Looking at the Keyes campaign

Faithful readers know I went through all of the Presidential candidates and how I felt about their stances on the issues. It culminated in mid-August with my endorsement of Duncan Hunter for President. That post also links to each issue as a reminder.

However, Alan Keyes jumped into the race after I did all of these evaluations so I wanted to see where he stacked up. Thus I’ll go through the issues as I did with the others – luckily with one candidate it’s one post. Keyes has a laundry list of topics on his website but fortunately for keeping this a short post I can link to each as needed!

We’ll start with eminent domain. Keyes talks about the broader subject of property rights on his site. It doesn’t really read to me as addressing the issue of eminent domain, so I’ll give him just 1/2 point of 5 possible. So he has 1/2 point so far and would rank 4th.

The next issue in line was the Second Amendment. Keyes goes deeper into this issue and I agree with the sentiment, but without more specifics I can’t give him many points. I noted in July that Duncan Hunter had a similar statement without specifics, so I’ll give Keyes what I gave Hunter: 3 of 7 points. That brings the Keyes total to 3.5 points and he’d slip to 7th place.

On election and campaign finance reform, Keyes makes quite a statement and also has a video link. I agree with part of what Keyes says, the second principle and the idea of repealing McCain-Feingold. But I can’t abide the first portion because corporate entities and unions, despite their donation patterns, don’t forgo their First Amendment rights. In the video, he does show support for term limits which gave him a couple bonus points.

For that I’m going to give Alan 4 of a possible 9 points. Now he has 7.5 points and a tie for second.

Trade and job creation was my next pet issue. Keyes has a long spiel on the subject of fair trade. Alan really didn’t address the area of job creation, and while he makes some good points I thought he went a little too far toward protectionism. He is a little like Duncan Hunter in that he wants to renegotiate bad trade agreements so I think 5.5 out of 11 points is fair. It would bring Alan to 13 points overall and keeps him in second. At that time Ron Paul led with 13.5 points.

My next step up deals with education. Here’s what Keyes has to say about school choice. He wasn’t doing very well until the last sentence, which saved him to an extent but it’s still sort of vague what concrete steps he’ll take to achieve that end to the government monopoly. I’ll give him 5 of 13 points. At 18.5 points so far, he’s right up near the top – second behind the leader at that point, Tom Tancredo.

Surprisingly, Keyes had nothing on veterans’ affairs or energy independence so he gets no points on either subject. Luckily for him, no one else really made a big move in that time period so he only fell to fourth place overall.

On entitlements, here’s what Keyes states on health care and Social Security.

There were 19 points at stake in my original post. On the plus side for Keyes is his advocacy of HSA’s and his eventual Social Security stance, although it doesn’t go so far as to eliminate it. Deductions include drug importation (which would harm the drug companies) and the preventative care portion, which is similar to something I jumped on Mike Huckabee about. Since Huckabee is in favor of a national smoking ban in public places, would Keyes react the same way? No one had more than 9 points in my original posting and Keyes is not better than any of those. I’ll give him 7 points of 19. That gets him up to 25.5 points and bumps him to third place overall.

Now we move to taxation. Keyes has this to say about the subject and also covers the next area with it as well (role of government vis-a-vis spending.) Had Keyes talked about the other necessary step of repealing the 16th Amendment, he’d get all the points. I’ll match what I gave Tom Tancredo as the highest total for a candidate: 14 of 21 points.

And while I like the idea of a balanced budget amendment, I can just see how many devious ways the government and courts will come up with to get around it. Fiscal conservatism doesn’t need a Constitutional amendment, just a President with cajones to risk a government shutdown to get a steamlined budget to pass. With a lack of specifics, I have to match what I gave similar remarks from Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, 10 points for that aspect. By combining the two and adding them to his total, Keyes is moving smartly up the list – 49.5 points at this stage is one point off Tom Tancredo’s lead at the juncture.

Two to go, immigration and the Long War. On immigration Keyes is for enforcing existing laws. While it’s well put, just wish he were a little more specific on how you’d secure the border and treat employers who hire illegals. It’s reasonably close to what Ron Paul advocates, so I’ll say it’s worth 15 of 25 points. Surprisingly, Keyes grabs the lead at this point with his 64.5 points.

Unfortunately for Alan, this is where he blows it. When he talks about the war in Iraq, he notes:

I will not for the moment go into the question of whether it was right or wrong to choose Iraq as some kind of strategic priority in the war against terror. I frankly have said in the past and would say now — and not with the wisdom of hindsight either — it was not what would have been my choice.

I take that to mean he would have left Saddam Hussein, a member of the Axis of Evil, as a continuing supporter of groups like Hamas and al-Qaeda. Unacceptable. In particular, I think the statement contradicts what he says in the video here. Since the video is from his Illinois U.S. Senate campaign in 2004 and I’m assuming the statement above is more recent, to me it could even be considered a flip-flop.

Alan makes some good points with what he says about the Long War in general but I cannot let the first part stand. I’m not going to hammer him like I did Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo, but he does deserve some deduction so I’ll dock him 5 points. He’s at 59.5 points now before I look at intangibles, some of the other subjects he goes into on his website that are minor issues to me.

On the intangibles:

Add ponts for being a supporter of Israel, against embryonic stem cell research, abstinence-based sex education when parents allow it, and his stance on the United Nations.

Subtract points for supporting a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. I’m pro-life but don’t think that belongs in the Constitution because it’s a states’ rights item.

His net on intangibles is +3, so his final total is 62.5 points. Here’s how the field now stacks up with Keyes included:

  1. Duncan Hunter, 82 points
  2. Rudy Giuliani, 79 points
  3. Mike Huckabee, 76 points
  4. Alan Keyes, 62.5 points
  5. Mitt Romney, 45 points
  6. Tom Tancredo, 41.5 points
  7. Fred Thompson, 37 points*
  8. Ron Paul, 34.5 points
  9. Sam Brownback, 20.5 points
  10. John McCain, 18 points

*Thompson will be discussed tomorrow since he’s updated the information on his positions for some of the issues since I originally did the list.

I sort of suspected Keyes would be up there and if not for his misunderstanding of the role of Iraq in the Long War he would’ve at least made the “recommended” list. But if you’re one who lies strongly in the “moral conservative” camp Keyes would be at or near the top of your candidates for President. 

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

21 thoughts on “Looking at the Keyes campaign”

  1. Found your site ’cause YOU GOT ON RUSH’s SHOW! Way to go!!! Wonder how many requests the .US DNS got for ‘monoblog.us’

    Keep up the good work!

  2. Howdy!! Always glad to see another conservative spreading the Good Word. Adding you to my bloglist. And Rob, how the hell did you beat me?!?!? You’re cute, so says Wifey.

  3. You are wrong about the Pro-life / abortion issue being a “state’s rights” issue. The Declaration of Independence directly states that all people have the “Right to Life…” thus negating the power of the Federal goverenment and the states to abridge that Right. The power given to the government in regards to the Right to Life is to protect, defend, and taked it in regards to capital punishment. Life was never meant to be taken as a means to self happiness. The priority was the Right of Life before the Right to pursue Happiness.

    You are clearly in the wrong on this issue. An Amendment to the U.S. Constitution IS needed to reaffirm this God endowed and inalienable Right to Life.

  4. Like the above heard you on Rush.
    I enjoyed what you wrote here and will read all of your enteries on the Presidential Canidates.
    Thank you

  5. While I agree with most all of what I read, I can’t understand at all why anyone who says they are pro-life would believe that abortion is a states rights issue and not a constitutional issue. We are talking about very life itself which seems to be a right that extends even before and beyond the constitution. I mean what good is even the constitution if we allow states to allow the taking of lives that the constitution was written for? Could you please explain this to me?

  6. Nicely laid out and organized blog…congrats on getting through to the maha-rushie!

    Just reading quickly; you sound like the perfect conservative, except for your views on abortion. Maybe someday you’ll change your mind on that.

    I was just thinking of Alan Keyes yesterday–funny! Nice work! I’ll bookmark you!

  7. Hey Mike,

    I heard you on the Rush Limbaugh show. Congrats on getting publicity on your blog! It’s good to have the Eastern Shore represented, but don’t let too many people know about this place. I’ll bookmark your blog!


  8. I generally agree with your thoughts, but but I have a few issues.

    I don’t think constitutional rights extend to corporations and unions. The Constitution is written by “We the People”, not “We the Corporations”. A corporation may have privileges given them by the government and their stock holders, but not rights. Rights aren’t “given” by any person but are “unalienable” and endowed by our Creator. I don’t think Corporations and Unions fall under that category. The United States Code tries to give organizations individual rights, but that is contrary to the Constitution. Therefore, freedom of speech as a constitutionally protected right does not extend to corporations or unions.

    Here is my stance on Campaign Contributions. Any individual who is a registered voter can donate without limits to whomever they wish. Each candidate however, has to advertise, immediately, on a web site all campaign contributions by name and amount as well as on their person (ala NASCAR drivers) and signs at all campaign events indicating their individual donors over $1,000. The size of each name on their person must correlate with the size of the donation. (I know the suit is a little silly, but everyone who sees these guys needs to associate with them who their donors are the same way NASCAR drivers are associated with their sponsors.

    I agree with the need to repeal the 16th amendment and eliminate the income tax but I’m not completely sold on the National Sales Tax. While it is far better then the income tax, it does not salve the fundamental problem of government spending that is out of control. And like any other tax, they will continue to increase the rate to fund their unconstitutional pet projects.

    Any way, good comments.

  9. To be even on your site you would have to have articles on all the “conservative” candidates such as Mitt Romney and Ron Paul and Thompson.Try to see the Presidential race
    from the perspective of all of America rather than the Eastern Slant. Maryland seems to be too closed the the
    New York pride that the represent the people of America.
    I will check your website though from time to time to see its progress towards a bigger picture. The design is
    great and worth the time to read the articles.

  10. I heard you on Rush this afternoon, prior to having to go into a job interview. Mega-Kudos for you, and I hope that the plug on Rush garners steady traffic for your blog.
    I’m looking forward to your comments on Fred Thompson, as I support him. I disagree with him on some things, but agree with him on the more important issues, above all the others. Before Fred T, I supported Ron Paul – prior to his anti-Iraq War statements on a debate – which ended my support of Ron Paul. Other than that issue, I agree with him, as he is a pure Constitutionalist.
    Keep up the good work, and let us know Fred Thompson’s score, and your thoughts.
    God bless, Mary Fabian
    Pittsburgh (general area) PA 16117

  11. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, and it is not the Constitution on the United States. In case you all were wondering.

Comments are closed.