What exactly?
Posted on 05/01/2009 12:04:00 AM PDT by Syncro
I chuckled ruefully when I read a fundraising e-mail from GOP Chairman Michael Steele overflowing with outrage about Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party. In it Steele says that "Arlen Specter committed a purely political and self-serving act. He simply believes he has a better chance of saving his political hide and his job as a Democrat. … Arlen Specter has put his loyalty to his own political career above his duty to his state and nation."
I couldn't help but think of Michael Steele's with Fox News' Chris Wallace as he took the reins of the RNC, in which he declared, "I wanted to make it very clear from the very beginning, my goal is to move this party forward. We're in the business of winning elections. And so I'm expecting my grass-roots, my state parties, the national organization to get on board, to get on the page that is a winning page and move forward." Now he faults Specter for taking this very attitude. Specter might say: "My goal is to move myself forward. I'm in the business of winning elections. I expect this switch to put me on the page that is a winning page."
As I pointed out in an article I posted shortly after the Wallace interview, Steele makes clear to Wallace that his aim is to make the Republican Party a happy home for politicians with Specter's views. While mouthing throwaway lines with ornamental references...
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I was inspired by the title though...
Not me. Keyes has lost all my respect. IMHO, this is projection on his part.
The man is way off the deep end....and should stay far away from politics.
What exactly?
[Steele] declared, "I wanted to make it very clear from the very beginning, my goal is to move this party forward. We're in the business of winning elections. And so I'm expecting my grass-roots, my state parties, the national organization to get on board, to get on the page that is a winning page and move forward." Now he faults Specter for taking this very attitude. Specter might say: "My goal is to move myself forward. I'm in the business of winning elections. I expect this switch to put me on the page that is a winning page."But that's me, I don't think Keyes ever wraps anything up...
I said nothing of the sort.
I still like Keyes, especially since he has settled down into being a commentator.
What political postion has Alan Keyes won?
He should be a preacher , a teacher , anything but a politician
Thanks for your question.
In this particular case it is a very cheap shot on his part. Political parties are tasked to win elections and it is certainly how Steele will be measured.
Keyes knows this and he’s tried to win elections and his most notable failure helped give us the disaster we have now.
There are a lot of things we need to be doing now to change congress next year - and there’s certainly much to debate on how - but “Steele Republicans: Like Overage Whores” is not one of them.
It’s not helpful, not smart. It does shock and get attention. Which is what Alan has been doing for years, all he’s been doing IMHO. In order have a career.
So that’s why I say it’s projection. Keyes is an attention whore.
Again, thanks for your question.
: > )
And not only is there no ending in sight, if there was it wouldn’t be happy!
So far as I can tell, Keyes has done nothing that disqualifies him. Nor has he articulated any views which are repugnant to sound conservative values which might disqualify him.
I have been complaining against Michael Steele since before he was made chairman. People accuse Alan Keyes of being unworthy for consideration because he lost elections. I note that Michael Steele lost the election in the same state in which Alan Keyes lost. I would ask, if Barak Obama were running as a Republican in Illinois and Alan Keyes Keyes as the Democrat, who would have won?
Keyes is articulating a hard set of conservative values which he has done nothing personally in his career to compromise that I know of. He articulates them well. I think he is entitled to his voice until the rap against him is based on more than suspicion. We tolerated Senator Specter for three decades and more and we had more than suspicions to object to.
If we tolerate Michael Steele who is unfit for the job by virtue of philosophy and competence and excoriate Alan Keyes who is sound and articulate, we have turned the world upside down.
Let's refresh your memory a tad bit on the matter. Jack Ryan won the GOP nod for that race. Jack Ryan bowed out June 25, 04 and no one would step in to replace him. {Why did he step out????} Keyes was ASKED on August 4, 2004 by the party to run and took four days to decide which is not an unreasonable time. Add to that the man had to move. Wasn't no one in Illinois capable of winning against Osbama? This sounds like the Perot made Poppy loose kinda stuff. That late in the senate race Keyes stood little chance. The fact he was an outsider made it more difficult. Name me one Republican who could have pulled that off then. I do believe you are blaming the wrong man for Osbama's win in that election.
settled down? Dude, he ran for president as an indy last nov.
Like every other politician isn't? People in the public eye better like the attention.
I like most of what I hear about Keyes. I would certainly prefer him over our current president, and over McCain too, for that matter.
But then, I can’t think of 20 elected officials in our entire government that shouldn’t be replaced...
Well, we do share the idea of Gingrich.
What is need now, in my most humble opinion, is what he did: a nationalized congressional election. IMHO again, it should be under the banner of Freedom.
Pelosi should be belled and made the poster child of bad government, the San Francisco liberal that’s taking our freedom and telling Missourians (Texans, Arkansans.. ) what lightbulb they have to use, what car to drive, and raising our electric bills, etc. etc.
I don’t have many, if any, bones to pick with Keyes positions; buy I do fault his political judgement.
thanks for your reply..
I wouldn't say like, maybe deal successfully with it. The more they like it, the more suspicious I am of them. I hope their sense of purpose is the stronger motive.
Thanks for your reply.
We should also do this under the banner of freedom but I've chosen to use the word liberty in my posts advocating the same strategy. Freedom is the central unifying theme putting a positive aspect opposition to Barak Obama's takeover of our country. It unifies social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. It changes the negative into a positive.
I also have reservations about Alan Keyes' political judgment if not his intentions.
but nobody noticed
He's likely one of the most intelligent persons to run for POTUS in several decades. A few things I disagreed with him on over the years but overall he's a good Conservative with heavy social conservative leanings. I used to listen to him back in the mid 1990's when he had a radio show. It was also broadcast on N.E.T. a TV network Paul Weyrich started up.
He hasn't varied too much from his messages. Meaning he pretty well sticks to what he believes in. Both Bush SR and especially Bush Jr made a huge mistake not putting him in a cabinet post. He was a lot more qualified for say Secretary of State than Powell or Rice and likely would have been taken far more serious by those he dealt with. He could have also straightened out the Department of Education or Department or Department of Health and Human Services had he been given a chance.
Keyes basically got his start politically under Reagan as Assistant Secretary of State and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. The G.O.P. tossing him aside was not one of it's brighter moments. He had plenty to say that the party should have been listening to and he would have been perfect to deliver the messages.
On the other hand, 0bama isn’t a whore - that we know of.
He is, however, a leftist, inexperienced, lying, narcissistic, misguided, weak, shallow, ignorant, thieving sad excuse for a President and Commander in Chief. (Whew - glad I got that off my chest!;)
GOP 2010! ‘Cause we have to!
The fact that he thought he should be President despite never demonstrating any administrative ability. He never rallied popular support for a position, never put together a staff, never drafted legislation and then showed he could get it approved by a legislature, never demonstrated any of the many talents a President requires. If he had been a mayor of somewhere, governor of somewhere, an effective member of Congress, then I'd maybe consider him. But he's never held any political office by which to judge his talents. There's much, much more to governing than giving good speeches or having the right opinions or having an inflated ego.
Every time the good guys compromise evil wins. And every time the bad guys compromise evil is advanced. All the Republicans know how to do is compromise. That’s why with all of our electoral victories since 1980 the government just kept getting bigger as we raced or slouched toward this mess. Thanks, GOP.
****Every time the good guys compromise evil wins.****
Your right. Bush spent both political and big RNC capital in order to get Arlen Spector elected in the Pennsylvania primaries. Turns out this is the definition of a political whore.
Here is the question for my reply which you set out in italics and undertook to answer :
Gentleman kindly describe the declensions which lead you to observe that Alan Keyes is way off the deep end and unworthy of respect. A man who should stay away from politics.
With respect, I don't think you have begun to explain why Alan Keyes is "unworthy of respect " or "off the deep end " or why he should, "stay away from politics."
It is one thing for Keyes with his talents as an orator to get himself elected as a black mayor of a black town on the Democrat ticket. It is quite another for him to absorb the arrows and slings on the Republican side and prevail. I say again, if Obama had been running on the Republican ticket for Senator of Illinois, and Keyes have been running on the Democrat ticket, who would have prevailed? Does Michael Steele's election loss in Maryland-where Alan Keyes also lost-qualify steel to run an entire national political party? Why do we apply a different test to Keyes and we do to Michael Steele?
Michael Steele gets to run the whole of the national party and Alan Keyes should not speak out?
Now, I agree with Keyes on most issues. However, let him win a few lower offices first and show he can actually turn his ideas into actions. Let him put together a working staff, pass some legislation, rally public opinion against entrenched interests, etc. If he can do that than I'd take him seriously.
And don't get me started on Michael Steele. He's the Peter Principle in action.
And I have reservations about Gingrich's political judgement and intentions.
I read one of his books, where he declared that banks shouldn't pay taxes on interest earned. For some reason, he was claiming that rent paid on borrowed money was different than rent paid on anything else.
I forget what the title was. It was a little book that was sent to me after I donated to GOPAC or some other organization. I threw the thing out after reading the chapter that tried to declare that lending money was too holy of an enterprise to tax.
You can't believe such crap, and be as smart as Gingrich is supposed to be, without a large capacity for self-delusion. And it's self-delusion of the 'compassionate conservative' type that led us into a lot of trouble.
I haven't seen Keyes stray so far away from what he claims as core principles. Which is probably why he doesn't do well as a politician as noted in an article noted in a recent post:
In teaching legislative tactics seminars, I tell students: “Lest you think the political process is designed to exclude you, let me assure you that it is.” With few exceptions, politicians are weasels, and the few legislators with character I’ve met will never advance to higher office precisely because they are trustworthy.
I'd say he's Affirmative Action personified...but then again I guess that'd be redundant.
The IL RINO establishment/Combine is responsible for the loss of that race on one simple ground, they despised the anti-Establishment Conservative incumbent Sen. Pete Fitzgerald and so undermined him that he opted not to run for reelection. The “Chief Enforcer” for the RINO Combine in DC was a scumbag named Ray LaHood “LaThug.” LaThug was rewarded for running Fitzgerald out by the False Messiah giving him a CABINET post.
There’s so much corruption in the GOP, people deliberately undermining it and aiding Democrats that need to be purged in a VERY public manner. RINO liberals are a cancer that are swiftly killing our party one state at a time.
The GOP had no intention of winning that race. The IL GOP is seriously corrupted by its Combiner faction. Most people have no idea the level of collusion and corruption going on up there. Sadly, even Dennis Hastert was part of it. You’ve got insiders and outsiders in both parties. Outsiders are destroyed at all costs. They did it to Pete Fitzgerald on the GOP side and going back to the ‘70s, the Dems did it to Gov. Dan Walker.
That Senate race was a joke from start to finish and Amb. Keyes should never have allowed himself get lured into it. The party never was going to back him, he was viewed as a rube who wasn’t even in on the joke. I still don’t think to this day that he realizes he was set up.
(a) Convince me that those of us to the right of Michael Steele are a majority or near majority in this country, or
(b) Present a convincing strategy for how a 30 - 35 per cent minority can have decisive influence in public policy without some sort of coalition building.
By the way, Keyes in this article makes one of the finest observations I’ve read in a while ... in describing unprincipled Republicans as those “whose biggest regret is that they lost power, not that they squandered the opportunity to defend and strengthen liberty while they had it. “
I worked for Keyes in his senatorial campaign. I have first hand knowledge as to how the Illinois GOP establishment, led by it’s chairman Judy (Judas) Baar Topinka did all they could to torpedo his campaign and dry up his campaign contributions. They could not tolerate his pro-life and anti-gay marriage positions. Illinois politics is one big combine of establishment Pubbies and DemocRATS.
Keyes is probably too principled to be a politician, especially as his conservative philosophy is based upon the best traditions of Western Civillization.
BTW, I was pleased to see that Keyes recieved MORE votes in his senatorial campaign than Topinka did in her gubernatorial campaign against Blago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.