Alan Keyes in Obama-Keyes

On Civil Rights: Marriage can’t be understood apart from procreation

A: An individual who is impotent, or another who is infertile, does not change the definition of marriage in principle, because between a man and a woman in principle, procreation is always possible, and it is that possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law. But when it is impossible in principle, as between two males or two females, it’s impossible in principle. If you say that that’s a marriage, you are saying marriage can be understood, in principle, apart from procreation. You have changed its definition in such a way as, in fact, to destroy the necessity for the institution, since the only reason it has existed in human societies and civilizations was to regulate, from a social point of view, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation.

On Energy & Oil: Need to develop proper alternative fuels

KEYES: We need to develop proper alternative fuels. We need to develop ethanol. We need to push on the research, where breakthroughs are occurring, to get hydrogen from ethanol. By pushing on that kind of research 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.

OBAMA: We could save as much, in terms of our fuel, if we increased our fuel efficiency standards, as much as we would from getting Alaska drilling going immediately. And that’s been the Bush strategy increasing production for oil and gas companies, subsidizing them to the tune of 20 billion dollars, as opposed to thinking about how, not only, we can develop alternative fuels, but also how can we conserve energy and increase efficiencies available right now but have not been invested in.

On Homeland Security: Develop a plan that will get us away from our oil dependence

On War & Peace: Needed greater effort to bring in others to Iraq

A: There could have been a greater effort, over the beginning of our efforts there, to bring in others. I would have brought others in on the political side of the equation, to help deal with the business of putting together an Iraqi government. That could still be done. But, it’s absolutely imperative that we keep the security dimensions of the Iraqi war under the control of the US, so that we can make sure that Iraq does not become a base for terrorist activity, that we are able to make sure a government does not come to power that will aid and abet terrorism, that we are able to do what’s necessary to prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists. Those national security goals are the proper goals of our effort, and we ought to be looking to the Iraqi people and to the international community to help deal with the political dimensions of establishing a stable government there.

On War & Peace: War on Terror requires both intelligence and discretion

On Foreign Policy: Work with indigenous elements in Iran

On Health Care: Give people generic drugs information to save their money

On Health Care: People should take care of their own health

On Homeland Security: Send a clear message to the entire terror network

On Homeland Security: Take preemptive action only if a probable threat exists

A: One of the brilliant things about the Iraq decision is that you go after those things most susceptible to the right kinds of action. Iraq was susceptible to direct military action, and so Bush acted. If you’re talking about North Korea, you have to look at the entire context in which we deal with the North Korean threat. That includes relationships with the Chinese and the possibility that you’re talking about something that could escalate into a larger war. We also have mechanisms preexisting for bringing international pressure to bear on both the North Koreans and the Iranians, when it comes to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons We consider the possibility of direct action in an appropriate form only if we have evidence that there is a probably threat, and that they are moving on that threat.

On Technology: Transportation projects are top priorities in Illinois

A: Starting with the problem that supports one of the most important sectors in our state, which is the need to take the 70-year-old locks and dams that have been preserved by the Corp of Engineers, but which everybody knows now are in need of attention so that we can maintain the transport system that supports our agriculture. That would be a first priority. Second, we have the problem of congestion in the air space over O’Hare that has been held up by a whole bunch of political paralysis; people paying lip service to what needs to be done, while they stand back in fear of having to deal with what is really, at the end of the day, an effort to control the situation politically. We need to integrate central & southern Illinois into this plan, by making sure that we have encouraged Amtrak to develop its full potential for rail transportation, that knits together our whole state.

On War & Peace: Troops should stay in Iraq until they get the job done

A: They stay there until they get the job done. Kerry is preoccupied with an exit strategy, but if you get into a battle and the only thing you’re thinking about is how to get out, I think we have a word for you-and it’s not very complimentary. We are engaged in a war against terror that was started by the terrorists, that claimed the lives of thousands of Americans, that involves a global infrastructure of insidious individuals. We have seen the work they do against innocent lives in the most bestial fashion possible. To fight that war, it is not sufficient to have rhetoric, it is not sufficient to react after the fact. You have got to preemptively move against their bases, against their sources of supply, against their training camps, against the states the provide them with safe haven and infrastructure. If you do not, then they will simply prepare for further attacks.

On War & Peace: Preemptive strike in Iraq is a right decision

On War & Peace: There is no distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq

A: There is not. One of the problems with folks who haven’t really had much experience in dealing with terror is that they don’t understand that we are in fact faced with a global infrastructure. Saddam was providing, for instance, payments to the families of suicide bombers who were moving against the Israelis. Bin Laden made it very clear he was doing so on behalf of, he said, the Palestinians and their cause. All of this suggests is the reality that we are not dealing with discrete elements here. We are dealing with a single war that has a front in Afghanistan, a front in Iraq that has a covert series of fronts that we don’t hear much about, but in which our people are presumably going after the cadre of terror, that has a financial front & other fronts. To deal with this as if we’re dealing with discrete little episodes is to show that you have no real understanding of the danger that we face.

On War & Peace: Bush didn’t have the wisdom of hindsight in the Iraqi War

KEYES: That’s the fallacy, because you did make an argument just then from the wisdom of hindsight, based on conclusions reached now which were not in Bush’s hands several months ago when he had to make this decision.