A friend sent
this Washington Post article to me about the Constitution Party's candidate, Michael A. Peroutka, who sounds a lot like Keyes.
Peroutka tells audiences that his campaign is divinely inspired and that his party seeks to remake the United States into a Christian state, one that no longer adheres to the separation of church and state.
"This is a spiritual battle," he said. "It's fought out in culture, it's fought out in politics, it's fought out in the economy. But it's a spiritual battle. It's a question of who is lord."
Peroutka is being watched by the Southern Poverty Law Center:
Some ideas at the heart of Peroutka's campaign have also drawn the attention of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights law firm that tracks hate groups. Mark Potok, editor of the center's monthly intelligence report, said his group took note when Peroutka received a rare national endorsement from the League of the South, which he describes as a coalition of hard-line, "neo-Confederates" who espouse racist, anti-gay and anti-immigrant ideas.
I haven't done a complete comparison, but so far the
Constitution Party's platform looks very similar to Keyes' positions (one collection of Keyes' views is
here, but I haven't checked all of them to vouch for their accuracy). They both even have the same fascination with
Judge Roy A. Moore (former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice who installed the Ten Commandments statue, then fought against its removal).
Earlier this year, he said, former Alabama chief justice Roy S. Moore -- famous for fighting to keep a reproduction of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse -- considered a run. When that fell through, Peroutka emerged as a consensus candidate.
For one of Keyes' speeches supporting Moore,
go here.
So, the question is: why did Keyes should run as a Republican and not as a Constitution Party member?
