Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditWho would have thought that, when it comes to candidate recruitment, the tiny Constitution Party maintains higher standards than the Republican Party?
Alan Keyes, who last appeared on a November ballot as the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from Illinois, wants to mount another race against the man who beat him in 2004: Barack Obama.
So Keyes presented himself as a prospective nominee for the Constitution Party, a small, extremely right-wing group with was founded in 1992 as the U.S. Taxpayers Party and that still operates under a variety of names at the state level. (Among its affiliated parties in the California remnant of the old American Independent Party that was spawned by former Alabama Governor George Wallace's 1968 presidential run, which carried five southern states.)
The Constitution Party 2004 presidential nominee, Michael Peroutka, secured 144,421 votes -- for 0.12 percent of the total. The party secured a significantly larger percentage of the vote -- 25.5 -- when it ran anti-immigration zealot Jim Gilchrist -- in a 2005 special election for an open U.S. House seat in California.
But it generally remains on the margins of political viability.
Keyes promised to change that by putting his relatively big name and considerable -- if sometimes bizarre -- oratorical skills in the party's service.
But the delegates to the party's convention rejected the former Reagan administration ambassador. Baptist preacher and Florida talk-radio host Chuck Baldwin, the party's 2004 vice presidential nominee, secured 383.8 delegate votes (74 percent) to 125.7 delegate votes (24 percent) for Keyes.
Here's an interesting notion: The Constitution Party -- which supports the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment (the one that allows Congress to tax income) and the Seventeenth Amendment (the one that requires the direct election of U.S. Senators) and believes that states should be allowed to secede at will -- took a look at Alan Keyes and found him wanting as a candidate.
But the Republican Party was willing placed Keyes' name on the ballot in its race to retain a Senate seat from Illinois.
And which party are we supposed to take seriously?
Let's make Texas independent, AGAIN!!!!
Posted by HAPPY2
you're gonna give it back to the comanche?
Monday, April 28, 2008 3:28:35 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/28/2008 @ 3:24pm
keyes is the guy wacked out white fringe rightwingers enthusiastically support so they can prove they arnt racist...lol
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2008 @ 3:26pm
which is too easy cause they know he wont win!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2008 @ 3:26pm
UNCLE RUCKUS FOR PRESIDENT!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2008 @ 3:28pm
Posted by Euler at 04/28/2008 | ignore this person
quack quack quack quack quack.
quack quack quack?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2008 @ 3:54pm
Posted by Euler at 04/28/2008
oh doubleplusgood blackwhite duckspeaker! bellyfeel the 50 foot queenie goodthink! hope? such oldthink! upsup to the new dayorder of big sister! rectify crimethink of hope and submit to joycamp hillary! submit to hilly prolefeed and unremember unsaid malquoted claims from minitrue called hilly!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2008 @ 4:27pm
Posted by Mask at 04/28/2008
FRANKGRITS?
unperson!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2008 @ 4:30pm
Obama owes Keyes for the position he is in today..
Posted by JOMAMMA at 04/28/2008 @ 4:44pm
Posted by Euler at 04/28/2008 | ignore this person
i admit to being paradoxically lucky. i live in a state where to vote for anything other than the repugnant is meaningless anyhoos. so sure, i'll clench my asscheeks and vote for her if'n i has'ta.
i've been off my meds for a while, by the way! hoooeeey!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2008 @ 5:08pm
Posted by Euler at 04/28/2008
What about Hillary cultists like Frank Grits?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/28/2008 @ 5:46pm
"Obama owes Keyes for the position he is in today.."
Classic racism a la Geraldine Ferarro. Obama could not possibly have any qualities of his own being.
Posted by onthehelm at 04/28/2008 @ 8:44pm
"Obama owes Keyes for the position he is in today.."
???
Keyes is the Speaker Pro-tem of the Loony Club. Jeez! talk about fringe thinkers.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/28/2008 @ 10:35pm
I mean...WOW...
When the Constitution Party won't take a right wing nut, he must be as fringe as the decoration on Richard Simmons handbag
Posted by crabwalk at 04/28/2008 @ 10:38pm
IMO, Keyes is way odd and way insincere. Maybe his hot-tub moment will happen soon.
Posted by winyahn at 04/28/2008 @ 10:41pm
Well, at least the republicans did let Cheney keep his daughter. I guess when Keyes gave his the boot, it was still not enough for the 'real" conservatives.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/28/2008 @ 10:44pm
hey crabs,
you'll love this one.
joseph stiglitz and linda bilmes answer readers questions about the costs of the iraq war.
excellent.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/qna/forum/three_trillion_dollar_war/index.htm l
Monday, April 28, 2008 11:04:18 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/28/2008 @ 11:00pm
Q: How many years will it take for the US to pay down the cost of the war? Submitted by Mark from Boston, MA
A: (See answer to similar question earlier) We will be passing on this debt to the next generation. At this point, there is no foreseeable date at which we will even begin to repay the debt.
Answered 04/06/08 10:23:50 by Joseph Stiglitz
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/28/2008 @ 11:08pm
A popular joke here [iraq] goes that a distraught boy approached his mother and sobbed that his father had touched a live wire and was electrocuted, to which the mother replied, "Thank God! There's electricity!"
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/28/2008 @ 11:22pm
Debt? What debt?
Posted by crabwalk at 04/29/2008 @ 07:17am
Privatize it!! Save $
(Q: How much money could we have saved if we did not have "contractors" doing the jobs that used to be done by our military? (i.e. security, food & laundry services, construction, etc.) Submitted by dave from anaheim, ca
A: It is hard to get a precise number. It appears that, at least in many case, using contractors at least doubles the cost. Part of the reason that it is difficult to get a precise number is explained in the book: the government appears to be financing both the insurance premia for death and disability and much of the benefits (as strange as that may seem.) There is no full accounting. The overall cost of using the contractors is, however, far greater. We have created competition for our military--contractors doing the same work as soldiers are paid far more. This is bad for morale, but it also means that when their service time is over, many leave to work for the better paying contractors. In response, the military is force to pay big re-enlistment bonuses. But the contractors have cost us in other ways: they focus on minimizing costs and maximizing profits, and those objectives are often not consistent with our broader strategic objectives, as we explain in our book. Answered 04/09/08 19:23:19 by Joseph Stiglitz)
Posted by crabwalk at 04/29/2008 @ 07:22am
Answered 04/09/08 19:23:19 by Joseph Stiglitz)
Posted by crabwalk at 04/29/2008
knew you'd appreciate that.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:49:54 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/29/2008 @ 9:45pm