Constitution Party’s Trent HillArticle from Third Party WatchHere are some sporadic last thoughts on the Constitution Party’s convention in Kansas City.First: Alan Keyes. Myself and Red Phillips advised Keyes’ supporters and staff members for weeks. We gave them a very simple rubric by which they could avoid dissapointment, know their opposition and it’s strengths, and even avoid an embarassing 3-to-1 loss. None of this advise was heeded, nor was it even understood. Despite weeks of trying, Keyes’ advisors and supporters took him down the exact path we urged them to avoid. I would have never thought that the Alan Keyes campaign would be as unprofessional as it was.Amongst the major mistakes were Keyes’ non-committal attitude towards the party. At least as bad was his tendency to lecture, rather than speak with, the delegates that he so desperately needed in order to preserve his political career. Time and time again, Alan Keyes would patronize Ron Paul-friendly delegates (or even his own) rather than trying to win their votes. This doesn’t mean we expected him to pander to us, but we certainly weren’t prepared to listen to how “ignorant” or “unrealistic” we were.Second: Denouncing Ron Paul. I cannot think of a more reckless decision, than when Keyes spoke against Ron Paul and his various acts of legislation. Ron Paul is a virtual rock-star within the Constitution Party and would’ve easily captured our nomination had he wanted it. This would be similar to walking into the Mises Institute and denouncing Murray Rothbard. I know Keyes and his supporters were aware of this because I personally warned them about not doing such a foolish thing.Third: Contrasting Chuck Baldwin with Alan Keyes. One of the dominant arguements among both Keyes’ followers and his close-knit circle was that Alan Keyes was a better candidate for party-building. This was, at first glance, a decent point. We all uniformly accepted that Keyes was most likely capable of attaining more votes than Chuck Baldwin. However, it backfired almost immediately. In a late-night conversation with a Keyes-delegate from Kentucky, I emphasized the difference between “higher vote totals” and “more party members”. The difference, I concluded, was that Keyes would get more votes but that the party and other candidates would not benefit from down-ticket voting or long-term donors. Chuck Baldwin, on the other hand, would attract many Ron Paul supporters, who would be largely homogenous with the party, and who would be voting down the ticket in favor of our candidates and donating to our various campaigns—and they’d likely do the same in 2012,rather than abandoning us in favor of Republicans, as the Keyes people were already hinting at doing.Fourth: Keyes needs new advisors, or supporters, or both. I don’t know who keeps encouraging him to run for President (or Senate), but they do not have good advice to give. Even now, his supporters are brainstorming ways to get on the ballot using the Reform Parties, American Heritage Party, and dissafilliated Constitution Party affilliates. Having recieved only $250,000 for his presidential run so far, perhaps he should’ve considered a run for Congress instead?Fifth and Last: There is nothing as exciting in politics as a contested convention. It has opened my eyes to many personalities and conflicts within the party, and I hope to see everyone again in 4 years.