| 2008 Election ProCon |
HOME | CLOSE |
[Editor's Note: On Apr. 15, 2008, Alan Keyes announced he was withdrawing from the Republican Party and was required by the FEC to file an "Amended Statement of Candidacy" within 10 days of his announcement. ProCon.org emailed and telephoned the Keyes campaign on June 16, 17, 20 and 23 to ask about this paperwork and to confirm that Dr. Keyes was still actively running for President. DeeAnn Stone, Director of Correspondence for the Keyes campaign, stated the following in a June 16, 2008 email to ProCon.org: "If Alan hasn't filed with the FEC yet, then I suppose he should be moved to the 'no longer meets our criteria' section, until he does file."Our criteria #1 for inclusion states the candidate must "have filed all of the proper paperwork with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and received an FEC ID number." Alan Keyes had not submitted the "Amended Statement of Candidacy" to the FEC as of June 23, 2008, so ProCon.org stopped updating his profile as of that date.
On July 15, 2008, Dr. Keyes did submit an "Amended Statement of Candidacy" to the FEC, and as of that date he did meet our criteria #1. However, since this amendment was filed and Dr. Keyes began his presidential campaign as an Independent candidate, ProCon.org has been unable to determine whether he now meets our criteria #2 (active campaigns in more than one state), #3 (exceed $50,000 in individual campaign contributions), and #4 (file proper FEC paperwork on time). The FEC website does not show (as of Sep. 5, 2008) the amount of funding Keyes has received as an Independent candidate nor does it show any of the required financial statements that he may or may not have submitted.]
Alan Keyes
Independent Presidential Candidate
Former Assistant US Secretary of State![]()
Alan Keyes' Positions & Statements on the Issues
Positions are categorized as Pro, Con, Not Clearly Pro or Con, or None Found.
Abortion: "Should abortion remain a legal option in America?" Con: "If the Declaration of Independence states our creed, then there can be no right to abortion, since it means denying the most fundamental right of all to human offspring in the womb......[A]bortion must be understood as the unjust taking of a human life, and a breach of the fundamental principles of our public moral creed...
As far as the 'legality' of abortion is concerned, how could the so-called 'right' to murder our children in the womb have come about? I think, in open debate, I could prove it to anyone — that Roe v. Wade was the most obscenely illogical and shoddily-written Supreme Court decision perhaps in the whole history of our country. There was a perverse illogic to it that ought to, even to this day, warn us against the possibility that it has any real ground or foundation in our law or the Constitution."
Abortion: "Should parental consent be required for pregnant minors to have abortions?" Not Clearly Pro or Con: "Our rights, including the right to life, are unalienable. If we kill ourselves or consent to allow another to do so, we both destroy and surrender our right to life. We act unjustly. We usurp the power that belongs solely to the Creator, and deny the basis of our claim to human rights."
Character: "Is competence more important than honesty in a President?" China: "Is China a threat to the US?" Pro: "Because of the disagreement over Taiwan, the US Chinese relationship will, for the foreseeable future involve the possibility of serious confrontation. This is especially true in view of the aggressive, ambitious and contentious spirit that still animates Chinese military policy.Scenarios in which we would come to daggers drawn with the Chinese are not far-fetched. Accordingly, it is a crucial American interest to deal with the Chinese in such a way that they will never miscalculate our resolve."
China: "Should the US impose economic sanctions on China as an incentive to improve its human rights policies?" Cuba: "Should the US continue to support an embargo against Cuba?" Not Clearly Pro or Con: "I got a question the other day, when I was in Springfield for the state fair, someone asked about Cuba, and how it important it was to get access to Cuba so that we could ignore Castro's despotism and so forth. You know what this comes from? It comes from living off the scraps, y'all. So we're going to fight over access to Cuba while access to the Japanese market continues to be denied in any meaningful way."
Darfur: "Should the US send any American forces, with or without the UN, to the Darfur region of Sudan to stop the genocide?" Not Clearly Pro or Con: "[Cynthia] Tucker: ...[D]oes the US have a role to play in ending the genocide in Darfur? And, if so, what should that role be?...[Alan] Keyes: I have to say I'm appalled by the suggestion that we retreat into some kind of fortress America and forget who we are. We are a nation of nations, a people of many peoples. We are in touch with every people on the face of the Earth. If somebody is being hurt somewhere in the world, somebody in America grieves for them.
And I don't believe we can turn our backs on that universal significance, that universal mission. I think a lot of suggestions made here in terms of how we get involved are good ones. We don't have to send troops, but we need to support and reinforce the sense of local, regional responsibility...for both humanitarian and military order in that region."
Death Penalty: "Should the death penalty remain a legal option in America?" Pro: "I believe that there are certain circumstances in which the death penalty is in fact essential to our respect for life... I believe that there are circumstances under which it is essential, in fact, that we have and apply the death penalty in order to send a clear moral message to people throughout our society that we will not tolerate that kind of disrespect for life."
Economy: "Is outsourcing jobs to other countries good for America?" Con: "Free trade is a myth--and those people who say it's a good thing are actually selling out the American people in favor of a handful of special interests who are outsourcing our jobs, allowing these despotisms in China and elsewhere to export goods into the United States when they refuse to pay the price in terms of what's needed to respect union rights and freedom of association and the decent conditions of work.We pay that price in America. And yet, when these cheap goods come over here, we allow that slave good to compete with our free good without making any distinction whatsoever between the false price of the slave-produced good and the real price that reflects human dignity and human rights.
I think it's time that we stood against this kind of false doctrine that's benefiting a handful of special interests while it destroys the manufacturing base in Illinois. 18.8% of our manufacturing jobs lost since 1998"
Economy: "Should the US include mandatory regulations for labor rights in free trade agreements?" Not Clearly Pro or Con: "Free trade is a myth--and those people who say it's a good thing are actually selling out the American people in favor of a handful of special interests who are outsourcing our jobs, allowing these despotisms in China and elsewhere to export goods into the United States when they refuse to pay the price in terms of what's needed to respect union rights and freedom of association and the decent conditions of work."
Economy: "Has the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) had an overall benefit for the US?" Con: "I used to be, like a lot of conservatives, a pretty knee-jerk free-trader, and I was engaging in the NAFTA discussion at the time that that was controversial, and I started listening to some of my colleagues, people I know, Pat Buchanan and others, and they were making arguments against them, and I found over the course of time that I was less and less convinced by my own arguments. And I was less and less convinced by them because the concrete results that were being produced in various areas for America didn't correspond to the theory. And you do have to take account of this, you know, at some point. You have to ask yourself whether or not the theory that sounds good is actually producing results that are good. And yes, people will say, we've gotten some good results for our farmers, but it's all relative, as I was just saying. I believe we could get better results for our farmers, see? Because I believe we need to crack some of the nuts that are larger and have been resisting us successfully, making use of this peculiar mélange of regional and multilateral approaches...But I think you especially start to be a little skeptical about the whole thing when you look at what has been the actual result for workers in our country."
Education: "Has the No Child Left Behind Act been effective at improving public education?" Not Clearly Pro or Con: "I don't believe in federal control of education, and I believe that No Child Left Behind leads to a consolidation of control in the hands of the federal bureaucracy, which is something I've fought against in education. I think it's a parental, family, community, local responsibility, and we shouldn't be allowing federal bureaucracy to take it over."
Education: "Is the increasing cost of college and university tuition pricing America's middle class out of higher education?" Education: "Should the federal government fund school voucher programs?" Pro: "We have the wherewithal and, in addition to everything else, if we adopted a proper voucher program, we would equalize the scandalous inequities in education that occur in Illinois because of the funding mechanism that leaves some kids stuck in poor districts. Give every parent the same amount that they'll be able to spend on their child, and you can bet, in faith schools and parochial schools and other, non-government schools, they'll be able to get better results for less money than we're getting right now."
Election Reform: "Should voter verified paper audit trails (VVPAT) be mandatory in elections?" Election Reform: "Should there be restrictions on campaign contributions?" Not Clearly Pro or Con: "The right of free association includes the right to associate our money with the causes we believe in, and to do so in any amount that we think is necessary to get the job done. For government to dictate what we can do under the rubric of 'campaign finance reform' is a total violation of our constitutional rights, and we should force our politicians to abandon it...The first principle is that there will be no 'dollar' vote without a ballot vote. Only people who can walk into the voting booth and cast a vote for a candidate should be able to make a contribution to his campaign. This means no corporate contributions, and no union contributions, except from unions truly acting on the authority of members freely associating and intending to make a contribution. There must be no financial contributions whatsoever from any entities that are not actual, breathing voters.
The second principle is that when anyone casts a 'dollar' vote, it should be publicized immediately. The whole world should know who is giving how much, and to whom, so that the voters can enforce the result."
Election Reform: "Should the election campaigns of candidates for public office be publicly financed?" Eminent Domain: "Should federal or state government be allowed to use eminent domain laws to take private property for non-public use?" Not Clearly Pro or Con: "The right of property has long been threatened not only by unsound schemes of taxation, but by intrusions into the personal control of private property. The result has been a pervasive loss of opportunity in the marketplace for the common man and a disruption of normal principles of supply and demand, those necessary to competition and to the creation of fair prices for such things as housing, undeveloped property, and a broad range of goods and services."
Energy: "Should drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) be allowed?" Pro: "[Steve] Forbes: Would you support opening up ANWR in Alaska for exploration to find out what oil we have there and to get that oil out, so we're a little less dependent on sources -- unstable sources overseas?[Alan] Keyes: Yes, I would. I think it's important that we understand that as we are facing the future, we're going to have to try to take advantage of our energy reserves."
Energy: "Should the US tap into its emergency oil reserves to help bring down the price of gasoline?" Not Clearly Pro or Con: "I think that the real question, when you have high gasoline prices, is to ask why the prices are high.Right this moment, I think that's kinda hard to explain, because we don't see, anywhere that I can tell, in the world, where there is a problem with production or other things, so we'd need to examine that.
But, over the long term? I think we need to develop proper alternative fuels. I think we need to develop ethanol. We need to push on the research, where breakthroughs are occurring, to get hydrogen from ethanol."
Environment: "Should the US ratify an international environmental agreement (such as the Kyoto Protocol) that mandates reductions in carbon emissions?" Con: "It is difficult to know where to begin in listing the evils and dangers of the Kyoto Protocol; the urgency is profound to prevent the Senate from ratifying it and to prevent the executive regulatory octopus from attempting to enforce satisfying the American targets in the Protocol......[M]assive, inevitably clumsy and arbitrary government intervention to reduce the energy metabolism of the American economy would dramatically reduce -- or even reverse -- our long-term economic growth. Kyoto-induced energy rationing and the resulting surge in energy costs would make this summer's gasoline price spikes seem like trifles by comparison. By definition, the eliminated energy usage would have been for projects otherwise dictated by the free economic decisions of the wealth creators in the private sector. A serious effort to meet the Kyoto target in America would be the equivalent of a vast and pervasive new tax. But economic growth is the key to ending the material suffering that is still the lot of the poor. A Kyoto-inspired suppression of enterprise would prolong, and perhaps even increase, the suffering of many poor Americans, not to mention billions in underdeveloped countries."
Environment: "Should the federal government mandate an increase in fuel efficiency standards for automobiles?" Not Clearly Pro or Con: "[Phil] Ponce: ...Mr. Keyes, what would you, as a senator, do to push--would you, as a senator, push--to require greater fuel efficiency from the auto makers?...[Alan] Keyes: ...I think we need to develop proper alternative fuels. I think we need to develop ethanol. We need to push on the research, where breakthroughs are occurring, to get hydrogen from ethanol.
Ponce: Are you talking about mandates from the government?
Keyes: We will be able, by pushing on that kind of research - yes, with support of government funding, we'll be able to have a win for our farmers, in the agricultural sector, to improve the profitability of their product. We'll be able to have a win on the environment, because hydrogen, for instance, is more clean-burning. We'll be able to have a win on national security, because we will stop feeding dollars to Arab states who use those dollars to fund schools where people are taught to engage in terrorism, and use those dollars to support the cadre and infrastructure of terrorism."
Environment: "Are humans substantially responsible for global climate change today?" Con: "Just how likely is it that increasing levels of carbon dioxide resulting from human use of fossil fuels will cause a significant increase in global temperature — and that such an increase will be seriously harmful to human society?...A survey of what reputable scientists are actually saying on the question, however, suggests that it is quite likely that no one on earth knows just 'how likely' these bad results are. In fact, I think it is quite unreasonable for anyone to be confident that we face a human-induced global warming that will, on balance, be harmful rather than beneficial for humanity or the environment, much less that such a warming would be catastrophic."
Gun Control: "Are more federal regulations on guns and ammunition needed?" Con: "The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that you pass a law which will bind law-abiding citizens. They won't have access to weapons. Now, we know that criminals, by definition, are people who don't obey laws. Therefore, you can pass all the laws that you want. They will still have access to these weapons, just as they have access to illegal drugs and other things right now. That means you end up with a situation in which the law-abiding folks can't defend themselves, and the crooks have all the guns...The answer to crime is not gun control, it is law enforcement and self-control. And when we remember that, we will see the rates of crime go down in Chicago, and everywhere else."
Health Care: "Should all Americans have a right to government or employer subsidized basic health care?" Health Care: "Should Americans be allowed to purchase their prescription drugs from other countries?" Pro: "To help lower health care costs, we also need to allow the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and Europe, and do other sensible things — based on free-market principles — that will give consumers greater choice of health care options."
Immigration: "Are illegal immigrants a net gain to the US economy?" Immigration: "Should illegal aliens receive any of the rights or benefits that lawful permanent residents enjoy?" Con: "It's a travesty when those who have abided by the law and become citizens through the proper means are considered no different than those who have not. If we start extending all the privileges of life and citizenship to people who are not citizens and who are not here legally, then we're breaking down our own laws."
"Immigration," Alan Keyes official candidate website (accessed Apr. 4, 2008)Immigration: "Should the US build a physical barrier, such as a fence, along the US-Mexico border?" Pro: "I just want to tell you that I have been both moved and proud to be able to work in any capacity at all to help the folks who are organizing this great effort [Minuteman fence constructed on private land along US-Mexico border], to take the lead and to reassert the spirit of our country....So, what we're doing here is not just building a fence. We are rebuilding a character. We are redefining a people. We are reminding ourselves and the people of our country and people all over the world that the American people have made a difference. Because, though we come from every voice and color and creed and kind, we stand together now on a common creed of self-government and liberty that has allowed us to make the difference."
Iran: "Should the US use military force against Iran if Iran does not dismantle its nuclear program?" Not Clearly Pro or Con: "Well, I think it's going to be very important to lay down, as they have, a clear line against the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the Iranians. I think it's also going to require a willingness to see it in the geo-strategic context. After all, I think it's naïve to believe that, for instance, the problems that are now occurring in Iraq are not problems that involve and have been fomented, to a certain extent, by Iranian involvement and participation.So, I think we have to see that possible acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran in the context of the strategic role it plays as a part of that infrastructure of terror--and in that context, I think it needs to be made clear to the American people that a nuclear Iran is one of those realities that will pose a grave and immediate threat to the lives and survival of Americans. And that's why I think it has to be given a great emphasis, and we should be willing to take some risk in order to establish a clear, hard line against it."
Iraq: "Was it a mistake to attack Iraq in 2003?" Now Not Clearly Pro or Con: "I will not for the moment go into the question of whether it was right or wrong to choose Iraq as some kind of strategic priority in the war against terror. I frankly have said in the past and would say now — and not with the wisdom of hindsight either — it was not what would have been my choice."
"Iraq War," Alan Keyes official candidate website (accessed Apr. 4, 2008) [Editor's Note: In addition to Alan Keyes' Not Clearly Pro or Con position above, he has also expressed a Con position as indicated in his Oct. 12, 2004 statement below.]
Con: "I think that G.W. Bush has done the correct thing. He has moved preemptively in Afghanistan, he moved preemptively in Iraq--acting not on the wisdom of hindsight but on the foresight that is required in order to make sure that the American people will not again suffer even worse damage from this kind of insidious attack. And I think we ought to stay there until our national security purposes are served."
Iraq: "Has the war in Iraq made America safer?" Not Clearly Pro or Con: "I think the most important thing to remember is that our efforts in Iraq and elsewhere right now that followed in the wake of September 11 aren't an effort to defend black people, white people, Jewish people, Christian people, et cetera. They're an effort to defend the United States of America from a deep and terrible threat that came against us in disregard of the fundamental – the fundamental moral principle that is supposed to govern all international affairs, all wars that are conducted by countries, and that is that you do not consciously target innocent human life."
Iraq: "Should the US set a timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq?" Con: "And some people actually think that we can just withdraw and forget about it, forgetting that we were attacked. And usually, when you withdraw from a war before your enemy stops fighting, you don't call that 'withdrawal.' You call it defeat and surrender...And, in this case, defeat and surrender could mean the loss of American lives right here at home."
Israel: "Should Israel continue to receive the current level of military and economic aid from the US?" Not Clearly Pro or Con: "America's support for Israel is an ongoing demonstration that America will stand with those who champion liberty and representative government, anywhere in the world, especially if they have the courage and integrity of Israel. Such commitments are not for sale at any price, and certainly not for the price of oil.Today more than ever, America must stand with Israel particularly on the ground of our common opposition to the terrorist menace which threatens the independence, the morality, and the decent conscience not just of Israelis, but of every human being on the globe."
Israel-Palestinian Conflict: "Should the US allow Hamas to join future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?" Con: "I think we're seeing some of these chickens now come home to roost in the form of this greater extremism, which, I believe, sadly, was encouraged by a policy that was not consistent in its application of the rubric of our anti-terror policy. We should not have been standing for the participation of Hamas, and we should not have regarded it as some kind of concession to go back on the understanding that this kind of element was not to be involved in any legitimate political process."
Israeli Palestinian Conflict: "Should there be an independent Palestinian state?" Con: "Well, if we take that at face value, and we see it from the point of view from those who were doing the dancing, how would you then interpret the events of the couple of years since September 11 - the years when we have seen war, when we have seen, in point of fact, that in a formal way, a major shift occurred in the declared policy of the United States Government and that formal policy shifted in such a way as to accept as the legitimate basis for further progress - to formally accept - the idea of a Palestinian state on the West Bank, which had not been done before. I think one could seriously argue that that looks like a concession to terror."
Kosovo: "Should the US have supported Kosovo’s independence?" Marriage: "Should there be a Constitutional amendment or federal law defining marriage as only between a man and a woman?" Pro: "I think the Federal Marriage Amendment is absolutely essential. Because of the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, we're now in a situation where if one state adopts homosexual marriage, the couples 'married' in that state can fan out all over the country to challenge marriage laws. The only way to protect against that is to have an amendment that makes it clear that marriage in America is between one man and one woman."
Marriage: "Should an affair outside of marriage disqualify a candidate for public office?" Not Clearly Pro or Con: "The moral requirements of freedom what the Founders called self-government. Self-government begins with self-control--the willingness to postpone our material gratification to the extent necessary for economic success and the discretion to limit our passions to the extent necessary to live in peace with our fellow citizens. The real crisis of our times is therefore, a crisis of character. It is a crisis that has been caused by our inability to admit the moral requirement of freedom."
Medical Marijuana: "Should marijuana be a medical option?" Medical Marijuana: "Should the federal government stop raids against people for using medical marijuana in states where medical marijuana use is legal?" National ID: "Should there be a national identification card?" Con: "...[W]e must be especially vigilant in our time, when issues are arising which appear to invite the creation of an apparatus that would extend control to a more pervasive and deeper level than ever before in the history of man. This is a time when a people serious about retaining its liberty must insist that its representatives show foresight and statesmanship in anticipating such threats to liberty, without rejecting the great promise of technological advances.What do we have instead? Specious arguments for efficiency and effectiveness are being heeded by the Congress, while arguments concerning precautions necessary to protect our liberty aren't even being considered. That's why I am so upset with the Republicans for letting the national ID card go through the Congress. Such decisions lack even a trace of the kind of statesmanship that is needed to protect a free people."
National Service: "Should the US institute a military draft?" Pro: "I have championed for a long time the view that instead of moving, as we did back during the Nixon era, into a voluntary kind of military service. I thought that was the wrong way around. I think that national service is an obligation of citizenship in a republic......I think part of...education ought to be universal national service. And I think that it would consist of having everybody, after they have finished high school, know that they were going to face two years--and regardless, by the way, of their status in other ways. Wealth wouldn't stand in the way. Nothing would stand in the way. And you would have to serve those two years. You would go through a first period of basic training, in which everybody would get the basic training that is given to people who are going into military life, and then I would offer people a range of options, including service in the various branches of the military, which would then be available to them to fulfill their two years of national service."
National Service: "Should openly gay people be allowed to serve in the US military?" Con: "I believe that we need to return to the ban on gays in the military. The present situation is intolerable. And I know that John McCain supports Clinton's policy of 'don't ask, don't tell.' I think it puts an intolerable burden on the military.Consider what you are saying. You are actually looking at people who are homosexual, and you are kind of saying, 'come on in, we'll wink at it.' Right? Giving the impression that it is not something that is going to be looked upon as a violation. Meanwhile, the regulations stay in place, right? And the people who have responsibility in the military, who then come across information that suggests that those regulations are being violated--what are they supposed to do?
You have created, in effect, a gray area. And guess what happens in a military chain of command when you have that kind of gray area? You give rise to a lack of confidence, to resentment, to a lack of confidence on the part of military authorities in enforcing the regulations. And, of course, you give rise to possibilities of abuse, where subjective judgments can be interposed in order to play favorites and otherwise have trouble with individuals."
Presidential Power: "Should the US President's powers be expanded to include a line item veto?" Presidential Power: "Should the unitary executive theory apply to the US President?" Con: "No one of the branches of government can have supreme and exclusive decision-making authority, because no one branch can, by itself, safely be allowed to exercise the whole power of government in any circumstance. The legislature makes the laws, but is powerless to execute them. The judiciary can decide cases in light of the law, but has no authority either to execute decisions once taken, or control the content of the law. The executive has the exclusive power of direct action, but no lawful authority to act apart from the provisions of the laws and the constitution, or the specific judgments of the judiciary...The branches are subject to the laws and the constitution, but they are not directly subject to either of the other branches. The legislature, for example, cannot simply dictate to the courts the outcome of any particular case. Neither, however can the courts dictate to the legislature the content of any law. The legislature can establish programs and mandates for executive action, but cannot simply dictate to the executive the particular action to be taken in pursuance of its legislation. Because each branch substantively controls the power vested in it, the other branches cannot simply dictate the use of that power."
Religion: "Should federal funds be given to faith-based (religious) organizations and initiatives?" Not Clearly Pro or Con: "I still am not sure that the goal of seeking increased government funding of church-based help programs is a good idea. I think it is likely to kill the charity that is the life blood of such programs. We should ask whether, in fact, government funding is really beneficial either to the charitable organizations that seek it, or to the people whom such organizations 'help' with it."
Religion: "Should a candidate's religion matter to voters?" Not Clearly Pro or Con: "There might be states in which they require a religious test or oath of office. There might be states in which they have established churches, where subventions are given to schools and so forth to teach the Bible. There might be places where you and I might disagree with the religion some folks wanted to put in place over their communities. But guess what the Founders believed? They believed that people in their states and localities had the right to live under institutions they would put together to govern themselves according to their faith."
Social Security: "Should Social Security be privatized?" Pro: "I strongly support a fundamentally new approach for younger workers, placing them in control of the investments made with their savings dollars. The elimination of the income tax will make tax-privileged 'retirement' accounts irrelevant — all savings will be tax free. So while I favor the transitional policy of replacing Social Security with individually-controlled tax-free investment accounts, the ultimate solution to the problem of long-term and retirement savings is to return responsibility for this crucial function to the citizens of the country, along with the freedom necessary to accomplish it."
Stem Cells: "Should the federal government fund embryonic stem cell research?" Con: "No medical advance, and certainly no material profit, justifies denying the claim to humanity of the embryonic human person. Those who try to justify it are driven from one tortured rationalization to another, none addressing the real issue. Being undeveloped, unconscious, unattractive, small, or unwanted — these are not reasons that we accept in any other context for failing to respect the wholeness of moral worth that every human being has from his Creator.Why, therefore, should we accept it in regard to embryonic research?
No — we do not have the right to take human life merely because it is unconscious, or because it is undeveloped or damaged, or for any other reason that tempts us to deny the equal dignity of all human persons."
Taxes: "Should the Bush tax cuts be made permanent?" Not Clearly Pro or Con: "Events before and after the election have only confirmed that President George W. Bush was indeed right to put tax relief at the center of his domestic agenda. With the nation's economy slouching towards recession, with the lights going out in California, and with consumers squeezed by soaring energy prices, Bush is right to advocate tax cuts and federal initiatives to 'speed construction of new energy sources.'"
Turkey: "Should Turkey be able to enter Iraq or other countries unilaterally in search of its enemies?" US Constitution: "Should the US Constitution and Bill of Rights be altered or updated in any way?" War on Terror: "Should interrogation techniques that some consider torture, such as waterboarding, be a legal option?" War on Terror: "Should the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba be closed?" Not Clearly Pro or Con: "That means that the discussion and debate we have over capital punishment, over how we're treating prisoners in Guantanamo, these are things we shouldn't be impatient with. We should want to try to clearly understand the issues that are involved in order to make sure that as we fight against the evil that has struck us, we are doing so in a way that corresponds to the sense of principle and justice that has characterized this nation's hopes since it was founded."
War on Terror: "Has the USA PATRIOT Act had an overall benefit for the US?" Not Clearly Pro or Con: "The debates in Congress over the so-called Patriot Act have highlighted potential threats to individual constitutional rights and liberties. Our politicians have engaged in extended debates about how much of a sacrifice of freedom our safety requires. But their first sworn duty is not to our safety. It's not even to our individual rights and liberties. It's to preserve our Constitution, which establishes government of, by, and for the people. As we formulate our policies in response to terror, therefore, the first responsibility of our leaders is to make sure that what we do to secure our physical safety also preserves and strengthens our capacity for self-government."
War on Terror: "Should telecommunication companies receive immunity for allowing the government to conduct past warrantless wiretaps?" None Found: ProCon.org emailed the Keyes campaign on Apr. 23, 2008 with this question. We had not received a reply or found a position as of May 28, 2008.
TOP
Alan Keyes' Biography
Title(s): Former Assistant US Secretary of State Personal Information:
Full Name: Alan Lee Keyes Marital Status: Married Birthdate: Aug. 7, 1950 Children: 3 Birthplace: Long Island, New York Religion: Catholic Involvement:
- US Presidential Candidate, 1996, 2000, 2008
- Host, America's Wake-Up Call and Alan Keyes Is Making Sense
- President, Citizens Against Government Waste, 1989-1991
- Two-time Republican nominee for US Senate in Maryland, 1988, 1992
- Assistant US Secretary of State, under President Ronald Reagan, 1985-1988
- Ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council, 1983-1985
Education:
- PhD, Government, Harvard University, 1979
Affiliations and Memberships:
- Chairman, Declaration Foundation
- Chairman, Declaration Alliance
- Chairman, RenewAmerica
Other:
Select Publications:
- On Apr. 15, 2008, Alan Keyes announced that his withdrawal from the Republican Party. He sought the nomination of the Constitution Party, but fell short of the needed delegates at the Apr. 23-24, 2008 convention. On Apr. 30, 2008, DeeAnn Stone, Director of Correspondence for the Keyes campaign, stated in an email to ProCon.org to "list Dr. Keyes as Independent, although there are some third parties (other than the Constitution Party) who want him as their candidate.
- Speaks French and has studied Spanish, Russian, and ancient Greek
- Our Character, Our Future: Reclaiming America's Moral Destiny, 1996
- Masters of the Dream: The Strength and Betrayal of Black America, 1995
Contact Information:
- Campaign:
- Phone: 800-727-6142
- Fax: 801-691-0536
- E-Mail: contact@alankeyes.com
- Web Site: www.alankeyes.com
HOME | CLOSE