– By Warner Todd Huston
Three of the contenders for the nod for the GOP nomination for president were heard today at the CLC. I met and talked to each of them and listened to their message in speeches and townhall meetings.
First up was the ever tanned and handsome Mitt Romney. As always he said the right things, gave the audience the right conservative message, smiled a lot, and told us how much he loves his wife. He is a good business man. And that is one of the things I have against him. Sure it’s good that a presidential candidate knows something about business, that isn’t what my problem is. But, today we need a man who is a leader with his philosophy and ideas backing up his decisions, things that will lead us past the danger of our times. Mitt does not seem to be that man. He seems, rather, a man that is more interested in doing what “works” quite despite whether there are any principles behind that workable solution. His voting record pretty much shows that. Mitt might have been fine in 1994 when we thought that we had reached “the end of history” but not today.
Still, he had a fine, well crafted speech and seemed to please many. Well, he pleased many except the guy who asked him about medical Marijuana. That guy was a tad upset that Mitt said a firm NO to legalizing the weed even for so-called pain easement. Mitt said that there were plenty of other medications that could be used to ease a patient’s pain and that we didn’t need to resort to Mary Jane.
Next was the stalwart Duncan Hunter. Duncan was all fired up about how the border fence he had built in California had worked so well. He went on about immigration too much for my tastes, though. As important as the issue is, and it is really important, we need a president who is ready to deal with more than one or two issues and his almost border only townhall was a bit too single issue oriented for my tastes.
However, he did get into economics and he said one thing that I really liked. He said that as president he’d institute what he called a “mirror tariff” on foreign trade. If a foreign country had tariffs or restrictions on our trade he’d hold up “his little mirror” to their policies and institute the exact same ones for any of their products entering the USA. If they eased them on our trade going into their countries, he would follow suit on their products coming here.
That was good stuff!
I like Hunter a lot in quite a few ways. I would have no problem voting for the man if the opportunity presented itself.
UPDATE: For an my expanded remarks on Alan Keyes’ address click here.
Then came the amazing Alan Keyes. Keyes doesn’t much care if he wins the nomination or the White House. His cause, our cause, is what matters. Now, I think if you go to Ed Morrissey’s site, (Captain’s Quarters Bolg)he will say that Keyes was too much the polemicist and demagogue. If Ed’s comments at the diner table after Keyes’ speech is any indication, Ed will find Keyes a tad… well, maybe distasteful is the word?
I have to disagree to some extent. See, Keyes doesn’t care much about the presidency, really. He wants the pulpit. His goal is to alert America to the loss of sovereignty, the loss of liberty, the destruction of the Constitutional Republic which the Founders worked so hard to build and sacrificed so much for.
Alan began his rip roaring sermon — for that truly is what it was; a sermon — saying that he was going to break Reagan’s 11th commandment, which was “don’t talk bad about other Republicans.” He ripped Giuliani as completely unrepresentative of any Republican principles (not “values,” principles). He excoriated Romney for being unbelievable in his claims to support those Republican principles, and hinted that the rest of the field does not address the true issues of the day (Even as Duncan Hunter was in the room listening).
Incongruously, as Ambassador Keyes stood in front of a giant, 12-foot-tall Hunter for President banner, Keyes pummeled the other candidates. He did not do so, however, in a vulgar way or on anything other than a true reading of American first principles as bestowed upon us by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both documents that Keys said the rest haven’t the first clue about.
He is absolutely correct, even as he was a tad forceful in saying so. But, we are at a crossroads and force may be soon enough our last choice to bring back our Republic. I spoke to Ambassador Keyes for a while before diner and he is fast coming to a point past feeling that we are still at a time when talking will solve the problem. Action is now required and not action of the delicate type.
Now, I have to mention a chief point of his on the case of abortion. Keyes feels that there is a phrase in the Constitution that guarantees that the Founders were against abortion. It can be found in the preamble to the Constitution.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
The word “Posterity” explains that abortion is anti-American, anti-Constitutional as far as Keyes sees it. After all, our posterity is our progeny, our children. And if the Founders wanted to assure that our posterity had their liberties protected by that document, then abortion must be illegal under the Constitution. After all, how can we bestow liberty on our posterity if we have aborted them in the womb? (It should also be remembered that abortion was certainly illegal in those days)
Here is where I disagree with Ed Morrissey and agree with Keyes. Words, it turns out, mean things. And words were the very tools of creation that the Founders used to assure that very liberty that Ambassador Keyes is talking about. They worried about punctuation, they worried about structure, they debated for months over many of those words. I believe that the Founders would see the logic in Ambassador Keyes’ position and would commend him for the interpretation.
Morrissey is right, though, that Keyes might be a tad “dangerous” in his thinking. But, we may be approaching a day when a bit of danger is the right prescription for what ills are infecting the US.
And, if Morrissey were to go back to the days of the American Revolution, I’d suspect that he condemn each and every one of our Founders for their equally demagogic speech… no for their even more dangerous speech than Keyes’. Compared to the Founders rhetoric, Alan Keyes is practically a pussycat.
So, where Ed sees “danger” — and dangerous it is to call for a virtual uprising of concerned citizens — I see what is fast becoming a last option. Keyes wasn’t advocating for armed rebellion, but for a concerned citizenry to take back what is ours. And to that I agree 100%. If that is “danger” then so be it.
Tomorrow, I interview J.D. Hayworth. And will report on the final day of the CLC.
Comments are closed.