Saturday, February 2, 2008

The other two - John Cox and Alan Keyes

As I've previously mentioned, there are eleven candidates on the Republican Presidential primary ballot in California.

As far as I can tell, five of these candidates (Brownback, Giuliani, Hunter, Tancredo, and Thompson) have dropped out.

Four of them (Huckabee, McCain, Paul, and Romney) were invited to the Reagan Library for the debate a few nights ago.

As some of the engineers who are reading this post can tell you, five plus nine is less than eleven.

Who are the other two (John H. Cox and Alan Keyes)?

Let's see what Wonkette said about Cox back in 2006:

Never heard of him? Neither have we, but NewsMax says John Cox is the shit. Why? Because he is awesome and will return the Republican Party back to the people who suddenly got sick of Dubya a month ago, after six years of catastrophe and more gay abortions than ever.

Dude doesn’t have much (or any, actually) name recognition....

Is this the new century’s Ross Perot? Crazy rich guy from out of nowhere dispatched to do away with another failed Bush White House and hand it over to a Clinton?

Cox should just call himself John Perot just so everybody understands exactly how it works. Jesus ....

Freedom Dogs uses money as a decision criterion:

I think his stands on the issues look good, but he must have something wrong with him to keep him so dry in financial contribution money that we have not even heard of the man.

Well, Alan Keyes certainly has more name recognition than John Cox. Maybe not supporters, but name recognition:

The criteria for admission to the [Iowa] debate, according to the Register, were that a candidate must have filed papers with the Federal Election Commission; that he must have publicly announced his candidacy; that he have a campaign office in Iowa as of October 1; that he have at least one full-time paid staff member in Iowa; and that he score at least one percent support in the Register’s October poll.

Keyes has indeed filed the required papers. He did announce, in September, that he is a candidate. And he scored two percent support in the Register’s October poll, although he showed zero percent support in the same poll in November. As far as having a campaign office and at least one full-time paid staffer, well, that’s where things get a little fuzzy....

“It’s a question. How many paid staff in Iowa?”

Keyes had had enough of such details. “You are working, I guess, for the elites who want us to believe that campaigns are about money,” he told the reporter.

“Do you not wish to answer the question?”

“No, I want you to understand that you don’t have the right to dictate our political process. It belongs to the people, not to you. And money doesn’t buy votes.”

I jumped in again. “Ambassador, I’m going to ask you one more time. Have you personally been doing campaign events here in Iowa in the last few months?”

“I have had several campaign events here in Iowa, but I will not define those events as you do,” he said.

“In the last few months?”

“I don’t define those events as you do. And I don’t think you have any right whatsoever to establish yourselves as the arbiter of what constitutes an event. I will do that in a way that reflects the best needs and purposes of the people who are working with me. Because as I see it, every time somebody comes forward and takes the pledge, that’s an Iowa event.”

That puts Keyes at 49 and counting.

But, in a post entitled Alan Keyes or McHuckaDuncaRomThomPauliani for President, it's clear that Keyes supporters do exist:

Alan Keyes ought to be in the game and in serious consideration by conservatives everywhere. From what I understand, he still needs help securing spots on various state ballots, so if you want to measure the other candidates with a man who, in my opinion, seems to be a reasonably complete package, then I think we should at least help him get in the game.

This writer (Citizen Phil) then proceeded to analyze the other candidates (with the notable exception of John H. Cox, or for that matter Tom Tancredo):

Senator McCain seems to have a good handle on defense and the war, except for his understandable sensitivity to the rough handling of certain prisoners. I only wish he would remember that he was a "good-guy" when he was a prisoner, as opposed to the "bad-guys" from whom we need information. Senator McCain also has trouble knowing who the enemy is in the Senate, from time to time. It's the liberals John… stay away from them!

Mike Huckabee seems to be on my page regarding abortion, marriage, and matters of faith. To hear various pundits express an icky-fit about whether a cross intentionally was placed in his ad, just about makes me break out in hives. The "thing" was indeed a bookshelf. Huckabee would likely swear that he is not a woman too, even though he probably has man boobs. Perhaps he should be crucified for that as well. On the down side, Mike Huckabee seems to have a problem, knowing when and how best to criticize a sitting President. That shows a lack of judgment that I would expect from the loony left.

Duncan Hunter seems to be a fine fellow, but true or false, I get the impression that he is driven by a single issue, and that would be illegal immigration. There is just so much more on our plate than that, and I need to feel that my President has his hands on all the knobs.

Mitt Romney really makes you feel good while watching him speak. He is very articulate, well groomed, and obviously cool under fire. I really do not believe his Mormonism would be a problem, but the purity of his conservative blood might. The fact that under his watch, same-sex marriage flared up out of control in his state makes me cringe. Just the idea that the most liberal state in the Union could tolerate him enough to elect him Governor… makes me clinch my…. oh, you know what I mean. Mitt may be a little bit too smooth to earn my trust.

Fred Thompson is one of my favorites. He speaks with authority, and what he says sounds well reasoned and generally wise. Unfortunately, he comes across as if his fire is a bit too regulated. Up against a bile-spitting democrat contender, who will cover their ineptitude with bald-faced lies, I am not certain Fred will sell as well as he needs to. I also would like to see Fred take a more direct stand on fixing the abortion affliction.

Ron Paul has many good things to say, and conservative may be hard-pressed to disagree with too much of it. Unfortunately, he does not seem to comprehend the idea that in this modern day and age, it is extremely important that we make our defensive stand well away from our shores. Ron also seems to have attracted certain folks to his camp, such as those who are incensed that the likes of Alan Keyes, Barack Obama, and Joe Lieberman are allowed to hold public office.

Rudy Giuliani has proven to be an effective leader. You cannot deny that he did a great job cleaning up New York, making it a better place to live and work. He also did a good job after the terrorist attacks, and whether you like him or not, he put a good hard face on the city for the world to see. There is just a lot of liberal social baggage on his cart though, and I do not want my President to be fighting me on moral principles.

If you're interested, has collected short statements from Keyes and Cox.

[mrontemp business] | [mrontemp politics] | [mrontemp technology] | [mrontemp tags]

Sphere: Related Content


The Anti Cox said...

Keyes has a bout 10,000 percent more name recognition than Cox, though that won't do him any good at this point, either.

Ontario Emperor said...

The surprising thing is that few could have predicted who the eventual nominee would be. McCain was supposed to drop out late last year.