http://www.conservativehq.com/chq/displayarticle?articleId=345

Date Posted: 02/28/2000

Alan Keyes: "I will not support McCain"

by David Franke, ConservativeHQ.com, Inc.

"If John McCain is the Republican nominee, I will not support him," presidential candidate Alan Keyes told a rally this weekend. His supporters roared their approval.

"I know, I know," Keyes added quickly. "I know that many others feel the way I do. John McCain wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance of winning the American presidency."

Keyes cited McCain's statements on abortion during the New Hampshire primary as the main reason he could not support the Arizona Senator. McCain "has utterly abandoned the moral fight," Keyes declared, "and now has no moral authority."

Keyes made his remarks Sunday night at a presidential rally in Woodbridge, Virginia. The commonwealth's Republican primary is Tuesday, February 29.

The former ambassador to the UN, who has been getting around 5% of the vote in this year's Republican primaries, was less harsh -- by comparison -- when discussing Texas Gov. George W. Bush. By not disavowing support of Bush, the way he did with McCain, Keyes implied that he would reluctantly support Bush if the Texan becomes the party's nominee.

Otherwise, Bush could take little comfort from Keyes' remarks. "He may have the will, I don't know," Keyes said of Bush, "but he doesn't have the capacity" to win any moral battles against the Democrats and the liberals. "When a person hasn't ever thought about these matters," Keyes explained, "how can we expect him to make the right decisions?"

Setting the stage for his predictions, Keyes warned his supporters that "Americans almost never change parties during prosperous times." The only hope for Republicans, he said, is to make a compelling moral case for a change in political direction.

"We have a tough fight ahead of us," Keyes continued. "It is very likely that we will lose this battle, and all the historical precedents are against us --except for the fact that the Democrats have this huge moral failure on their back."

Keyes delighted his supporters with a backhanded compliment to President Clinton. "By his actions," Keyes explained, "the President has saved me about a half hour's speech. I no longer have to make a case that we're in a moral crisis."

-- Markus Archus (apxov@mail.com), February 29, 2000

Answers

That Keyes is a real troublemaker. He tells the truth, and tells it eloquently with conviction and sincerity. On top of that, the bastard REEKS of honesty, ethics, and goodwill.

And as if that weren't enough, I kinda get the feeling that he's NOT driven by the typical lust for power.

Yeah, a real misfit...

-- Charles Underwood Farley (chuck@u.farley), February 29, 2000.

McCain is on CNN live right now from a town meeting in Stockton, CA. He is making a good case for a stronger military and for his leadership ability in military affairs. I think he is right and that this is a sleeper issue.

Why does Keyes say that McCain "wouldn't have a ghost of a chance of winning the American presidency"? Don't the latest polls show McClain doing better against Gore than Bush?

Seems to me that Election 2000 will be more about character than issues. That is the Clinton legacy. In my mind, this means that either McCain or Keyes would win against Gore. Probably Bush too.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), February 29, 2000.

McCain? Character? His actions or his words? Are we talking about the man who left his wife after her serious accident? Or the man whose own comrade POW's refuse to endorse him? The man who has had serious accusations lodged against him by veterans? The man who refuses to answer those allegations? Are we talking about the character of that man?

-- Mumsie (shezdremn@aol.com), February 29, 2000.

I saw Alan Keyes speak at Hylton High School and he made this point: When it comes to politics these days, voting often falls to the lesser of two evils, so to speak. But as Keyes said Sunday, "the lesser of two evils is still evil."

I felt comfortable with the notion that Republicans would unite behind the eventual nominee and support him for the Presidency, even if that vote was viewed in the above emntioned realm. But after McCain's move to alienate Christain conseravtives from his "big tent" campaign, Keyes is right. If McCain is nominated, many will stay home.

McCain's startegy of alienation has doomed his campaign, in my view. It is clear by his message yesterday that he believes that politics and relegion should not mix. But if not for relegious confliction, where would the moral principals that guides political agendas come from?

Keyes is right on another point that ties into this, that is the teaching of evolution in schools. I have heard him speak several times on this issue and he does not wish to see the theory of evolution removed from curriculums. His stance is why do school's not allow the theory to be challenged, as all theories of science are subject.

It is the direct adherance that evoltuionary theory in school's is beyond questioning that leads to the indirect rejection that principals come from a hgiher source that has given us the distinction between right and wrong. And unless it is challenged, the predicator of society will eventually be that of the building blocks of evolution: survival of the fitest, and "might makes right."

So then, if relegion is not the basis of principals, and people are not motivated to act by the moral foundations of adherance to the distictions of right and wrong provided from "above," then what is the basis of politics, other than to further ones own agenda?

McCain demonstrates, at least verbally, that he does not recognize this. He appeals to all but that "40% minority" that has lost the last two elections. Well, Mr. McCain, we already have a Democratic party. We don't need two.

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), February 29, 2000.

"He appeals to all but that "40% minority" that has lost the last two elections."

Regarding the supposed loss of the last two elections, the following letter to the editor in the Washington Times speaks to this issue.

Presidential contender forgets which party still runs Congress

Sen. John McCain says in "Bush and McCain slug it out to finish" (Feb. 22), "My party has . . . lost the last two congressional elections." This is something we have been hearing from Democrats for a while.

For Democrats, it is evidence of a mandate in support of their policies and against holding President Clinton accountable for his actions. For Mr. McCain, it is evidence that his party has "lost its way."

Both Mr. McCain and the Democrats ignore one minor detail: In the last two elections, a majority of the congressional districts in this country elected Republicans to represent them. Granted, not the overwhelming majority the Republicans hoped for and the Democrats feared, but a majority nonetheless.

The Republicans did not deliver knockout blows to the Democrats in those elections, but these were still clearly victories, not losses.

When your team scores more points than the other team, your team wins. Democrats need to accept that; more significantly, so do Republicans.

MARK HETTLER Ambler, Pa.

-- Markus Archus (apxov@mail.com), February 29, 2000.

Now I remember why I voted the way I did. Note, while Keyes was "only" getting 5% of the Repub vote, he was getting 12% as much as either other candidate individually.

-- JB (noway@jose.com), February 29, 2000.

morally, ethically, and for the honesty issues I could never vote for McCain, Bush, Bradley, Gore, Sleepy or sneezy... well maybe for sleepy and sneezy... but about Keyes, for a while I thought I would support him... but I really can't trust anyone who has such strong connections to the UN...does anyone know how Keyes stands now with the UN ? I still say we must vote on a personal individual basis one who would uphold the standards and ethics of One Nation Under GOD... I still think voting for the popular one is wrong unless he is the right one in the sight of GOD... Do American vote for who they think will win...or you they trust is GOD's choice? I have to be accountable to GOD for my vote, if that means voting for someone who will not win...so-beit... maybe I will even have to vote for someone that the American people have been ckept for knowing about....yes...yes...thats what I'll do...I'll vote for the Constitution Party canidate, Howard Philips... and I will sleep at night with good conscience that I have please GOD.

-- S BRyan G III (sbrg3@juno.com), February 29, 2000.

Keyes has no further connectiong to thet UN. In fact, while serving he proposed and successfully got Reagan to withhold funding to the UN for programs that Keyes felt ran counter to the interest of America.

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), February 29, 2000.

Keyes has no present connection to the UN. In fact, while servincg as a US representative under Reagan, he got the Reagan administration to withold funding to the UN for programs Keyes felt were counter to America's interest.

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), February 29, 2000.

Alan Keyes first came to my attention during the Lewinsky scandal. He seems to be a man of utter probity, incapable of dissimulation-the epitome of the just man, or perhaps more apt, an avatar of one of the Old Testament Prophets.

I do not believe that Keyes could compromise himself to support any candidate who did not mirror his values. I hold him in such high esteem that his failure to endorse my choice would have little bearing on my corrupted nature, and I'm not being facetious. God reserves his saints for a special place. They facilitate the development of the virtue of humility for their brothers. The rest of us just wallow throught the mire as we're able. The best we can hope for is that he keeps the rest of us in his prayers and continues to speak his message. This is a good man.

-- mike in houston (mmorris67@hotmail.com), February 29, 2000.

Nice thread. And Charles (Underwood Farley), I really like your description of Keyes.

-- DB (tomG@h.com), March 01, 2000.

Thanks Buster, As a matter of fact, last night after asking the question here on the forum I ran into a friend who has worked with Keyes and he said that he was very UNPOPULAR with UN dorks! It seems that Reagan was the one who appointed Keyes to the UN stuff... that says a lot for Keyes... he wasn't a Socialist Democratic Party appointed. BRyan

-- S BRyan G III (sbrg3@juno.com), March 01, 2000.

Now that McCain has agreed to the debate Thursday in California and Keyes has also been invited, I suspect that GW can sit back and act presidential.

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), March 01, 2000.