June
30th 2008
To Alan Keyes and His Sore Looser Brigade…
RedPhillips

Posted under Alan Keyes & Constitution Party

… please watch this! :-)

You lost because the Constitution Party did not agree with Alan Keyes’ interventionist foreign policy. End of story. Please move on.

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

12 Comments »

12 Responses to “To Alan Keyes and His Sore Looser Brigade…”

  1. Zita on 30 Jun 2008 at 11:18 pm #

    To Red Phillips and his party. Alan Keyes is not interested in your party and neither do we. Get over it.

  2. RedPhillips on 30 Jun 2008 at 11:42 pm #

    Oh please Zita, give me a break. Who do you think you are talking to? I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck and am not new to this battle. Keyes was very much interested in our party until we rejected him as the neocon, interventionist interloper that he is. Your revisionist history notwithstanding. Not interested in our party. Yeah right.

  3. roho on 01 Jul 2008 at 12:19 am #

    Zita!……………………Get over it!……………Nobody likes a whiner.

  4. Andrew T. on 01 Jul 2008 at 12:36 am #

    Alan Keyes is far from a neocon, in fact he is pretty good in some respects. But he’s an interventionist for sure, and choosing him as the standard bearer would have meant compromising the CP platform itself.

  5. RedPhillips on 01 Jul 2008 at 12:55 am #

    Andrew, as I said on one of the TPW threads, Keyes may disagree with most neocons on a few issues, but his underlying philosophy, rhetorical style, argumentation, etc. is pure neocon.

  6. levotb on 01 Jul 2008 at 2:26 am #

    Whatta treat to see The Eagles after so many years! I almost didn’t recognize Joe Walsh with his short hair.

  7. Zita on 01 Jul 2008 at 1:41 pm #

    Red,
    Don’t try to flatter yourself. I know who you are. I also know that Alan Keyes was invited in by some members of your party. It’s your party and you can say whatever you want to whether it is true or not. After looking into the CP, Alan Keyes NEVER JOINED YOUR PARTY because the platform was not completely compatable with his views and he knew that he was not welcome there.

    What I don’t understand, Red, is why you still spend so much time lurking around the Alan Keyes discussion board. Why do you continue to hold grudges against someone you “rejected”? What are you looking for? Your man won the count but you never cease to belittle his opponent. Alan Keyes has rejected your party. Get over it.

  8. David Allyn on 01 Jul 2008 at 1:45 pm #

    Why doesn’t Keyes move to Africa and run for office in some despotic dictatorship – he might do well.

  9. RedPhillips on 01 Jul 2008 at 4:10 pm #

    Zita, I don’t lurk around the Alan Keyes message board. I got the boot from there as you may know. I haven’t said a word about Keyes for a while. I didn’t say anything recently until this new situation with the California AIP came up.

    I know Alan was invited in and nice things were said about him by some in the Party. If you indeed know who I am, then you know I was in an uproar about that before the convention. I thought the party leadership needed to be very clear and public about our policy differences with Keyes and was dismayed when they weren’t. (I was unaware at the time that Howard Phillips was doing just that behind the scenes.) I even said that we owed him an apology for the mixed message that was sent. (He should have been invited to join the party but discouraged from seeking the nomination until he changed his interventionist foreign policy views, got right on Lincoln, renounced Strauss, etc.)

    I am aware that he never joined the party. That is an admission that he knew we differed on policy. His supporters are the ones who don’t seem to get it. They insisted that there was some nefarious reason we nominated Baldwin, some even sleazily suggesting racism. It was always about the issues. Any other spin on it is a lie.

  10. RedPhillips on 01 Jul 2008 at 4:14 pm #

    BTW Zita, I held out hope until the very end that Keyes would elect not to put his name in nomination to save himself the humiliation. The outcome by the end was a foregone conclusion. Keyes didn’t join the party, and knew we differed on policy. Why did he go through with allowing himself to be nominated?

  11. Zita on 01 Jul 2008 at 7:47 pm #

    Red, I do appreciate your attempt to enlighten us about what to expect before Alan went to the Constitution Party Convention. However you fail to understand the humility of Alan Keyes. The elections have never been about Alan Keyes. He is not about seeking power, or prestige, or money. He cares only what is best for this country. The Constitution Party has different ideas on what is best for this country. Alan Keyes will not compromise his beliefs in order to win votes.

    I believe that Alan Keyes could sense how the vote would play out at the CP Convention and he could have pulled out before the count was taken to keep “from being humiliated” as you put it. But as Alan has said, this election is not about him. He was willing to let the choice be put before the people even if that meant being ridiculed when it was over. The Constitution Party made their choice. Think what you will about him, but I am telling you that you do not know him or what he is about.

  12. Truth Teller on 03 Jul 2008 at 3:50 pm #

    You should know that Ed Noonan’s major issue is that he is an infidel enemy of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. In other words, he is a Mormon. He is angry at Baldwin because Baldwin voted to disaffiliate the Nevada affiliate for their gross deviation from the national platform. Noonan considered this an anti-Mormon vote.

    I wonder if Zita knows she is joining forces with a Gospel denying blasphemer?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply