Heh. Make it baseball team. No matter which Chicago team he pretends to be a fan of, he’ll probably lose half the vote…
You can’t be Libertarian and believe that the government should restrict it. Being morally for or against it is really beside the point.
Besides abortion, you have the fact that Keyes is is a theocrat , is anti-gay and is against the decriminalization of drugs. All distinctly anti-Libertarian positions.
What position does he have that is distinctly Libertarian as opposed to simply conservative.
Yes.
Actually, I once read in a sidebar in college economics text (can’t find it right now) that Libertarians are in favor of “voluntary slavery.” Whatever that is. Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Perhaps it means that you have the right to sell yourself into slavery and your master has the right to call on the state to enforce that as a contract – like indentured servitude. But would it be hereditary?
Nitpick: You called Keyes a “Libertarian Conservative” – big L. big C. As a matter of style I think we should only capitalize “Libertarian” when referring to members of the Libertarian Party – and we should never, ever capitalize “Conservative” when referring to an American politician because there is no Conservative Party here (that is, none with that name).
BTW – I’m also reminded of something I read in a book about the landed, slaveowning aristocracy of the Old South – an account of a member of that class on the floor of the U.S. Senate (or House, I forget which), pounding his desk with a bullwhip and roaring: “I am an aristocrat! I hate equality! I love liberty!”
In my view, modern American Libertarians (large-L and small-l) have rather more in common with that rat-bastard than with John Stuart Mill.
It’s a Rahsaan Roland Kirk song. 
And if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce it tastes much more like prunes than rhubarb does. (Yes, Keyes’ comment is absurd.)
Even if you believe that fetuses have the same rights as human beings, it’s ridiculous to compare abortion groups to terrorists, for the simple reason that abortion groups don’t believe fetuses are equivalent to human beings. Thus, they don’t consider their actions to be murder. Meanwhile, Al Queda knowingly commits mass murder without remorse. Surely you must acknowledge that there is a huge difference between someone who commits an act you believe is murder because he has a different definition of human life, and someone who knowingly chooses to commit murder out of hatred for his victims.
People seem to like Obama because he seems genuine and honest. I wonder how people will respond to Keyes stating that he is destroying the foundation of our national union.
Here is another good quote from Keyes:
Guess he hasn’t yet found a neighborhood to live in.
I don’t know that it will go over all that well. Fire and brimstone candidates don’t seem to do all that well here in statewide or national elections, and Keyes is unquestionably that. The voters to whom his pitch is likely to appeal are those who would not have voted for Obama anyway.
The absurdity of this statement aside, I have noticed the Keyes emphasizes the Declaration of Independance as the “foundation” of our country (because it mentions God a couple of time) and de-emphasizes the Constitution.
As Alan Dershewitz (sp?) pointed out in a debate with Keyes, the DoI is political rhetoric meant for a particular moment in history, whereas the Constitution is the Law meant for all time.
Have you ever watched a boxing match on ESPN2, where some up and comer with a left hook that could kill an elephant who’s 8-0 with 8 knockouts, all in the first two rounds, since he won the Olympic gold medal, is put up against some journeyman who’s 12-23 and basically makes his money getting knocked out by up-and-comers?
That latter guy is Alan Keyes.
Keyes has the ringing support of the Speaker: (the article is so short it’s hard to excerpt, sorry)
I’ve been discussing this on the Politics1 blogs.
Basically, no political observer (of any party affiliation) thinks that Keyes can win.
So, why is he running?
Quite simple.
The Reps have no candidates.
Fitzgerald wouldn’t get back in (then again, he was retiring because he might have lost the election if he hadn’t), the one Republican statewide officeholder is planning to run for Governor in 2006, and most of the Republican Congressmen (and one woman) from Illinois are 1) too old, 2) represent marginal districts, or 3) aren’t interested in giving up power in Washington.
There goes the A-list.
Then, they tried the people who lost to Ryan in the primary. The only ones that didn’t refuse 1) demanded financial backing from the national party, or 2) only received 2% or so in the primary.
Then, a whole line of people (from Governors Thompson and Edgar to Mike Ditka) were offered the nomination. All refused.
In short, Keyes got the nomination because he’s seemingly the only guy that wants it.
I’d offer him a spot in my apartment, but it sounds like he’d want me to pay his rent. :rolleyes:
Keyes will be on CNN today around 3:30 est (I think on Inside Politics). I’m curious to see what he’ll say - if he’ll give real answers or deliver more of his federalism rant.
Speaking of which…
Given the man’s financial troubles, I wonder who will be paying for him to set up housekeeping in Illinois? And will a violation of campaign finance laws be involved?
I don’t see how rhetoric like this helps Keyes:
Who does he think this stuff will appeal to?
The First Obama/Keyes poll is in:
http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/local_story_222175640.html
Obama 67%
Keyes 28%
I don’t suppose this will encourage outside fundraising.
That poll is quite close to my own prediction that on November 2 the vote will be :
Obama - 70%
Keyes - 30%
Anyone else want to make a prediction now? Am I being too generous with Keyes?
I think this was a bad move by Republicans.