a few days ago mentioning some of this as if inquiring???

I distinctly remember the marriage interpretation and the constitution...

KEYES SUPPORTERS ARE ALREADY LURKING!!!!!!!!!!

WE SHOULD CEASE ALL TALK OF KEYES -- Let him flounder. It is a shame that he is entering the race. They must of offered a tiddy sum.

LibertyEagle
09-15-2007, 10:26 PM
WAIT!! Wasn't someone here just a few days ago mentioning some of this as if inquiring???

I distinctly remember the marriage interpretation and the constitution...

KEYES SUPPORTERS ARE ALREADY LURKING!!!!!!!!!!

WE SHOULD CEASE ALL TALK OF KEYES -- Let him flounder. It is a shame that he is entering the race. They must of offered a tiddy sum.

Nah, someone just heard that he had announced. It's on Keyes' Renew America website and he also sent out an email. I received it too.

Shink
09-15-2007, 10:27 PM
The GOP has been so self-defeating that I am beginning to wonder if they actually think there's an advantage in leaving Hillary holding the bag on Iraq.

Of course--she's a warmonger in the guise of some nice, free healthcare-giving, antiwar non-Republican. She's in perfect position to fool the idiots who don't know about our permanent bases in Iraq or that tyranny isn't just a GOP phenomenon.

Thomas_Paine
09-15-2007, 10:33 PM
the only threat that Keyes could have againt Paul is the debates. Keyes is a very articulate and commanding debater, I can see the MSM using him to steal Ron's thunder regarding rights, freedom and limited government while keeping Ron inside the anti-war box which they love so much to keep him in.

LibertyEagle
09-15-2007, 10:51 PM
The GOP has been so self-defeating that I am beginning to wonder if they actually think there's an advantage in leaving Hillary holding the bag on Iraq.

They've been doing this for YEARS. They pass the baton back and forth to each other. We get mad at one party and vote the other in. Ever notice how nothing really changes and we keep going further and further down the socialist tubes?

When you own both parties, you don't really care who wins.

Hook
09-15-2007, 11:05 PM
They've been doing this for YEARS. They pass the baton back and forth to each other. We get mad at one party and vote the other in. Ever notice how nothing really changes and we keep going further and further down the socialist tubes?

When you own both parties, you don't really care who wins.

Yeah, why do you think that Rupert Murdoch gave Hillary $2300? He is the neocon extrodinaire

Sean
09-16-2007, 12:31 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Declaration mostly a list of misgivings about King George III? What does this have to do with governing America today? The other issues in the Declaration are very broad and the document itself is not law.

The notion that the Declaration of Independence is "more important" than the Constitution is absurd. The Constitution is THE law of the land. The Declaration just says that people should overthrow unjust government.


Well this idea comes from Harry Jaffa. I am going to have to agree that there are rights that supercede any law. The Declaration stated "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." When any government or law, including the Constitution ever intrude on these rights that law becomes invalid.

Many people at the forming of the Constitution were against the Bill of Rights for good reason. The Constitution was designed to state the limited ability of the Federal government and everything else was assumed to be the rights of the people. People were afraid that if you started to list individual Rights in the Constitution the government would then in the future start to intrude on assumed individual rights that were not specifically listed. The Bill of Rights started the idea that if there was not a specific Amendment preventing something then Congress had a right to do it.

kylebrotherton
09-16-2007, 01:50 AM
I like Alan Keyes. I voted for him 2000, but won't do it again.


I laid out my case against Alan Keyes in a post on my blog (http://kylebrotherton.com/?p=101).


If anyone is curious about his position on Iraq, read this:

" … how are we going to make sure we go after the terrorists and pre-empt their violence and destroy them before they destroy us?

I think we have to destroy their infrastructure and topple the governments that are willing to aid and abet them and possibly give them weapons of mass destruction that could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.

That’s what President Bush did, and that’s what he did in Iraq. Based on the information he had, if he would have acted in any other way, he would have been irresponsible. I would rather have a President who is able to make a tough decision–based on the information he’s got–to go into Iraq and do what’s necessary to prevent weapons of mass destruction that could kill 100,000 people in Chicago, than to have somebody who is weighing things out and waiting for the wisdom of hindsight to defend our people. (2004)"

This was his position in 1994, speaking to the National Jewish Coalition:

The Constitution has that business about declaring war so that presidents were not to commit us to things like this, without *consulting* the Representatives of the people. And that consultation was not meant to be a rubber stamp on decisions that can’t be justified. It was meant to FORCE that justification, and if the justification was not satisfactory, it was meant to give the people the chance to say NO."

And from a 2000 interview on Larry King:


"We need to end the Clinton policy of interventionism on behalf of all kinds of globalist interests that are of not direct relevance to our values. Kosovo was an example. We ought to avoid interventions that are based on propaganda. We’ve got to send a message to the world, that we will not be stepping in to intervene in the affairs of other countries on any kind of routine basis."

Syren123
09-16-2007, 01:52 AM
Puke.

cjhowe
09-16-2007, 02:12 AM
If his brand of religious fervour didn't run so counter to freedom, I would feel bad that him announcing his candidacy receives NO press whatsoever.

saku39
09-16-2007, 03:02 AM
It's pretty obvious Keyes is here to disrupt Dr Paul and try to siphon people away from him. Otherwise, why have a website that specifically mentions Ron Paul and lies about his positions?

Think about this:

How many people are willing to go ANYWHERE there are people and hand out campaign literature for Keyes? How many are there that will drive hundreds of miles to go to some campaign event? How many are there that show up just to see him speak? How many make videos talking about how great he is? How many are willing to use their own money to create their own campaign signs and flyers? How many people are standing out in the rain for him?

Forget Keyes. He sucks.

Chester Copperpot
09-16-2007, 03:15 AM
It's pretty obvious Keyes is here to disrupt Dr Paul and try to siphon people away from him. Otherwise, why have a website that specifically mentions Ron Paul and lies about his positions?

Think about this:

How many people are willing to go ANYWHERE there are people and hand out campaign literature for Keyes? How many are there that will drive hundreds of miles to go to some campaign event? How many are there that show up just to see him speak? How many make videos talking about how great he is? How many are willing to use their own money to create their own campaign signs and flyers? How many people are standing out in the rain for him?

Forget Keyes. He sucks.

Keyes is prowar.. He will dilute the prowar vote even more... If anything he might take the pro-war black vote away or whatever.. Gingrich said he might be coming in too.. Fantastic.. at this point.. Ron Paul will be able to win the nomination with something like 15% of the vote

foofighter20x
09-16-2007, 03:43 AM
* Alan Keyes wrote his Ph.D. dissertation at Harvard on the Constitution and understands it thoroughly. He is a genuine constitutional scholar, and he can articulate better than anyone else in American politics what the Constitution actually means.

Ron Paul has some serious gaps in his understanding of the Constitution, despite his professed adherence to the document. For one thing, he claims that he is standing on the Constitution when he says that abortion and same-sex marriage should be left to the states. The Constitution does not sanction such a view.

* Alan Keyes is adamant that abortion and same-sex marriage must be addressed nationally — not just state-by-state. He believes that these critical moral issues are comparable to the issue of slavery 150 years ago, and cannot simply be left to regions or states to address, but must be outlawed nationally, because they are so wrong, and because they threaten the very future of our country.

Ron Paul believes that abortion and same-sex marriage are legitimate states' rights issues (even though the Constitution does not support this view), and he would therefore allow the killing of pre-born children and the institution of gay marriage in any state that chose to legalize such things.

I'm sorry, but I have to say that you are incorrect. The Constitution was written to grant certain powers to the central government. All powers no granted were retained by the people or the states (should the people give those powers to the state) per the 10th Amendment.

Abortion and same-sex marriage aren't covered in the Constitution. Thuse, any legislation concerning those topics is, in a strict legal sense, applicable only to solely federal areas like D.C. and the territories.

The application of the Bill of Rights on the states via the 14th is also incorrect, in respect to the Citizens of that state (Citizens of the United States, capital C). On the other side of that coin, there are citizens of the United States, lowercase c, and those are persons that were born in those areas solely under federal control; a better grouping for the two would be to call them state citizens and federal-state citizens.

It's an interesting topic, and I've already gotten sidetracked writing of it, but anyway, look at the 10th Amendment and then the enumerated powers of Congress and then justify why Congress can legislate on abortion and same-sex marriage over the laws of the states.

saku39
09-16-2007, 04:02 AM
Keyes is prowar.. He will dilute the prowar vote even more... If anything he might take the pro-war black vote away or whatever.. Gingrich said he might be coming in too.. Fantastic.. at this point.. Ron Paul will be able to win the nomination with something like 15% of the vote

I agree. I just feel Keyes is in the race to try and disrupt Ron Paul. He's is a small government advocate and talks about the consitution. Whether he's right or wrong in his interpetation is irrelevant, the idea is to shift away small government and pro-constitution people away from Paul. If he wasn't in the race for disruption, why mention Ron Paul specifically on that webpage and then lie about RP's positions?

Iraq is bigger issue than the neo-con types realize. Just having a pro-war "back to the constitution" small government candidate is not going to help the neo-cons in anyway because the guy is specifically pro-war.

saku39
09-16-2007, 04:46 AM
I almost forgot. Keyes also treated his daughter like crap because she's a lesbian. Fired her from a job he had given her, kicked her out of the apartment she stayed in and banned her from the family home. This might not be brought up in MSM, but it should be.

One thing that appeals to people about Ron Paul is his stance on civil liberties and personal freedom. He doesn't condone homosexual relationships as he is a social conservative, but he believes in freewill and an adult's right to enter into any relationships they want. (This will not placate gay activists, who want a gay marriage amendment; but overall his stance allows for more personal freedom than any other candidate, which appeals to your mainstream voter-- and as we've learned, "Freedom is popular!")

Keyes' stance on gay issues doesn't appeal to anybody but social conservative busybodies that want to dictate behavior in private citizens' bedrooms.

While Ron Paul's anti-war stance is what drew me to him, it's the entire package that's kept me here. Restoring civil liberties, ending the war, shrinking government, etc. . . That's why I'm a Ron Paul supporter. Keyes' only appeal is the goal of shrinking government, and who knows if he would actually do it, as he seems neo-con like.

Bruehound
09-16-2007, 06:14 AM
Based more on the Declaration???? Interesting.

Those of here in Illinois who had to suffer this gasbag's campaign for Senate found out that Mr. Keyes apparently believes the Declaration said "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness after every American citizen performs their national service to the state".

Yes, he was running around talking about forcible conscription for all...when he wasn't talking about slave reparations or disowning his own child.

ButchHowdy
09-16-2007, 06:38 AM
Q: What is worse than being a member of the CFR?

A: Being a student/protege of fascist philosopher Leo Strauss.

Comment: It makes no logical sense for Keyes to take (another) stab at the presidency, especially this late in the game. If you read the below article you may come to a similar conclusion that TPTB are simply trying to run some interference.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3011profile_strauss.html

Misesian
09-16-2007, 10:44 AM
Has anybody else gotten a response from his campaign? I haven't yet on my reply to their last email which was a defense response regarding that issue comparison on Ron Paul.

I think the best approach would be to contact them as an Alan Keyes supporter back in 2000 and even 2004, and possibly even in 2008 but you're NOW 100% a Ron Paul supporter and he needs to reconsider his run because of this otherwise he will allow Hillary to win by allowing Fred Thompson or Rudy to get the GOP nomination.

Too bad we don't have a direct email address for Alan Keyes.

Also notice all of the Reagan stuff on his website. The whole thing just makes me sick.

LibertyEagle
09-16-2007, 11:23 AM
Misesian:

I think the fact that Keyes has entered the race at this late date, speaks volumes about him. He knows he will pull from potential supporters for Ron Paul, because they are the only Constitutionalists on the ticket. Once upon a time, I used to think Keyes was a good guy too. For awhile though, I've thought he was a snake in the grass, being used to divert people's attention.

stevedasbach
09-16-2007, 12:24 PM
FYI: for anyone who didn't know already, renewamerica.us is "Alan Keyes's website for grassroots activism." My guess is that this campaign is all about building his name ID and mailing list.

EDI T: A grand total of 177 people have signed the pledge at alankeyes.com to support him for president.

Destroy The Fed
09-16-2007, 12:49 PM
Keyes says nothing about the Federal Reserve on his site. For this alone he is a shill. Speak of him no more.