The Republicans have one fewer nutcase in their midsts.

It seems that theocrat Alan Keyes has decided to quit the GOP:

HAZLETON, Pa. – Former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes announced Tuesday night that he has left the GOP and is considering joining the Constitution Party.

Keyes, who also ran as a Republican to challenge Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate bid in Illinois in 2004, says he is talking with leaders and rank-and-file members of the Constitution Party.

“They’re considering me, I’m considering them,” Keyes said in a conference call late Tuesday night. “We have so much in common that I find it hard to believe we won’t be able to work out a common basis for working together.”

If you’re like me and scratching your head over what the Constitution Party happens to be, well, suffice it to say that Keyes should be in good nutcase company there:

The Constitution Party says its mission is to limit the federal government to functions spelled out in the U.S. Constitution and “restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.”

This should make Keyes all but irrelevant from here on out. In the Republican party he actually had a chance of winning some form of office, but it’s doubtful he’ll accomplish much among his new friends.

12 thoughts on “The Republicans have one fewer nutcase in their midsts.

  1. He came and talked to my school a few months ago (I go to private Christian school…).

    Let’s just say he was a sack of blabbering bullshit the entire time he was talking.

    He followed a female speaker who had lost her son to cancer and was building vacation homes to help those cope with childhood cancer… he followed her and then attempted to link her plight to somehow involve the downfall of American morality due to abortion and gay marriage.

    I’m glad I only had to listen to him for about 15 minutes.

  2. One can only hope that the division of lines within the Republican party will help filter out some inherent stupidity.

  3. As a resident of Illinois, I can safely say that Alan Keyes has been irrelevant for years.

  4. The Constitution Party says its mission is to limit the federal government to functions spelled out in the U.S. Constitution and “restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.”

    From the sounds of it, they are trying to sound Libertarian, at least right up until that Biblical common-law foundations part.  Funny how they think they can reconcile the US Constitution with Bibblical law.  I wonder where in the US Constitution it mentions anything about marrying your dead brother’s wife, or stoning to death anyone?  I’ve read the damn thing, I can’t find any reference to Jesus in there either.

  5. What Benior said.  I listened to his debates with Barack Obama and he’s nuts.

    But Keyes is dangerous, because he makes some truly hateful and insane people look normal by comparison.  He’s the large blip on the crazy-radar that hides the entire squadron of smaller blips.

  6. This post really needs a subtitle: “What if Alan Keyes left the Republican Party and no one noticed?”

  7. [Derisive snort].  From the larger perspective, “Biblical common law” is an oxymoron.  Common law tends to focus on reality.  Biblical “law,” on the other hand, is basically a steaming $#!+-load of superstition-backed codswallop intended to benefit the men already on top of the social heap.

    Polygamy is rife in the Bible.  Ditto slavery.  Human sacrifice is socially acceptable if it’s done by the local patriarch.  So’s doing anything you want to conquered people, up to and including infanticide. 

    Actually, I’m kind of sorry Keyes isn’t staying in the GOP.  They didn’t create the chimerical fusion of the mega-interests, but they nurtured it.  I’d dearly love to see their creation turn on them in full B-movie style.  I want to see being a current member of the GOP be as socially unacceptable as it should be, for all the coddling they’ve done of: 

    * White supremacists who’ve fathered mixed-race children
    * Gay-bashers who troll men’s rooms
    * “Pro-family” moralizers who block increases in the minimum wage or state health care programs
    * Armchair warriors who can’t be trusted with mere logistics, much less overall strategy.
    * Flag wavers who can squander billions on no bid sweetheart contracts, but can’t spare the change for body or Humvee armor
    * Scare-mongerers who can’t keep tabs on nuclear materials, laptops, or be bothered to properly staff their own Orwellian agencies
    * Blatant war criminals—‘nuff said

    Certainly no political party is immune to hypocrisy, but it’s just been soooo d—ned blatant in the GOP since the days when Newt Gengrich was cheating on his wife while Monicagate was in full throttle…  Anyone who votes for McCain after the festering mess of the last decade should be kicked out of polite society, so far as I’m concerned.  Because if they can tolerate—even support—even more jackbooted thuggery, I think that we can honestly call their commitment to democratic institutions into question.

  8. Armchair warriors who can’t be trusted with mere logistics, much less overall strategy.

    Mere Logistics? MERE? Any fool can point troops at the enemy. It takes real skill to keep them fed.

    “Amatures talk tactics, Professionals talk logistics.”

  9. You’re right LH—I shouldn’t have sounded so deprecating about logistics.  Considering how much American hardware went into that little dust-up with Mister Hitler—and not always aimed by Americans, of course—I can certainly appreciate that.  It’s almost tempting to think of Korean War as just an excuse to get rid of the surplus. wink

    How about “Leaders talk strategy” to cap the spectrum and we call it good?

  10. “The amatures talk tactics” quote is one a military one.  Reading the diaries and commentaries of top generals (such De La Billier for Gulf I, and Lord Alanbrook for WW2) it is interesting how little they are deal with moving the troops, and how much they deal with supplies, numbers and training.

    Being a general can be quite hands off- “Unit A attack point Z, supported by Unit B, Unit C will drive through the captured area to engage X, while B will encircle and destroy. Artillery support from K.”  You then leave the O/C of A, B and C to work out exactly how they will ‘fight’ their Division/Brigade etc.  You, on the other hand, are trying to make sure the men get their letters from home, a chance to rest and shower, and equipment from back home.  Politicians, on the other hand, have this overwhelming urge to be seen to be doing something- a role thrust upon them by the public. Gen Brook had constant battles with Churchill to stop him sending troops on pet projects, notably recapturing Norway, and described him in his diaries as “a public menace”.

  11. LH, you and my husband need to get together for an ale or three the next time we’re across the Pond.  He revels in military history. wink

    [grin] The “public nuisance” reminds me of von Manstein:  “I thought it was going to be a serious meeting until Goering showed up.”  Yet I can totally see Brook thinking that way—as I can well imagine that any number of the brass hadn’t forgiven Churchill’s part in Gallipoli, even two decades and change later.

  12. This should make Keyes all but irrelevant from here on out. In the Republican party he actually had a chance of winning some form of office, but it’s doubtful he’ll accomplish much among his new friends.

    A sane person can only hope, in this case. Politics has an unfortunate tendency to thwart sanity, though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.