September 19, 2003

ALAN COLMES, HOST: Could General Wesley Clark's entrance into an already crowded field of Democrats prove to be the breaking point for the candidates that are just trying to hold on, and does Clark have the qualifications to be president?

Joining us now, former presidential candidate--no stranger to the hustings--Ambassador Alan Keyes. Ambassador, I'm guessing you're not going to like any of the Democratic candidates. You're not going to praise any of them, I'm guessing, so what's your take on Clark?

ALAN KEYES: Well, I'm not going to praise any of them. I guess I haven't been paying that close attention to them, either. I think this election is for G. W. Bush to win or lose. Right now, I think it's pretty clear that he's going to win. Over the course of the next little while, what happens with the economy, but more importantly, what happens in terms of the perception of his leadership on security issues, is going to be key.

I think Clark might be able to develop some momentum if he can, for the first time, begin to develop a critique of the security policies that the Bush administration has followed, that doesn't seem to be motivated by simple partisan carping--but that hasn't happened so far.

COLMES: Do you think that the Republicans are vulnerable? Is the administration vulnerable on certain security issues--protection of our ports, airport security, border security? You know, they want to grant amnesty, as Reagan did, to illegals. Is there a vulnerability there, and could somebody outflank the president on those issues on the Democratic side, and make a difference?

KEYES: I really don't think so. I don't think it's going to be a matter of this or that particular issue that's going to result in this. I think it's going to be a question of being able to call into question, overall, the president's leadership in these matters, and I think that's going to be fairly difficult to do.

There are some points that could be raised, in terms of how Iraq has been handled, and so forth, but I don't think they've been very effective at bringing them forward, because they are motivated less by a real concern for the effectiveness of policy, it seems, then by a desire to score political points.

COLMES: I think if the Democrats actually made more of an issue of those security issues and what's happened post-war, phase four of this war with Iraq, without the personal attacks on the president (which, I think, reflects poorly on the party and on some of the candidates), they might resonate more with the American people. Would you agree with that?

KEYES: I would agree with that, but I think the reason they've resorted to personal attacks is because they've been unable to think through what are, in fact, the vulnerabilities in terms of the administration's approach to these issues--for instance, an inability to articulate the contradictions between a terrorist policy that pursues terrorists [unintelligible], as the French would say, and a Middle East policy that creates a negotiating vehicle that empowers terrorists in the Middle East. There's a fundamental contradiction here, and I haven't heard a single Democrat even begin to articulate it.

COLMES: Why don't you seek the Democratic nomination? I think this sounds great. You've found the niche the Democrats have been looking for: "Alan Keyes, Democratic candidate."

KEYES: I don't seek the Democratic . . . No, I'm a Republican. I'm a pro-life, moral conservative, and the Republican Party, I think, is the only one of the major parties that offers a home for people like me.

COLMES: What do you make of the argument that it doesn't matter in California, for example, that Arnold is pro-choice, that he has many liberal social positions, and that that's OK because he doesn't rule on those as governor?

KEYES: Well, I think that's not true. A matter of fact, on social issues, I was just thinking, as I was hearing an earlier portion of the program, Gray Davis has on his desk a bill that would essentially bar Christians from adopting in California if they weren't willing to affirm the acceptability of homosexuality.

In point of fact, governors have extremely powerful influences on these social issues, and . . .

SEAN HANNITY: If it's a part of their agenda. By the way, welcome back, Ambassador.

KEYES: Hi.

HANNITY: Hang on a second. Wait a minute. What would you have done in New York? Here's a situation, because Rudy Giuliani and I--I was a fan of his for a long time. We have had passionate debates, Ambassador, on partial birth abortion, which he supports, gay rights, which he supports, but when he became the mayor of this city (where Democrats outnumber Republicans six to one), he transformed the place because his focus was on economic issues, crime issues, quality of life issues. He made the place a much more livable city. Would you have opposed him?

KEYES: Yes, I would have, because I will never again cast my vote for any pro-abortion candidate--I don't care what label they wear. And I think . . .

HANNITY: Even if it . . .

KEYES: But let me make one point, important point . . . It's an important point.

HANNITY: But he wasn't going to have an impact on that issue.

KEYES: The last time a major push was made against the pro-life plank in the Republican Party platform, Pete Wilson, I think, was governor in California, and a pro-abortion Republican was the governor in Massachusetts. Don't tell me that these folks don't have a major role. I think that by electing a pro-abortion Republican governor, you are setting people like myself up for a battle that we shouldn't have to fight again.

And I don't want it.

Any self-respecting moral conservative who votes for Arnold Schwarzenegger is betraying the heart and soul of the Republican Party. I would never do it.

HANNITY: So, just like you would never vote for Rudy Giuliani.

KEYES: I have made it very clear throughout--I will never again cast a vote . . .

The issues of crime, the issues that are concerning us with health, the issues that concern us with family, all these things on which we spend trillions of dollars are traceable to the moral decay of this country that results from the abandonment of our moral principles--and that's what Schwarzenegger represents.

HANNITY: Ambassador . . . Ambassador . . . I agree fundamentally. I am passionately pro-life; I have been for all my life. I agree with you on the moral conservative issues and the moral decline and decay of society. I don't have any disagreements with you.

But where I will disagree with you is, there are certain fundamental times when you have a choice between a moderate on some of these issues and somebody who is passionate, like Gray Davis, on some of these issues, you've got to make distinctions, and take . . .

KEYES: But that's . . .

HANNITY: Wait a minute . . . you are enabling and you are supporting the more radical candidate to be in office.

KEYES: No. No.

HANNITY: And I think that is short-sighted, and I think that is a fundamental error.

KEYES: No. That argument is what saddles us with these evils. The lesser of evils is evil still. My philosophy is very clear: if evil is to succeed, it will do so without my . . .

HANNITY: But the lesser of two evils may prevent partial-birth abortions . . .

KEYES: Let me finish. Will you not let me finish a sentence today, Sean?

HANNITY: . . . which will at least stop some of them, Ambassador.

KEYES: Sean, I haven't finished a sentence yet. If evil is to succeed, it must do so without my help. If good is to fail, it will do so despite 110% of my effort.

McClintock is the choice in this race with Arnold Schwarzenegger, not Gray Davis, and to argue otherwise is to force us into a position where we once again have to do battle with one of these extreme liberals pretending to be a Republican.

COLMES: Dr. Keyes, I appreciate you being on the show tonight. Thanks for being here.