February 2, 1999

[Partial transcript]

Dr. Keyes: What's THE GOOD NEWS TODAY?

The good news appear to be that the unconstitutional two-track proposal that they claim had been gaining some momentum in the Senate appears to have faltered in the sense that some people were suggesting that there would be some kind of vote on guilt or innocence and then they'd have a separate vote on removal, which I think by any stretch of reading and logic and imagination was blatantly unconstitutional, that appears to have been deep-sixed. They're still trying to come up with some kind of maneuver.

I think one of the purposes behind the Republican maneuvering is that they want to do something that puts the Democrats on record that this guy has done wrong. They think that this is important for some reason, partly I think 'cause they're subject to all kinds of delusions about bipartisanship and so forth. I don't agree with this, by the way, the notion that for some reason or another you want the Democrats to say something that will give them an opportunity to say, "he's a bad guy." Nah, don't bother. We know he's a bad guy. So does everybody in the country.

He's done wrong and so forth, this is clear. He's a perjurer, he's an individual who has disrespected his Oath of Office, acted without integrity, decency, etc., etc. We all know this, and most of the people in the country don't even bother to dispute it at any length. So the question is, knowing that he's guilty, are you willing to do the right thing? And the Democrats, if they declare that they are not, will be circling the wagons around his depravity and lying and thuggery, and the Republicans will be doing the right thing.

Now, the media is trying to stampede the Republicans into believing this is gonna somehow deeply damage them. Do you know what? If, in spite of that media blitz they stand with integrity for what they believe to be right, a lot of people are gonna have to go, "Ooh, well gotta give it to those Republicans. They took all this political rift just to stand with the truth. Party of principle." And on the other hand, what would we have with the Democrats? "Well, you know those Democrats, they circled the wagons around this guy, sacrificed what we knew to be true and decent and principled, all for the sake of political power. We know what kind of party they are now." And I think that that impression--Democrat Party, party of power politics without principle, Republican Party, a party that at the end of the day even after much to-ing and fro-ing and shilly-shallying still ends up on the side of principle and integrity.

This contrast between a party of principle and a party without principle, a party of integrity and a party of no integrity, it will tell as the months pass. And if the Republican leadership puts themselves in a position where, see, that in spite of the political risks we did what is right, and the Democrats are over there saying, "Yep, in spite of the truth we did what was wrong, to stand with this thug, this depraved, immoral guy"--and I suspect that in the course of the months ahead, more things will come out that confirm his depravity, because NBC news right now is sitting as hard as it can on the Broaddrick story, which alleges that he actually committed a violent rape and assault. Things like this will come out, we'll be able to scrutinize them and see whether they're true or not. If they prove to be true, the Republicans' stand on principle will look better and better as the truth comes out.

So I don't see how they lose by acting with integrity. Even though I know that there are all those media things out there trying to stampede them with lies and propaganda, they ought to hold firm with integrity, and in the end that stand of integrity will give them a moral capital in this nation's politics that the Democrats are throwing away. And that will, I think, tell in an important way to a nation that is increasingly preoccupied with the moral vacuum that is consuming our hopes for the future.

That would be my advice to the Republicans right now. But I was glad to see that at least the blatantly unconstitutional thing is going by the boards. In its place is coming forward a proposal that there be a finding of fact, and then an up or down vote on guilt or innocence. So long as there is an up or down vote on guilt or innocence, the Constitution is served, in my opinion.

If the Senate wants to take a little time and do some finding of fact that would allow the Democrats to say, "Yeah, he's guilty of these foul deeds," or "We find factually that he committed these foul deeds," that's all right, because then they'll be on record acknowledging the foul deeds and the followed by a vote that says, "But we don't have the integrity to follow the Constitution and convict him." That would show up their lack of integrity. I don't see a problem with that. So long as there is a final vote on guilt or innocence, anybody who wants to find that he's guilty and then vote not to convict him, this will reveal that they have no respect for their oath, right, because they swore an oath impartially to base their judgment on the facts and the evidence, and so forth and so on.

So, it's all right. Let 'em look like the people that they actually are--folks who know what the truth is and refuse to respect it, see, which is worse than not knowing what it is or being confused about what it is, and as a result of that ignorance or confusion, not respecting it. Get them clearly on the record, "Yep, we know what the truth is--bad guy, depraved, unfit character, all of that. We know that, and we're gonna leave him in place."

And, you see, that will be a judgment that is in some sense lenient on Bill Clinton, but it's awfully hard on the people making it, because they reveal their corruption and lack of integrity for all to see. And I think that that's all right with me. I think that that's quite good, as a matter of fact, as an outcome, if the Democrats want to put themselves in that kind of a position. And judging by their behavior over the last several months, they apparently don't care whether they appear to be the toadies of the criminal element that exists within their party. They're perfectly willing to appear to be the cat's paws of character assassination and thuggery and lying and all this other sort of stuff. I don't understand why, it actually has been kind of a shock to me that some people would do it.

Take Pat Moynihan, for instance. Here's the guy who invented the phrase "defining deviancy down," right? Debasing the definition of deviant behavior. And he lamented this and decried this, and thought that is was having such terrible effects on our society, and now as part of this Democrat group, that's precisely what he's doing. We've got a President obviously unfit for office who has lied and done all kinds of things that in any age of integrity would have been judged instantaneously to be grounds for his removal. And yet the Democrats are now "defining deviancy down," lowering the standards of integrity and conduct that we associate with the highest office in our land. Why would a Pat Moynihan, a guy who saw so clearly what this means, what it implies, what it does to a society, now make himself part of this little gaggle of individuals who are willing in reference to the highest office in the land now, to do precisely the thing that he decried? Who would have expected this? I would not have expected it.

I would have thought, given his background, and the intellectuals--I don't agree with politics that people have and so forth and so on, but I know looking back over his career that there have been some sterling moments of intellectual integrity in that career, when he stood against a lot of people who were sacrificing the integrity of their judgment and intellect in order to go along with the trends of the times, and so forth and so on. He was able to stand against that in the past, and now he becomes part of the corruption? Would you have predicted that? I wouldn't have predicted that of a Pat Moynihan, for instance. And it really surprises and saddens me to see it happening.

But it is happening, and it doesn't seem to me that the Republicans are under any requirement to make life easier for those Democrats who want to behave in this corrupt fashion. Indeed, if they can find a way to put it on the record and make it harder, more power to 'em. So long as they act with integrity, that'll be all right.

Let's get to the phones. Let's go to a caller in Rose City, Michigan. Welcome to The Alan Keyes Show.

Caller: Hi Alan, it's nice talking to a real American!

Dr. Keyes: God bless you, thank you for calling in.

Caller: I wonder if Mr. Dershowitz is gonna throw me in jail now?

Dr. Keyes: (laughing) I don't know if it's a crime yet to talk to me. It's only a crime for me to talk.

Caller: Well, first of all, Alan, I think that the trial is kind of sham. You know, we only get three witnesses, and they're gonna put a time schedule on it. I mean, it's a real disgrace to Americans.

Dr. Keyes: I think you're right. I think, unfortunately, the Republican majority has already tainted the process, and they will now go down in history alongside the last Republican majority that impeached a President. And I think people will look back and say, "You know, that process was pretty tainted, and they didn't handle it fairly, and the Representatives of the House were treated with great abuse in terms of what should have been a fair and impartial approach to the trial." That's unfortunate. But I do think that the procedures they adopted were tainted and biased, and corrupted the trial process. Yes, you're right. I agree with that.

Caller: You know, and I called my Senator, Spence Abraham and he told me last week that he had 118 for convictions and 76 for acquittal. No, I meant the other way around, I'm sorry.

Dr. Keyes: Well that can't be the Senate because there are only 100 people in the Senate.

Caller: No, I mean he had that many people calling on the phone.

Dr. Keyes: Oh, you mean calling on the phone? Oh, yeah, I can believe that. I don't know. Thank you for your call, really appreciate it.

(commercial break)

Dr. Keyes: Welcome back to America's Wake-Up Call, I'm Alan Keyes. Let's get back to the phones, let's go to a caller in Elim College, North Carolina. Welcome to The Alan Keyes Show.

Caller: Alan, I'd like you to explain, please, if this was a normal trial and the jury would refuse to listen to the evidence, how can you call that a free trial? I can't see justice at all when they've already made up their mind, regardless of the evidence presented, they're saying, "No, we will not vote for one."

Dr. Keyes: You're exactly right. I think the chief culprits in this regard throughout have been the Democrats, who have openly declared at every stage pretty much that they weren't gonna be paying any attention to evidence, they didn't care about facts, and so forth and so on. "He shouldn't be removed," and that was that. And some of them, like Robert Byrd--supposedly so much integrity--would go before the public and say, "Yeah, he's done awful things," and so forth, "but he shouldn't be removed." All of which amounts to saying that they had closed their minds and made their judgment before the trial began, totally contrary to the oath that they swore at the time that the trial began. You're exactly right. I think one of the things that is coming into focus most clearly in this whole process is the utter lack of integrity of some elements of our political elite. Bill Clinton's lack of integrity has proven to be a kind of touchstone through which their lack of integrity becomes visible.

Caller: Well, I'd like to say one more thing. If you run for President, I promise you one vote.

Dr. Keyes: Well thank you. I sure appreciate that thought. Thank you very much. Let's go to a caller in Lake Placid, Florida.

Caller: How do you do? Before I do my comment, I want to say to you that if you run for President, you get the second vote. That's me.

Dr. Keyes: (laughing) Well, thank you. I'm not sure I'm collecting votes today, but I sure appreciate the positive thought and message.

Caller: I've only been living in Florida one year, I've been a Democrat all my life, and I started watching you, and you are an evangelist of common sense, and you turned me around.

Dr. Keyes: (softly) Oh goodness, thank you.

Caller: Now, I'm gonna make my statement--get off the phone and listen to you on the television.

Dr. Keyes: (chuckling) Okay.

Caller: Answer this. I don't understand why everyone that's supporting Clinton, I don't understand why they believe that the sun will not rise the very next day. They got rid of Nixon and the moon came up, Saturday's came, Monday's went, and we're so many years--now, this is 1999. Alan, I want you to please tell me why are they so desperate? He doesn't even have that much time to go if he should get past this.

Dr. Keyes: Well, let me try.

Caller: Let me hang up and then you can.

Dr. Keyes: Okay, thank you for the call. Let me take a shot at that, because I think that there are several possible explanations. On the list, you would have to include maybe an antipathy toward Al Gore on the part of some of his Democrat colleagues, who haven't yet accepted it as a foregone conclusion that he must be the Democrat nominee, and who don't want to give him a leg up in terms of the nominating process by putting him in the presidency two years earlier, making him an incumbent, and kind of giving him almost a claim to be unchallenged in terms of the nomination next time around. So they don't want to foreclose the nominating process on the Democrat side.

That could be the source of reluctance on the part of some of the folks in the Democrat Party, or the leadership, I'm not sure. I don't believe that they actually believe all this junk they say about the country falling to pieces, and etc. I think they know that's a lot of dribble, and they spew it in the hopes that some ignorant people will buy into it in some way. The other thing that we do have to consider, though, given the tactics of the Clinton Administration is that you have a lot of Democrats who are having their arms twisted with threats and blackmail. I assume that the Democrats have a lot more on one another than they have on Republicans. And so if you're sitting on a lot of knowledge about foibles and wrong-doing and all kinds of stuff by your colleagues, which in the mutual interest of the party you kind of sit on, but in an instance like this, they could be under the gun from people in the Clinton camp saying, "Huh, if you don't stick with us, this is gonna come out and we're gonna blow you away." That could be what is going on. So you have the possibilities of intimidation and blackmail that are keeping some of the Democrats in line and keeping them from speaking out.

I think you also have an overall sense that it's never good when a President resigns or leaves office in disgrace, and that the party responsible for putting that President in place suffers, as the Republicans did suffer when Nixon left office in disgrace, and Ford came in and went down to defeat in an environment that was certainly prejudiced by the whole Watergate business. So I think that they are assuming that if Gore got in, the weakness that results from Presidential disgrace would tell against the fortunes of the Democrat Party. So political calculation again at work.

So, you have personal calculation, political calculation in the sense of the narrow calculations of ambition involved in the Presidential race on the Democrat side, and then you have the larger calculations of political expediency that affect the fortunes of the whole Democrat Party. Put it all together, and it seems to me you do have a recipe for the kind of solidarity in the interests of corruption that we have seen from the Democrat Party and leadership.

Let's get to the phones, let's go to a caller from Millen, Georgia. Welcome to The Alan Keyes Show.

Caller: Thank you. I thought you might want to know, I, uh, there's a new twist. When you call in, if you can get through, which you usually can't, but when you do get through, now . . .

Dr. Keyes: Now you're talking about calling Congress?

Caller: Yes. I tried to call Max Cleland's office and he's--I called him on his partial-birth abortion, he voted for it, along with the rest of the Democrats and all. But anyway, they listen for a couple of seconds and put you on hold, and that's the end of it. They never come back. So, you know, this way they don't get criticized for hanging up on you now, so they put you on hold and put some kind of a patriotic song on while you're sitting there waiting for them to come back and they don't come back. And you know, it looks to me like a man could have, if he's got voters voting for him, he could at least listen to them instead of being a yellow-bellied coward or whatever you want to call him, and especially for a sleaze-ball like Clinton. It just makes you sick, doesn't it?

Dr. Keyes: Well, I think that to some extent we have seen, I won't say across the board, but certainly on the Democrat side, a kind of hardening against the kinds of expressions of opinions that you're talking about. Almost a, well, an attitude of arrogance that basically says, "We do what we do, our power is our power, get out of my face," kind of thing. Very inappropriate for people who are supposed to be representing us. At the very least they're supposed to listen. And as I've often said, it seems to me they would be under an obligation, at a key moment like this, to be expanding their capability for listening to what people are saying, putting on more phone lines, setting up computerized systems that would allow them to take comments and keep them so that they could be listened to, and so forth. But instead of using the technology to help people get through, they've been doing everything they can to block it, from what I hear. And I think that that's another one of the signs that we have a political elite that's been corrupted by its power.

(commercial break)

Dr. Keyes: Welcome back. Gonna get back to the phones, talk to a caller from St. Louis, Missouri.

Caller: Hi there.

Dr. Keyes: Welcome.

Caller: Uh, I just wanted to tell you that you've got another vote for President if you want it.

Dr. Keyes: Oh, thank you. (chuckling)

Caller: Um, as far as--I believe that the majority of the people in the United States support the more conservative side. We hear so much about how the Democrats, or whatever, the leftists seem to want to keep Clinton in office, and how public opinion seems to be that he's done such a great job. I believe that it's propaganda. I believe that, in fact, the majority of the people would rather have him out, and I think they're telling us these things so that we can be discouraged. The conservatives, the Republicans, for the most part, we need to keep strong and we need to make sure that we listen to people like you and we need to make sure that we do the things we're supposed to do to make America strong again.

Dr. Keyes: I agree with you. I have watched over the last several weeks this whole thing, and it does strike me as a propaganda effort, in which things are being manipulated to stampede people in certain direction, regardless of the truth. And the reports that have come out with frequency now, I've gotten them on the show, I've picked them up first-hand, about the ways in which the polls are being biased. And I explained it to somebody over the weekend. Maybe it would be worth passing on, because a figure of speech occurred to me that may help people to understand what is actually happening with these polls, right? And what occurred to me is that the results of the polls are sculpted. And the reason I used the analogy with the sculpturing process is that a sculpture actually emerges from stone, right, as a result of what you discard, what you throw away. Isn't that right? And by choosing carefully what you throw away, you sculpt the result to correspond to whatever you want to achieve.

I think the results of these polls are sculpted, and that the key to it all is the refusal process. What they discard in the way of responses. They have a thousand people in their end sample. They may make three or four thousand phone calls to get that thousand-person sample, right? In the process of discarding and refusing different calls, answers, and so forth, they can carefully sculpt the result to be anything they want, and that is what is going on in this process. And why we should accept this sculpted result as anything but what it is, a fabrication in which a preconceived outcome is being produced by a process of elimination? That's what we have, I believe, in this phony polling process. And anybody taken in by it I think is being duped severely, because essentially the results are predetermined--and, occasionally, I'm sure they actually let a little truth come through. They're telling us just enough truth to give credibility to all their lies. (laughter)

Caller: That's the truth, you're absolutely correct. Um, also, now I haven't heard this discussed much, I haven't been able to watch much TV, but I haven't heard it discussed. But according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, President Clinton broke a couple articles. There's one about sodomy/fellatio, and there's one about adultery.

Dr. Keyes: Yeah, well see the problem is, of course, that he is a civilian, so he's not, technically-speaking, subject to the Uniform Code. We are in the ironic position where the guy ultimately responsible for enforcing the code doesn't have to respect any of its provisions.