Wednesday, December 12, 2007
|
|
Why Alan Keyes?
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
4:22 PM
|
I've got a call in with the Des Moines Register's spokeswoman to figure out what the deal was with Alan Keyes being included, but I imagine she's swamped. We'll see if I hear back.
The criteria, according to MSNBC, include:
1) an FEC statement of candidacy; 2) having an Iowa campaign staffer and Iowa campaign office as of October 1; and 3) registering at least at 1% in the October Des Moines Register poll. Alan Keyes put out a press release that he'd accepted the invitation on November 21:
"I pray God that my participation in the debate will vindicate their good will." It didn't.
According to this October Des Moines Register story, Alan Keyes was indeed polling at 2 percent in Iowa:
U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado follows on McCain’s heels at 5 percent in the Register’s scientific poll. Texas Rep. Ron Paul is at 4 percent, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and new candidate Alan Keyes are tied at 2 percent and California Rep. Duncan Hunter gets 1 percent.
He did finish well in 2000...
|
|
|
While watching the debate, I was trying to think of who Keyes reminded me of, and then it hit me: He reminded me of Dr. Miguelito Loveless (played by the late Michael Dunn) from the '60s television show "The Wild, Wild West." Granted that Keyes is a bit taller than 3'10" and black, but other than that... |
|
|
I don't know about the other 49 states, but gambling on an election in Wisconsin makes one ineligible to vote in said election (State Statutes 6.03(2) - "No person shall be allowed to vote in any election in which the person has made or become interested, directly or indirectly, in any bet or wager depending upon the result of the election." |
|
Media types HATE when I do this.
http://www.gambling911.com/2008-US-Presidential-Betting-Odd s-110807.html
Has what the gambling marketplace thinks about our field. Keyes isn't even *mentioned*, but it's brutally-honest about the others. Those of you who "know" which ones "can't win" need to get on over to where you can legally place a bet with all that wisdom. Why deprive yourself of all that free money? The bookies overseas are generous!!
JMR |
|
Obviously is different in your world than mine. Face it, the data was out of date. Deal with your obsessive need to be jealous of Dr. Paul's support, and name-call. So now I'm a "fanatic" for noticing out of date (and totally-wrong) data. Intellectually-weak, at best...
JMR |
|
|
According to his web site, he is only running because grass-roots supporters pushed him to run. He is still working to get on state ballots. If he was in this thing early enough and with enough backing, he would have done just as well, if not better than his 2000 campaign, and people wouldn't be asking dumb questions about his elegibility to debate. I'm glad he was there, even if just to add a much-needed point of view for voters and candidates alike. I also think the moderator needed the rebukes. :) |
|
MK, you need to add to your inciteful analysis to get more than just a snippet of an idea of what you think, let alone some support for your positions. A handful of sentences just doesn't cut it.
Alan Keyes is an interesting person with a good intellect, a great grasp of words and can speak eloquently - when given the opportunity. To me, he seemed slightly off balance, probably because of the late invitation and that this is his first appearance this go-round. Don't think he has the juice to be president, but he's a sight better than most all of the Demos, who are treated so respectfully by the media, even TH. |
|
|
To screw up the debate for the Republican candidates who matter, that's the obvious answer. F the Des Moines Register and their harridan of a moderator. |
|
Which part of "October Des Moines Register Story" do you think she didn't understand? I imagine there weren't a lot of stories that even mentioned Alan Keyes.
This is why we here at TH can't stand you Ron Paul fanatics. This post had NOTHING to do with Ron Paul, AT ALL. Yet, you go around and act like he is constantly being slighted and posting meaningless ramblings.
I agree with much of what Ron Paul says. I am grateful that he is in Congress, and I hope that we can get more strict Constitutionalists in Congress. Because, that is where they can make a difference! |
|
But your link's over a month old, from Oct. 7th...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/19/thompson-sk ids-while-romney-paul-climb-in-nh-poll/
You may not want to hear it, but Paul's around 8% at this point, and in polls that very much skew the results because they're previous Republican voters, instead of new "Ron Paul Republicans" who just registered.
These new people are young, have cellphones not landlines, and they're MOTIVATED to help Ron Paul win. Their numbers and excitement make Dennis Kucinich green with grassroots-envy, and inspire old farts like me (I'll admit it, I voted for Ron in 1988 for fiscal reasons).
And it's not just about the war, some of us are forgotten fiscal conservative libertarians who've been screwed for years. I feel it's poetic justice if others have to hold THEIR noses and vote for my guy considering all the times I've had to do it for them, despite obese government's growth!! :(
And we're about to raise some more money in a little Tea Party & launch a blimp on the same weekend. As you're about to $ee very soon. :) Have fun!
JMR |
|
|
|