Why can't Republicans or Conservatives get behind Alan Keyes?

[Hatuey]

Education :

Keyes was invited[citation needed] to continue his studies at Harvard University, where he resided at Winthrop House, and completed his B.A. degree in government affairs in 1972. During his first year of graduate school, Keyes's roommate was Bill Kristol. In 1988, Kristol ran Keyes' unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign in Maryland.[7]

Keyes earned his PhD in government affairs from Harvard University in 1979, having written a dissertation on Alexander Hamilton and constitutional theory, under Harvey C. Mansfield.[8] Due to student deferments and a high draft number, Keyes was not drafted to serve in Vietnam.

Patriotism :

Keyes and his family were staunch supporters of the war in Vietnam, where his father served two tours of duty.[9] Keyes was criticized by opponents of the war in Vietnam, but he says he was supporting his father and his brothers, who were also fighting in the war.[10]

Work Resume :

Alan Lee Keyes (born August 7, 1950) is an American Christian Nationalist[citation needed] political activist, author, and former diplomat, and perennial candidate for public office.[1][2] He ran for President of the United States in 1996, 2000, and 2008, and was a Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in 1988, 1992, and 2004. Keyes served in the U.S. Foreign Service, was appointed Ambassador to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations under President Ronald Reagan, and served as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs from 1985 to 1987.

Additionally, Keyes fought against an Arab-backed UN resolution calling for investigation of Israeli settlements. The measure passed 83-2, with 15 abstentions and only Israel and the U.S. voting against it.[27] Reagan again appointed Keyes to represent the U.S. at the 1985 Women's Conference in Nairobi.[26]

In 1988, Keyes was drafted by the Maryland Republican Party to run for the United States Senate, and received 38 percent of the vote against incumbent Democrat Paul Sarbanes, who ended up winning the election.[29] Four years later, he ran again for the Senate from Maryland, coming in first in a field of 13 candidates in the Republican primary. Against Democrat Barbara Mikulski, he received 29 percent in the general election.[30]

Political Stances :

Keyes, who opposes abortion in all cases,[45] said in a September 7, 2004 news conference that Jesus Christ would not vote for Obama[46] because of votes that Obama, a member of the Illinois Senate Judiciary committee and a lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, cast in 2001 against pro-life legislation (a package of three bills: SB1093, SB1094, SB1095)

he said that Obama's position on moral issues regarding life and the family had crossed that line. "I'm supposed to make a call that represents the congratulations toward the triumph of that which I believe ultimately stands for ... a culture evil enough to destroy the very soul and heart of my country? I cannot do this. And I will not make a false gesture," Keyes said.[49]

During the campaign, Keyes outlined an alternative to reparations for slavery. His specific suggestion was that, for a period of one or two generations, African-Americans who were descended from slaves would be exempt from the federal income tax (though not from the FICA tax that supports Social Security).[56] Keyes said the experiment "would become a demonstration project for what I believe needs to be done for the whole country, which is to get rid of the income tax."[57]

So Keyes is clearly not a liberal. He's a Conservative. So why can't he get the support of other conservatives? Is it because he doesn't know how Washington works? His experience? Why can't a clear as day conservative(pun intended) get the support of his fellow conservatives and Republicans? Is it because the majority of Republican voters would not vote for him? And if they won't vote him why is it? Is it because he's not conservative enough? Experienced enough? Discuss.

 

[ARealConservative]

because he is a scary theocrat

 

[Kandahar]

Education :



Patriotism :



Work Resume :







Political Stances :







So Keyes is clearly not a liberal. He's a Conservative. So why can't he get the support of other conservatives? Is it because he doesn't know how Washington works? His experience? Why can't a clear as day conservative(pun intended) get the support of his fellow conservatives and Republicans? Is it because the majority of Republican voters would not vote for him? And if they won't vote him why is it? Is it because he's not conservative enough? Experienced enough? Discuss.

The same reason most mainstream conservatives don't support Ron Paul, or most mainstream liberals don't support Ralph Nader: Because they're lunatics. Although Keyes is even more insane than either of those two.

 

[jamesrage]

Education :



Patriotism :



Work Resume :







Political Stances :







So Keyes is clearly not a liberal. He's a Conservative. So why can't he get the support of other conservatives? Is it because he doesn't know how Washington works? His experience? Why can't a clear as day conservative(pun intended) get the support of his fellow conservatives and Republicans? Is it because the majority of Republican voters would not vote for him? And if they won't vote him why is it? Is it because he's not conservative enough? Experienced enough? Discuss.

Is this the same Alan Keyes that called Hillary Clinton a carpetbagger and then tried to be a carpet bagger himself?

 

[RightinNYC]

Are you being serious, and implying that Reps/Cons are racists for not supporting a black conservative, or are you just starting an incredibly timely and topical poll to remind us all that Alan Keyes is ****ing insane?

 

[RightinNYC]

Also: Huge lol's at his wikipicture:

 

[Wessexman]

because he is a scary theocrat

I doubt it. Let's not misuse yet another political term, I know that there are liberals already who try and claim anything but complete seperation of church and state is a theocracy but let's not give such idiocy and inaccuracy any inroads.

 

[ARealConservative]

I doubt it. Let's not misuse yet another political term, I know that there are liberals already who try and claim anything but complete seperation of church and state is a theocracy but let's not give such idiocy and inaccuracy any inroads.

I've listened to him enough to call a spade a spade.

 

[Wessexman]

I've listened to him enough to call a spade a spade.

Does he call for church officials actually running the state such as what happened in the Papal States? If he doesn't call for that or something very close he is not a theocrat.

England for instance has never been a theocracy despite never having a seperation of church and state and often having quite a bit cross fertilisation between the two realms because that is not what theocracy means. Theocracy means literal rule by the priesthood or something very close.

What you've done is listened to him enough to call a spade an earthmover most probably.

 

[ARealConservative]

Does he call for church officials actually running the state such as what happened in the Papal States? If he doesn't call for that or something very close he is not a theocrat.

England for instance has never been a theocracy despite never having a seperation of church and state and often having quite a bit cross fertilisation between the two realms because that is not what theocracy means. Theocracy means literal rule by the priesthood or something very close.

What you've done is listened to him enough to call a spade an earthmover most probably.

“There might be states in which they require a religious test or oath of office,” he said. “There might be states in which they have established churches where subventions are given to schools and so forth to teach the Bible. There might be places where you and I might disagree with the religion some folks want to put in place over their ... community.”

Just because the original constitution allows for states to operate as a theocracy doesn't mean I would like it. He wants theocracy at the state level which makes him a theocrat

 

[Wessexman]

Just because the original constitution allows for states to operate as a theocracy doesn't mean I would like it. He wants theocracy at the state level which makes him a theocrat

Did you not read my post?

An established church is not nor has ever properly been regarded as a theorcacy. England has never been a theorcacy. A theoracy is something more, it is rule by the priesthood or something very close. You are calling a spade an earthmover.

This seems to be a common liberal tactic these days like conservatives call liberals socialists. I object to this misuse of language for pure propaganda purposes.

 

[ARealConservative]

Did you not read my post?

Did you read mine? He supports churches setting religious tests that politicians must abide by to control office. What more do you need to gain a theocracy?

 

[Wessexman]

Did you read mine? He supports churches setting religious tests that politicians must abide by to control office. What more do you need to gain a theocracy?

Actual rule by priests or something quite close. A theocracy is a state that is either a religious establishment as well, ie the church is not just a semi-independent wing of the state but is the state, or you a situation where the state and church are so entangled that you come very close. An established church and even quite significant cross fertilisation of church and state is not a theocracy unless it reaches the above mentioned levels.

 

[ARealConservative]

Actual rule by priests or something quite close. A theocracy is a state that is either a religious establishment as well, ie the church is not just a semi-independent wing of the state but is the state, or you a situation where the state and church are so entangled that you come very close. An established church and even quite significant cross fertilisation of church and state is not a theocracy unless it reaches the above mentioned levels.

If a state officially recognized one church as THE Church, you have a theocracy.

And Alan Keyes supports exactly that.

 

[Wessexman]

If a state officially recognized one church as THE Church, you have a theocracy.
.

No you don't.

England in the 16th century was not a theocracy, having a state church is not enough by far for that. However the Geneva of Calvin could certainly be considered a theocracy because the church and state were pretty much the same thing.

 

[ARealConservative]

No you don't.

England in the 16th century was not a theocracy, having a state church is not enough by far for that. However the Geneva of Calvin could certainly be considered a theocracy because the church and state were pretty much the same thing.

Sorry but it does.

If a state only allows one church to marry you, or one church to perform baptisms, you live under a theocracy where the church and the government are intertwined to such a degree that you can't even separate the two.

 

[Wessexman]

Sorry but it does.

If a state only allows one church to marry you, or one church to perform baptisms, you live under a theocracy where the church and the government are intertwined to such a degree that you can't even separate the two.

You are correct that a theocracy could be a situation where you can't seperate the church and state because a theocracy is a situation where the church and state are the same thing or practically so. However you are making a giant and inccurate leap now that that means all situations where there is an established church. It doesn't mean that by any means.

The problem is you are acting like the point of the term is as perojative for any gov't you think has too much religious influence in it rather than as a specific way the state is organised.

 

[ARealConservative]

You are correct that a theocracy could be a situation where you can't seperate the church and state because a theocracy is a situation where the church and state are the same thing or practically so. However you are making a giant and inccurate leap now that that means all situations where there is an established church. It doesn't mean that by any means.

The problem is you are acvting like the point of the term is as perojative for any gov't you think has too much religious influence in it rather than as a specific way the state is organised.

If unelected clergy can make rules and religious tests that public officials must follow, you have a theocracy. Alan Keyes argues that the constitution allows this to take place so long as it is not the federal government that must abide by such tests. He is a theocrat and doesn't even run from such a label.

 

[Wessexman]

If unelected clergy can make rules and religious tests that public officials must follow, you have a theocracy.

If they are actually ruling then it could be not otherwise.

Alan Keyes argues that the constitution allows this to take place so long as it is not the federal government that must abide by such tests. He is a theocrat and doesn't even run from such a label.

He seems to argue that some wedding of church and state can take place and that states should be allowed established churches. This is not a theoracy unless it goes quite a bit further and state and church become pretty much the same thing.

 

[ARealConservative]

If they are actually ruling then it could be not otherwise.

He seems to argue that some wedding of church and state can take place and that states should be allowed established churches. This is not a theoracy unless it goes quite a bit further and state and church become pretty much the same thing.

sigh.

If an offical sanctioned Church can create rules that elected officials must follow they hold power over the government and become intertwined. You are making this more complex then it actually is.

I'm not going to waste any more time. The reason he is not liked by many conservatives is because he embraces theocracy.

 

[Wessexman]

sigh.

If an offical sanctioned Church can create rules that elected officials must follow they hold power over the government and become intertwined. You are making this more complex then it actually is.

They don't become intertwined to the level of a theocracy generally. Britain had the test act for a century but we weren't a theocracy. You simply don't seem to understand what a theocracy is. It is more than religious influence, it is a complete or almost complete merging of state and church.

You are simply misusing a word for propaganda value against those you dislike like liberals who call any one who wants to limit immigration or multicultralism racist.

I'm not going to waste any more time. The reason he is not liked by many conservatives is because he embraces theocracy.

No he doesn't and you haven't shown how he does. Conservatives tend to have a great respect for religion and its necessary, to them, place in society.

As Edmund Burke said "Athiests are not our preachers and madmen are not our lawgivers."

 

[Ethereal]

The same reason most mainstream conservatives don't support Ron Paul, or most mainstream liberals don't support Ralph Nader: Because they're lunatics. Although Keyes is even more insane than either of those two.

I supported Ron Paul for President. So, if the man I supported for President is a lunatic, then what does that make me? Perhaps, instead of flippantly dismissing Ron Paul as a lunatic and making statements that are the intellectual equivalent of a drive-by shooting, you should offer up something of substance for others to contemplate.

It makes me wonder, when you used to display the Gadsden flag in your profile was it because you believed in what it stood for or because you thought it looked cool? I'm guessing it was the latter. Men of words are nothing but the sum-total of their inactions. You are a man of words. That's probably why you're so afraid to approach women. Maybe this will inspire you to take action...

 

[ARealConservative]

I supported Ron Paul for President. So, if the man I supported for President is a lunatic, then what does that make me? Perhaps, instead of flippantly dismissing Ron Paul as a lunatic and making statements that are the intellectual equivalent of a drive-by shooting, you should offer up something of substance for others to contemplate.

It makes me wonder, when you used to display the Gadsden flag in your profile was it because you believed in what it stood for or because you thought it looked cool? I'm guessing it was the latter. Men of words are nothing but the sum-total of their inactions. You are a man of words. That's probably why you're so afraid to approach women. Maybe this will inspire you to take action...

he was just a kid then.....but now he is smart and stuff. :spin:

 

[Goobieman]

So Keyes is clearly not a liberal. He's a Conservative. So why can't he get the support of other conservatives?

I've voted for Keyes every chance I've had.

 

[Goobieman]

Are you being serious, and implying that Reps/Cons are racists...

Of course she is. There's liittle other reason to bring it up.