The Candidates
…and it ain’t Thompson. Word is it’s Keyes. AUGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Keyes is undoubtedly the most articulate nut to come to the GOP. While he is smart and makes a good case the guy has the political skill of paper weight.
Jason’s prediction: If Alan Keyes enters the race it will be as one sent to destroy Romney. The guy hates Romney. He is hand and glove with MassResistance.
Jason’s prediction #2: Romney will literally wipe the floor with Alan. Alan destroyed the GOP in IL by making a fool out of the party with his half-brained carpetbagger run. Alan is articulate and smart, but fringy enough to erase any and all potential positives he could offer. Alan has no idea of the case law he spouts concerning Goodrich. It should actually be pretty fun. Undoubtedly he will attract some of the real fringy uber-conservatives, but mostly he will be there to be Romney’s pebble in the shoe.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
breaking… mccain out of straw poll
June 6th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
nd, link?
June 6th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
A few folks here predicted McCain would drop out if it looked like it was him vs Romney…I was not one of them.
I would have thought McCain would have already committed money and resources to the Ames poll. Don’t the organization and reservations need to be put in place more than 2 months prior to the event? Is McCain too scared to face the fearsome squirrel hunter?
June 6th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Oh my…Alan Keyes makes my head explode.
Who can forget this?
Also, nd, I don’t see that being reported anywhere. What’s your source?
June 6th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Keyes was outwardly courting the Constitution Party months ago from the way I understood it. Why would he jump into a primary that he has no chance of winning when he could readily hop onto the Constitution Party bandwagon and have the highest name recognition of any of their candidates running…
On a related note — why can’t the articulate conservative Keyes from 2000 come back and the carpetbagging, hypocritical Keyes from 2004 who dishoned his daughter disappear forever…
June 6th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Disowning your daughter for being gay is what gives social conservatives a bad name.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Keyes could probably run in the R primary, and then defect to the Constitution Party ticket. It’s a way to get his name out there.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
nd,
Gotta source to that? I don’t see it being reported anywhere. In fact, I would be shocked if it were true.
As for Alan Keyes, he called Mary Cheney (!) a “selfish hedonist” because she’s a lesbian. He’s the Republican version of Mike Gravel.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
no link, my source, will be announcing either tonight, or tomorrow.
Rudy, McCain, Fred…. not in straw poll.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
If McCain has actually dropped out, then I think the way Romney handles this could be HUGELY significant. He needs to make a big deal of this, without sounding petty. Make some sort of joke. Or he could simply deliver a backhanded slap of sorts. But, the wrong framing of the issue could allow Giuliani and McCain to get away with this. Also, if I were Fred, I’d decide to participate now. Realistically, he’d easily snag second place, with some chance of first using the publicity he’d gain from essentially saying “I’ve been in the race 2 days and I’m not afraid to face the voters of Iowa. John and Rudy have been facing them for months and Iowans don’t like what they see”.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
It looks like the frontrunners have conceded that Romney will win in Ames.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Keyes is fantastically articulate, but hasn’t he ever heard “hate the sin, love the sinner?” He’s fairly looney tunes.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Matt, the “Iowans don’t like what they see” line is a good one w/r/t the candidates who can’t face the music at Ames. I hope to see that one.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Matt, sadly, millions of SoCon families practice the same thing with their gay children.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
nd,
I don’t buy that for a second.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
David,
“Matt, sadly, millions of SoCon families practice the same thing with their gay children.”
Should be love the sin & hate the sinner?
June 6th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
I met Alan Keyes once and Iowa and have yet to come across a candidate that’s more friendly and inviting besides Mike Huckabee. Stop getting on him just because what he says is right.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
*in Iowa
June 6th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
cwpete: Same thing = what Alan Keyes did.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Peter, leave it to you to praise a man who disowns his own daughter for loving a woman.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
oops:
Should *we* love the sin & hate the sinner?
June 6th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
A perfect example of how “strong families” = HATE.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Hate upon which Peter pins a big gold medal.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
David,
I don’t think anyone can say that Alan Keys “loves the sin.” You may argue that he hates the sinner by not accepting the sin..
June 6th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
cwpete, I don’t know how you’ve managed to get this mixed up.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Mixed up?
I’m not the one trying to argue with Republicans that “strong families” = HATE.
Look, I understand who you are and where you are coming from. One should be able to disagree without be called slapped with the “hate” label. Bit extreme in my opinion.
I should not be compelled to accept all versions of alternative lifestyles. That too whacked out crackpot liberal. I will admit that the tide is turning your way.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
I’m talking about disowning your own children.
I’m not a Christian, but “hate the sin, love the sinner” is an acceptable approach, while that of Alan Keyes and millions of SoCon families is NOT.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
David,
If Christians don’t adhere to the “hate the sin, love the sinner” approach, then they are not following their own religion in my opinion.
The prevailing attitude is to accept and cheer most any form of alternative lifestyles nowadays. If one disagrees with this, that person will be called a homophobic, bigot, or a hater. Many here are have strong families (or try to) and would take offense to having “strong families” = HATE said.
Just so you know, my brother in-law died of AIDS about 13 years ago as he was a practicing homosexual. The pain and grief this caused my in laws is totally indescribable. Personally I think he was a very selfish individual. My in-laws tried everything under the sun to help him to no avail, he kept rebelling, my in-laws kept crying and enduring, and suffering as they watched their oldest son implode. Ultimately, it came down to the way my brother in-law decided to exercise his agency. Morals are not the only reason they opposed his decisions, it can be a very dangerous lifestyle. I don’t think steering kids away from danger should be ever misconstrued as hate. Please understand that there is pain & suffering on both sides of the family for issues like this.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
cwpete,
Just like when I talk about problems with Mormonism, I am called a bigot.
There are many gays who are promiscuous. But there are many quietly leading non-promiscuous lives as well. I am equally concerned about young gays chosing the wrong path, and do everything I can to point them toward positive role models.
The problem is, it is generally the children of social conservatives whose families have disowned them, that lack the love and self-esteem necessary to make the right choice. Among gays, it is the children of conservatives who are typically those leading self-destructive lifestyles.
It is a major irony that is lost on social conservatives.
And since their gay kids tend to fall to drugs or AIDS, this just cements their conviction to continue denouncing homosexuality to their kids, restarting the cycle all over again.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
David,
I do question what is cause and what is the effect.
Do conservative values push their kids to harmful destructive behavior by not “accepting” the harmful behavior, or does the behavior itself render one susceptible to the danger?
Practicing homosexuals and liberals tend to think that if we all just “accepted” certain things, the danger would just go away.
Conservatives say avoid the harmful behavior to begin with and you will not have to worry about the dangers associated with that behavior.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
I don’t buy McCain dropping out for a 2nd. Rudy can afford to because of his campaign strategy and because he is 10 points up in the RCP average.
If McCain doesn’t come in 2nd at Ames he is in trouble. He needs the lower tier to drop out so that he can get some of their support. Dropping out after not competing in 1999 would give him 0% chance of doing well in January. He needs IA a ton because he can’t fall back on NH like he did in 2000.
Until I see it from a blogger who gets inside news from the McCain camp I don’t believe it.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
DavidB,
You’re not called a bigot simply because you have problems with Mormonism. There are several posters and staffers on this site who have problems with Mormonism who don’t even approach anything like bigotry.
You seem to have something special with regards to Christians and Christianity in general.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
1. Homosexuality is not a choice. Suggesting a lifetime of celibacy when happiness is possible is not realistic or loving.
2. If conservative values includes telling your children hateful things about homosexuality, then, yes, it will most likely have a devastating effect on your gay kids. And makes your straight kids more likely to repeat the pattern with their gay kids.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
murphy: I suggest you consult Hugh Hewitt.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
cwpete, Also, have you considered the pain that is caused when you push gay people into hetero marriage, and it fails? Do you know what you are doing to the spouses you are encouraging them to take? The children you are encouraging them to have?
Also, married men are notoriously the type to satisfy their desire for male sexuality at truck stops and the like, putting their wives at a high risk of STD infection.
All of this caused by social conservatism.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
DavidB: All of this caused by social conservatism.
Wrong. People are free agents. Despite all the sympathy warrented in the situations you described, this is such an appeal to liberal victimization as an abdication of moral choice. You are describing a “love the sinner, love the sin” attitude.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
murphy: Your attitudes on homosexuality are PRESSURING these people into those marriages, against their natural inclination. It would never happen without social pressure.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
David B,
First, duck because I think some flying pigs might hit you in the head. Second, I completely agree with you that it isn’t acceptable for parents to disown their children for being homosexual. IMO it is a sin, but no less a sin than commiting fornication with a person of the opposite sex. In that sense, you are right that many Christians are hypocritical because they hold homosexuals to a higher standard of morality than they hold heterosexuals. Because some or most do that, doesn’t mean that is what Christ taught.
Parents need to love their child no matter what. They don’t have to accept the behaviour, but I do believe God expects all parents to love their children no matter what.
My opinions on this are pretty well expressed by the transcript of an interview with two Mormon leaders. It is pretty long, but IMO this is the general position that Christians should have.
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=27f71f1dd189f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=726511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab1
June 6th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
David,
Social Conservatism is not the cause of those things. Where is the accountability of the individual here? You are blaming SoCons like me for their problems and you seem to imply that socons compelled them to that behavior. Are they not responsible for their own actions? What does it matter what I or others think or say, what matter here is that they *do* (their behavior).
June 6th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Blame can be apportioned. As an individualist, I place a large share of it on the individual.
But family, religion, social pressure, psychology, are ENORMOUS PRESSURES.
Imagine the worst family situation you can think of, and the worst upbringing you can think of. And that it produces a damaged child. Do you insist it is ALL the child’s fault?
June 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
DavidB,
Why make me out to be the religious boogeyman? I’m not pressuring anyone to get married if they’re gay. My attitude is that it’s far greater a sin to marry someone, fail, and commit adultury than to practice celibacy, fail, and commit fornication.
Perhaps you should ask people what they think before telling them.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
murphy, Attitudes like yours on homosexuality CAUSE that to happen anyway. They are pushed that deep into the closet, and they never got your footnote.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
David #40,
If the parents neglected their responsibilites to their children then you are right with your examples in #40.
That hardly applies to homosexuality. Parents should now be encoraging the behavior to avoid the disasters associated with the behavior?
That seems backwards to me.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
David B,
I do disagree with you about the celibacy part. For one, as far a Christians go, it is God who expects celibacy, not men. It is fine for you to disagree on that point because from what I gather you aren’t Christian. It would be nice however if you would be more respectful of what many of us believe, even though you disagree.
I don’t think there is anyway you can say social conservatism or even Christianity causes the negative things you say it does.
Christianity teaches men to be faithful to their wives and not to even lust after other women. If all men and women followed the teachings of Christianity with regard to morality and with regard to charity the world would be infinitely better.
Just because some people are hypocritical and because some people are hateful doesn’t give you the right to criticize the entire religion. Millions and millions of people are better human beings because of their belief in Jesus Christ and his gospel. Those that claim to be Christian but do not practice it’s teachings would probably be worse people were it not for Christian teachings. There is no evidence to say that people are worse human beings because of Christianity.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
McCain out of straw poll
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
June 6th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
nd,
You must have an excellent source there. I speculated he’d bail out Since he never participated in it in 1999.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
When the subject comes up, parents should say to their kids, in essence, that homosexuality can be a difficult lifestyle and they hope their kids do not turn out gay, but that since it is not a choice and they may in fact end up gay, their kids should know they will be loved and supported, and will be encouraged to follow healthy values when it comes to sex and relationships.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Dskinner: I’m not talking about non-promiscuity, which I support and encourage in young people. I’m talking about lifetime celibacy, which is not a realistic or loving suggestion.
I agree some moral code is better than no moral code, and that’s why I don’t strongly criticize soft/liberal Christianity.
If someone wants a good moral code that is rational, I’d refer them to Ayn Rand.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
David,
I’d like to hear the reasons / evidence as to why some claim that homosexuality is not a “choice.”
How should such a claim be reconciled with bisexuals? Don’t they choose their partner, choose their “flavor” depending upon their spontaneity?
June 6th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
David B, your differences on this issue are much larger with how some Christians treat the issue than your differences with how Christ’s gospel teaches people to handle the issue.
I doubt you read the interview I posted the link to, but it says parents should teach their children that homosexuality is a sin like the Bible says. It also says that parents should love their children even if they choose to act on their homosexual desires. It also says that homosexuals shouldn’t marry people of the opposite sex unless they really are attracted and really are in love with that person, otherwise as you have stated life will be miserable for both husband and wife.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
cwpete, That homosexuality is NOT a choice has been the SoCon position for decades. Only in the last few years have many accepted the overwhelming evidence it is not a choice. Many still think it is a choice.
Yes, bisexuals have a choice as to the gender of their partner, but not a choice over their bisexuality.
Dskinner, The problem is that a very large portion of red America does not follow that advice. Also, I think many SoCons underestimate the psychological IMPACT, perhaps unintended, of their statements on homosexuality to their gay kids.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
*on
June 6th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Interesting discussion David B. Although I don’t buy any of this, it has been very enlightening.
Please post any scientific evidence of indicating that homosexuals have not choice / agency if you can. I’d like to read up on that.
Regards,
June 6th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Oh, I read your first evidence request backwards. I may do that later. It wouldn’t be hard for you to do a little Googling on that. For me, having known 100’s of gay men, and discussed the matter, it’s simply self-evident.
June 6th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Matt, sadly, millions of SoCon families practice the same thing with their gay children.
And you know this how? For someone who’s allegedly against prejudice and stereotyping . . .
June 6th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
For me, having known 100’s of gay men
If you were more conversant with the Bible, I’d be worried.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
DavidB,
“Millions” of families? That is the overstatement of the year.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Indeed Jason. My best recollection of science and population statistics suggests there are 2-5% gay people. We have 300 million people, at least 50-70 million of whom don’t have any expressed sexual orientation whatever yet (adolescents). So that means there’s 5-12 million gay people in the country. Are they all bequeathed by so-cons? And the particularly unreasonable version at that?
June 6th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
100 million families. Millions of SoCon families tell their children things that are destructive to their children IF they are gay. Most of the families don’t do the actual damage because they have no gay kids. They practice the wrong, harmful approach, anyway.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:26 am
Henry Heavner: I’m not sure if I should laugh or gag.
June 7th, 2007 at 8:23 am
DavidB,
Unfortunately y9ou promoting the extreme. I have a close family member who is gay. My family has not rejected him and he is loved as everyone else. Personally I think he probably was born that way, but it’s also something that can be controlled. He is not an animal, he is a step above that can control desires based on a value system.
I know many people with gay family members, I know of non who have kicked them out and rejected them. I think the argument you offer is blatant hyperbole.
June 7th, 2007 at 8:36 am
It’s really quite silly to just assume that I was advocating disownment for all gay kids. Maybe it shows how intolerant some people here are.
June 7th, 2007 at 8:50 am
The homosexual issue is a value judgment. We’re talking about sexual behavior here not race, religion, ethnicity or nationality. I’ve got no reason to respect someone’s abnormal sexual behavior that they wish to discuss publicly.
Heterosexuality is the normative sexual behavior for human beings. I would tolerate homosexuals but there’s no need to encourage people to behave that way by pretending its “normal” or “equal” behavior to monogamous family-centered heterosexuality.