London Telegraph on Keyes

Oatka

New member
I hope George Bush is "terrified" again.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=002361722350953&rtmo=r33mD3aX&atmo=kkkkkkGu&pg=/et/00/1/24/wpres124.html

Black talk show host poised to unsettle Republican camp
By Ben Fenton

ALAN KEYES, a fiery speaker and the only black candidate for either party in tonight's Iowa caucuses, is poised to cause an upset in the Republican race - and he need only finish third to do it.

A radio talk show host from Baltimore who served in the Reagan administration, Mr Keyes has spent recent weeks electrifying audiences across Iowa with speeches opposing abortion and championing morality, principle and the US Constitution.

If he secures as little as one-seventh of his party's vote, Washington pundits will talk of a rebirth of the Republican religious Right. He does not believe in pampering voters. "I will not as President do what you think is good for you and your pocketbook," he told 1,000 fundamentalist Christians at a rally in Des Moines on Saturday. "I will do what is right for America."

Mr Keyes, 49, has already been acknowledged by commentators as the most effective performer in nationally-televised candidate debates but his live oratory is even more compelling. Speaking without fire and brimstone, but also without hesitation, he berates Americans for causing a moral crisis by electing politicians to act in their own interests rather than with respect for God and the Constitution.

"Don't go into the caucuses or the ballot box and vote for what is in your best interests, because then you will send people to the White House and to Congress who will do the self-same thing when they cast their votes - vote for what is in their best interests," he said.

That Mr Keyes, Ronald Reagan's liaison man with the UN in the Eighties, should be galvanising audiences in this overwhelmingly white state is a sign of the appeal to the Christian Right of a candidate representing principle rather than platform. In an opinion poll published yesterday, he trailed on eight per cent in joint third place with Senator John McCain, who has not campaigned at all in Iowa.

He seems miles behind George W Bush, on 43 per cent, and Steve Forbes, the conservative multi-millionaire publisher, on 20, but if he can dominate the Christian conservative vote, which opinion polls in Iowa have consistently underestimated, he could cause a shockwave in the Republican campaign.

In 1988, Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition came from nowhere to win 23 per cent of the vote at the caucuses, terrifying George Bush, the eventual winner of the White House race.



------------------
Nevada alt C.A.N.
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
I was thinking about voting for him, but since they compared him to pat robertson, no way. No way in hell. Religious right? more like american nazis most of the time.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mineralman:

I was thinking about voting for him, but since they compared him to pat robertson, no way. No way in hell. Religious right? more like american nazis most of the time.[/quote]



Please, Please, PLEASE! don't tell me that you won't vote for him because some foreign media writer compared him to Pat Robertson. In the upcoming primary, the purpose is to choose the person who best represents your beliefs. That is also the thing to do in the regular elections as well, but that's another topic. If you are pro-gun, you should seriously consider Keyes or perhaps a Libertarian.



Keyes is a Christian and is unapologetic for that fact. He is also pro-life, pro-gun and against morality via legislation.



I hope you will go to http://www.keyes2000.org and learn for yourself what he is all about before deciding how to cast your vote on March 7.



------------------
RKBA!

"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
Ok I read the thing, but I am old and slow and I didnt read anything about a comparison to Pat Robertson.
Did I miss it?

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
mineralman

If you are not going to vote or are going to vote for a candidate because of what some Media outlet said about a candidate them you are doing what the media wants you to. We know in today’s world, the media is more interested in making news than reporting it. Don’t they refer to themselves as “managing it”.

Do read the Candidates speeches and look at their records to make your decisions.
Don't let the media use reverse psychology on you to do their bidding on anything or anyone. From your post it seems that you are not skeptical enough of the media commentary.
Are ready to give up your guns too?
 
Well, Keyed places 3rd in Iowa, behind Forbes and GW. Did someone ask about his viability? Come on guys (general form), let's get behind him and show the Republican leadership that we like what we hear.
 
Please allow me to throw in one tangential thing here about conservatives/republicans/Christians on the topic of abortion, which Keyes is so strong about.

Mind you this is coming from someone (me) who is not religious at all, and has no strong opinion either way on the abortion debate, though if anything, I would lean toward a female's right to have an abortion.

Anyway, I have noticed an incredibly strong bias in the general media - not about guns this time, but AGAINST right-wing conservatives - people who advocate overturning Roe v. Wade with a constitional amendment, in this way: "Conservative" folks like the dichotomy termed "Pro-life" vs. "Anti-life", whereas liberals like the terms "Pro-choice" and "Anti-choice". Their reasons are obvious and this has gone on like this for years. What really bugs me about the SPECIFIC issue of whether to overturn Roe with a const. amendment, is that most of the media seem to buy into the liberals' "pro-choice" vs. "anti-choice", referring to those advocating an amendment like this as "anti-choice", with the word "choice" referring to a woman's right to the abortion itself. This is totally wrong, IMO, because overturning Roe with a const. amendment is actually PRO-choice, because then the question of whether to outlaw or restrict abortion (and to what extent) will revert to the states, and all 50 states could decide to what degree, if any, to restrict abortion. Overturning Roe v. Wade would definitely NOT "outlaw abortions", assuming the wording of the amendment was such that its effect was just to undue the holding of Roe. It would simply not find a constitutional RIGHT to have an abortion, and therefore lift the prohibition against states to regulate it severely. It may be that if such an amendment passes, 35, 40, 45 or more states wouldn't touch their existing laws about abortion, and would simply place the debate about such laws where the debate rightfully belongs - in the state legislatures. And the many laws would remain fluid and changing as long as the debates exists, which will be forever - this is the way it should be. Regardless of your thoughts about abortion, the overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars agree that Roe v. Wade and its predecessor, Griswold v. Connecticut, is totally wrong on the const. law issues therein, and really came out of left field to find a right where there is none in the const. Now, should pro-abortion-choice people want to pass their own amendment guaranteeing a right to birth control and abortion, then more power to them - that's how the system works. But Roe is legal anomoly and downright ridiculous in how the justices found the right to an abortion in the Bill of Rights. These two SC cases are the source of my fear about the second amendment. If the supremes can ignore precedent and make stuff up about abortion, they could easily make up the idea that the second is only about state militias, and our choice would be to pound sand. Anyway, my .02 about this kind of media bias against "conservatives". No surprise really.



[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited January 27, 2000).]
 
Now that Keyes has finished third, ahead of the Liberal media golden boy McCain, watch how they ramp up the pressure and demonizing dialogue against Keyes. His color is probably the only thing that insulates him from what, if he were a caucasian candidate, would be an all oun onslaught. It would be a tad difficult to attempt to associate him with the KKK and Arian Nations like they do the caucasians.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
Just a little aside here....the roe in roe vs wade has now become pro-life and has admitted that the case "roe vs wade" never happened and that it was fabricated, so we have a law built upon what if....those justices are more important than most of us ever realized.......personally I think the "womens" movement in this country is based strictly on emoitionalism and I wish that wasnt so, but it seeems that like pro gun people , when ever you approach their pet topic we all get defensive....the politicians have done such a wonderful job of polarization.......fubsy.
 
Jim did you ever see Mother Night? Are you sure that Keyes is not a "black NAZI?" ;)

Ya, kinda hard to label him klan, but then again no racists will vote for him reguardless of his beliefs as they are too blind to realize the great potential this man has. So the media can take relief in that, and continue to make race problems one of their main objectives to keep going.

Will vote Keyes but even if he did make it I dont think the powers that be would let him live. Or they would cause something bad to happen reguarding him and he would suddenly commit "suicide", and they would then pass another handgun law to prevent that in the future. Aint it a grand old place this America?
 
Back
Top