Posted on 08/06/2004 8:03:31 AM PDT by churchillbuff
Stop with the Hillary/Keyes comparisons already (like in the linked oped in the newspaper, the Pantagraph). Hillary was on a POWER TRIP -- she pushed local candidates (Lowy and Andrew Cuomo) to the side so she could have the prize for herself. IN CONTRAST, AMBASSADOR KEYES IS RESPONDING TO A CALL FOR HELP FROM AN IMPERILED ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN PARTY. He's on a rescue mission. True, the media in Illinois don't like his decision, they don't want him showing up with a life-preserver - - - but why should he agree with them that the local GOP should be allowed to drown? CONGRATULATIONS, AMBASSADOR KEYES. YOU'VE SHOWN A SENSE OF DUTY BY RESPONDING TO A CALL FOR HELP.
Call it that if you want.
Problem is, tradition does not equal morality. Just because this is not the way things usually are done doesn't mean there's something morally wrong with it.
Look at California. Some said the recall was wrong. Why? Mainly because it was unusual.
Hey he lives there and he doesn't have any sex scandals, that's puts him up on anybody the Illinois GOP has offered up so far.
Here's the question nobody is asking themselves: what's gone so horribly wrong for hte Illinois GOP that they have such a short bench? People need to understand the Keyes movement for what it really is: admitting defeat, probably for a long time to come. They should at least have some young up and comer they can float for a losing campaign that'll give him name recognition for later.
No, but when a man says "...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" and then drops those principles like a hot rock the moment something is in it for him. Dr. Keyes criticized Hillary Clinton for the very same thing he is now planning on doing. That's my objection, in a nutshell.
Ah, the classic debate. Should voters reject the GOP ticket because it's not 100% of what they want, vote third-party in protest, and end up with 0% embodied in a Democrat? Or should they put aside their misgivings and vote for the GOP nominee, because the stakes are too high to allow a Democrat in office?
That's for Illinois voters to decide.
Keyes has been drafted by the party. He's the nominee, without even seeking to be. He has very little to gain from it, and is very much the underdog. If he drops out now, he would hurt more than help.
There's no comparison.
I agree. This situation is far from ideal. But there's no turning back now, so a person might as well make the best of it.
People need to understand the Keyes movement for what it really is: admitting defeat, probably for a long time to come.
No, with Keyes there's at least a fighting chance. More than there would have been with Democrat-backer Barthwell.
I can understand the IL GOP going for broke, rather than building up the name recognition of a sacrificial lamb candidate. You see, the GOP cannot afford to lose a single Senate seat, while we still have a Republican president.
There is so turning back. The Illinois GOP can say nevermind and go find some small town GOP mayor, Keyes can remember that he's one of the best Constitutional scholars in the country and pull his hat out of the ring because this clearly goes against the intentions of the founders. This isn't making the best of anything, this is making a travesty out of an already bad situation, and as an added bonus this fully legitimizes Hillary's actions.
Keyes will never win in a state like Illinois, too conservative to get more than a dozen votes in Chicago. Add the carbetbagger problem and he's hosed, he's gonna go down in viscious flames. Once the second candidate went down to scandal this seat was lost, the GOP doesn't gain anything with this travesty of a candidacy, the only thing it does is lose, loses face in Illinois, loses standing for one of our best voices, and loses the seat. It was a stupid idea, poorly executed, and everybody involved should resign their position to allow the Illinois GOP to regain some face.
If Jerry Kohn were "conservative", he'd be running as the Constitution Party nominee or other such conservative party. He's not. He's a libertarian and supports the LP's liberal on position on most social issues except abortion. I know for a fact that Kohn is for open borders, and I'm pretty sure he's for gay marriage and so forth.
Jerry Kohn is indeed an Illinoisan, in fact, he and I were raised in the same town. But Kohn only supports 60% of my issues and Keyes supports 90% of them. Are you telling me that I should vote for someone who doesn't share MY party affliation or isn't the best candidate on MY issues because he HAPPENS to live in my state along with 12 million other people?
The "carpetbagger" Keyes has already gotten far more votes from Illinoisians than Jerry Kohn ever has. If that's not a show of support for his platform, I don't know what is.
You're saying Illinoisans shouldn't vote for Keyes because he's not "one of us". By your own logic, Republicans who vote for a Libertarian rather than their OWN party's candidate are not "one of us".
Illinois Republicans will support the candidate who best stands for our values.
God speed.
This whole residency purity test is nonsense.
What matters is, "Who represents my views?" and "How will my vote affect the nation?" We live in a time when we can't take this lightly. This Senate seat is to important to lose.
to important = too important
At this point Illinois conservatives should seek ways of leving the office empty, I think that's your best option.
But it doesn't look like they are. Personally, I favor fighting the Dems with all we’ve got instead of ceding so easily.
We can talk "what ifs" or turn our lemons into lemonade.
Fighting with all you've got is OK, so long as you keep it within the bounds of the framers intent. 11th hour move-ins were clearly not their intent, otherwise why even bother with a residecny clause to begin with. What's the point of winning the battle if you're just going to lose your principles along the way, we're supposed to be the party of adherance to the Constitution and the intent of the founders, and it's all the more pathetic that the person being floated as a undeserving candidate should know better.
But this IS within the bounds of what the Framers intended. Otherwise, they would have written a stricter requirement in the Constitution.
The Founders left it to the people to decide at the ballot box. If you cannot in good conscience vote for an outsider, then don't. It all depends on what's most important to you.
I'm not one of those people who kicks and screams at those who vote third-party or who stay home on election day. I say, weigh the pros and cons, and make the choice for yourself. If residency is the litmus test for you, so be it.
.
That confirms, to my satisfaction, that you have eminently weak judgment. Have a nice day!
When Davy Crockett moved to Texas to help them win independence, was he a carpetbagger? Should the Texicans have told him to go away?
When Davy Crockett moved to Texas to help them win independence, was he a carpetbagger? Should the Texicans have told him to go away?
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.