April
28th 2008
James Antle’s Follow-up Post Keyes’ Defeat
RedPhillips

Posted under Alan Keyes & Constitution Party

Here is James Antle’s follow-up article on the Keyes defeat. In the original article he qoutes me. Unfortunately he doesn’t in the follow-up. Oh well. There goes my 15 minutes. He does, however, quote Georgia Constitution Party Chairman Ricardo Davis. 

Sorry for all the Keyes posts in a row. I’m not gloating. Just searching the net for the fallout.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

3 Comments »

3 Responses to “James Antle’s Follow-up Post Keyes’ Defeat”

  1. roho on 28 Apr 2008 at 10:49 pm #

    He has been a Bill Krystol “Lapdog” his entire life and will be a Neocon lapdog again by the time that November comes around.

    His whining simply confirms that “Old Fashioned Liberalism” and the new religion of “Neoconism” are like half brothers, conceived in an adulterous relationship with NO PRINCIPLES!

  2. Patroon on 28 Apr 2008 at 11:32 pm #

    Antle’s article was very good. It sums Keyes up perfectly. He’s gone off the deep end and he would taken the CP down with it.

  3. Dylan Waco on 29 Apr 2008 at 4:36 am #

    There is little evidence that Keyes was ever out of the deep end.

    A few years back Rush Limbaugh was fired for suggesting that sports reporters were responsible for artificially inflating the reputation of Eagles QB Donovan McNabb because he was black. I thought the particulars of Rush’s argument (if one wishes to call it that) sucked, but the broader point about day to day institutions going out of their way to create minority heros was absolutley true.

    What the conservative movement and Republican Party did with Keyes, is what Rush alleged the “liberal” sports media did with McNabb.

    Keyes has always been a good speaker and a reasonably intelligent man, but the idea that he was a serious intellectual and/or politically principled, face for black conservatism was always laughable.

    There has always been a voice for a kind of uniquely American black conservatism, but when it rears its head it is usually surpressed by white, liberal, eggheads who cherish integration so long as they don’t have to practice and white, traditionalist, conservatives who fear “uppity negros” who “don’t know their place”.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply