Perhaps my Christain background necessarily forces my support of Keyes in your eyes because you come from a long line of boxmakers. Perhaps you read between the lines of my post and found it there.
Personally, I'm pining away for full Republican control of both houses and the presidency. Keyes can't win and Bush probably will. I'm a pragmatist so I'll vote for Bush. The next president may be in the posistion to appoint 3 Supreme Court justices. I want a conservative president to do that so perhaps we might once again be a nation ruled by law - instead of activists. In addition, Republicans need to win so I can see whether, with full control, they practice what they preach. After one or two terms of control and they don't begin dismantling the beast, I'll support the first Independant or Reform candidate that advocates throwing tea in the harbor. Like I say, I'm a pragmatist. I recognize that in order to get things done it takes time and they have to get used to holding the reigns of power once again. For that reason I'll wait until they've had time to establish themselves before I criticize them too much.
As for my post, it responds with Keyes as an anecdotal rebuttal to the charge that money has corrupted everyone and everything. Although he didn't do as good as I thought he would relative to Forbes, the dollar to vote ratio with Keyes is still the envy of any living politician (and most dead ones) - even with him bucking the establishment. Doesn't that fly in the face of Barry's post? Note also that if Bauer and Hatch had not been there that most of those votes would have gone to another arch-conservative. It's a good bet that Keyes could have garnered up to 23% of the vote in that scenario. If you guys had a message that ever resonated a fraction as well as did Keyes' in Iowa you'd think you died and went to socialist heaven. Keyes spent almost nothing there.