Steve, thank you for you input on Keyes. I too believe he is the MOST QUALIFIED candidate running. Who else has years of experience working with foreign policy? Keyes wants for the people of this country to accept MORAL and personal RESPONSIBILITY with LESS government “intervention” in our lives. We are a nation of people unwittingly allowing ourselves to become dependent on government, when we are to be a self-governing nation.

When Keyes was Ambassador to the UN during the Reagan Admin, his objective to being there was not to “support” the UN, but to be our “watch dog” and make sure they didn’t try to “intervene” on our country’s consitutional rights. We need to be involved with the UN if we are to protect ourselves.

I too enjoy the conference calls with Alan. What other candidate attempts to make time twice a week to have candid discussions with the voters of America? HE IS FOR THE PEOPLE…FIRST…ALWAYS!
God Bless Alan Keyes, for he is one solidly grounded man. America needs a President of his calibur. I see no others willing to STAND UP for ME like he does.

Keyes was the only Republican in the 2000 presidential debates to stand up and proclaim opposition to our intervention in the Kosovo unpleasantness. And none of the Democrats voiced such opposition in their debates. So I respectfully think your characterization of Keyes’ views as “interventionist” is much too broad to be very useful.

I enjoyed participating in several of the conference calls before the Constitution Party convention where CP delegates were invited to talk with Dr. Keyes. Many of them asked him questions and follow-up questions about foreign policy-related matters. I found his answers to be thoughtful and thorough, including his discussions of the Constitutional aspects.

Keyes does not embrace the call for USA to withdraw from the UN. He agrees that much disadvantage has flowed to USA from our UN participation, but that represents a failure of our own leaders that we can remedy without withdrawing. I agree with Keyes that the advantages of being a member, and of being the host, are so important to us that withdrawing now would be a very poor choice.

Since I am no longer involved with AIP, I don’t know if what Gary wrote (about what is going on) is accurate or not. I am not concerned too much with the personality conflicts. I am more fascinated in what is happening on the more purely polictical level. The personal stuff is interesting, though.

By the way,which “major party” (according to Ed Noonan) is Old California and which one is New California?

This is being attempted, not so much FOR Keyes, as it is out of spite because many people within the state and national party have objected to the current irresponsible leaderhip, which most recently inolved our illustrious chairman trying to round up a posse to effect a citizens arrest on the Mayor of San Francisco. This was just the latest in two years filled with wacky behavior. Another high point was Noonan’s promotion of dividing California into two different states (Old California and New California) based entirely on whether a county had voted Democrat or Republican. I kid thee not.

Red, I doubt whether Ed Noonan has the faintest idea what an interventionist or a non-interventionist is.

Well, I suppose if the AIP is willing to foot that bill, than they can place whomever they want on the ballot. The golden rule, right? He who has the gold makes the rules.

BTW, does Chuck Baldwin have the resources to PAY all of these filing fees? How many states is he ballot qualified for now? Time for some $1000 a plate hot dog dinners.

This all reminds me of 2004 when we (reformers) tried to get the Green Party of California to nominate the Nader-Camejo ticket. They would not do it; neither would the Peace and Freedom Party nor the Natural Law Party. What an astounding abdication of responsibility to the voters of California! I ended up voting for the Kerry-Edwards ticket but my first choice was Nader-Camejo. I thought about voting for the Peroutka-Baldwin ticket but I decided (among other reasons)that Senator Kerry has a much better grasp of the need for the separation of church and state than does Mr. Peroutka. I actually voted for Michael Peroutka in the primary election – at the time I was a member of AIP.

Steve, do you agree with Keyes’ interventionist views, or do you just think he is a bigger name and will get more votes?