Replies

G.H.W. Bush notoriously called Reagan's plan "voodoo economics" but was able to get on board. If Keyes wins here, I expect he will get on board in the Senate as well.

FOUR YEARS AGO, when it was suggested to Keyes that he should run for the Senate in New York, he said: "I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn't imitate it."

What part of Keyes is a liar and does not follow his own principles appeals to you most?

Common Tator, would you mind correcting the following error, posted on your Freeper page:

I would be glad to do anything I can to help re-elect George W. Bush.

Thanks in advance, Byron

That's not lying, any more than it was for Cheney to say he wasn't a contender for the VP slot before he "picked himself" in the end.

The media made a little issue out of that, and tried to question Cheney's ethics, particularly for his last-minute changing of residencies to qualify for the VP position.

Under your logic, Cheney was a liar when he denied he was being considered for VP, and dishonest for accepting the position before he changed residences.

Naw, Cheney's not dishonest, and neither is Keyes.

Thank you for sharing your concerns, Common Tator!

FOUR YEARS AGO, when it was suggested to Keyes that he should run for the Senate in New York, he said: "I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn't imitate it."

What part of Keyes is a liar and does not follow his own principles appeals to you most?

Question:
If a group of men come to you and say "Tator, please go to Washington and tell Congress we said not to raise our taxes." and you accept - have YOU "pretended to represent" these men's interest?

I despise all this back and forth between Keyes-Bashers and Basher-bashers but this one thing I want to know - despite your obvious, perhaps justified, low opinion of Keyes character, do you mean to argue that there is NO difference between Hillery manipulating a race which could have done perfectly well without her to insert herself into a seat that had no need of her presence in the race and a situation where people from a state go hat-in-hand to a person and say "PLEASE come and enter the race on our behalf."?

It's not necessary for you to agree that they did the right thing, or that they made the right choice - it's not even necessary to endorse Keyes acceptance of the invitation as the right move, politically or morally - in order to display the intellectual honesty which can admit that the two situations are materially different and that Keyes, or anyone else, CAN say what he did about Hillary and see this situation as so significantly different as to not make himself a liar by choosing to run. Go ahead and bash Keyes as a man of low character if it gives you some sort of satisfaction; Go ahead and say that Illinois made a bonehead play by recruiting him; Go ahead and point out he'll get pasted and that that quote will be used against him; But just between us - you DO see a difference in the two situations --- Don't you?