Posted on 08/06/2004 8:03:31 AM PDT by churchillbuff
As I am sure you know, I am accused on a daily basis of being a BushBot and of making excuses for everything Bush does, a charge I probably deserve.
That being said, I cannot tell you how much I have enjoyed watching THIS issue progress; the parsing and spinning done by Keyes' defenders on this issue has been such a joy to watch.
Keyes' statement about Hillary wasn't a rhetorical question; it was a declarative statement. He needs to cop to his change of policy and move on.
It greatly lowers my estimation of Keyes. Previously I have argued that he would never run for any position he could actually WIN, because that would force him to ACT---to vote, and, more important, to make compromises (as every politician has to do). This would destroy his "sainted" image in the minds of many people. Hence, for him, this is a completely safe move. He doesn't need to worry about winning.
Exactly. I am a firm believer that people from other states shouldn't tell people who to select as their candidate; I certainly wouldn't want anybody messing around in North Carolina (although I wish somebody had warned us about Edwards......LOL)
All that being said, don't try to get us to go along with this "it's not the same." It is.
We had this same thing with Elizabeth Dole; and it was a little different with her; she was actually born and lived in North Carolina, and owns a home and property here; she came and stayed here with her mother in Salisbury at least twice a year. We just had to accept the fact that she hadn't lived here in years and go on from there; we didn't try to say she WASN'T a carpetbagger.
Well, my thoughts are along those lines, too, but that's not what this is about.
It's up to the Illinois people to decide what to do.
But they can't force us to ignore what he's done.
Carpetbagging I agree with but how is it racial tokenism. I voted for keys in the primary most conservatives would pick him over most of the candidates in either party..
Yes, the difference between Ambassador Keyes and The Beast are legitimate. He was asked by the state's party to run, whereas she was not. But there is also another legitimate comparison to make: Keyes is entering the race without special court decisions overturning state election laws, unlike what the Dem'Rats did in New Jersey with Torricelli. But who are we to inject truth and historical fact into the 'Rat Media's hatchet job?
Just can't make you purists happy.
LOL...
I think I stepped into parallel dimension or something. ;-)
But seriously, these arguments are amazingly parochial and petty.
I hope the Dems base their hopes on the same thin reed.
No. Ambassador Keyes was asked by the state GOP to run, unlike Hillary. Also, no court decisions overturning election laws are necessary, as was in New Jersey when Torricelli was replaced after the deadline. Illinois' election laws state that a candidate must have a residence by election day; therefore, they don't seem too picky about outsiders moving in and running for office.
Regarding racial tokenism, that's your opinion. There is no doubt, however, that Keyes has the intelligence and experience to serve in the Senate. What is Obama-nation's experience? State senator! Usually that is not the normal stepping stone to the U.S. Senate, unless the state 'Rat party wanted a light-skinned, sorta-black guy who was passable to whites to be its candidate.
Every case is different: In this case, Keyes didnt come in and run, he was drafted by the party. They are saying he is their man to represent them, and I think we should support that. I am sure they took the residency question into account, and truly it is only an issue if the voters say it is an issue.
And besides, 'carpetbagger' is a pejorative used by racist southerners against people coming into their states to help blacks, improve things and engage in entrepreneurship. It's like the iraqi 'resistance' talking about 'occupiers'.
Is there really a problem with an 'outsider' coming in to help in a case where the locals ASK FOR HELP?!?
I for one have no problem with where people grew up or came from, so long as they COME TO HELP.
KEYES IS COMING TO HELP. JMHO.
"Is Illinois really so bankrupt of good candidates of ANY color that they cannot find one person to run against Obama?"
What a dumb question! have you been following their travials and troubles?!? have you not noticed them flailing about looking for a viable candidate?
If you know a better candidate, name him/her. I am just releived they picked a real conservative republican and not that Democrat Barthwell, that would have been a real farce.
Now, I for one think Oberweis, the runnerup in the primary, should have been given the nod. But there were some issues there, claims he was demanding $$$ to jump in that the party didnt have ... and Ditka would have been great, sad that didnt click ...
but here we are 90 days, clock is ticking.
They made their call. It's done.
LET'S SUPPORT THEM. LET'S SUPPORT KEYES. HE'S A BETTER CHOICE THAN OBAMA.
Are you asking us to believe that that is the way that Alan Keyes used that term in regard to Hillary Clinton?
What do you think he meant when he used the term "carpetbagger" when he spoke about her?
Stop digging, man.
Your post is a classic example of projection.
You're the purist; and we're the ones in the parallel universe, watching you spinning away something you would trash us for.
Cool. I had been looking for some good talking points on this.
"I'm for winning within the rules."
So am I. No rules are being broken. Read the other posters, they say it all.
"The rules in this case were devised by the FOUNDERS who had NO INTENTION that outsiders come in and "run" to "represent" people of another state. "
The founders didnt contemplate popular election of Senators, yet we have them ... hmmmm. The Constitution didnt set residency requirements and is silent on that. Federalism LEAVES THAT TO THE STATES.
Ultimately, is it up to the VOTERS OF ILLINOIS TO DECIDE.
That's the rules.
To invent some 'rules' about residency above and beyond the laws of Illinois is silly. It's up to the voters to factor that into their consideration of who will represent them.
so your invention of some moral 'rule' out of thin air is actually *anti-Federalist*. Real Federalism leaves it to each state to decide. Each situation should be looked at as a case-by-case basis.
"Do you realize what you are opening the door to? Any sports icon/Hollywood celebrity who has 10 years' worth of free advertising descending on, say, Montana and "rescuing" the state. Nope, it's wrong."
I am opening nothing.
These kinds of races have been run for generations. Think RFK back in 1960s getting the New York senate nod (Hillary's following his game plan) ... half a dozen of the Democrats in the senate today are in that class, with tenuous connections to their home state, and numerous Republicans in the past. Congressional reps too; many are Washington creatures who invade a state to run for office... the latest example would be that feminist liberal Herseth who managed to win the South Dakota Congressional seat. From SD, but a Washington creature for 2 decades. She in no way represents those who live there, and now gets to live in DC on taxpayers dime voting against the conservative values of the Dakota farmers who voted for her. Go Figure.
This isnt new at all.
"Are you asking us to believe that that is the way that Alan Keyes used that term in regard to Hillary Clinton?"
NO. I didnt say that, but I'll be plain:
I think Alan Keyes was wrong to tie Hillary's carpetbagging to New York to Federalism. Hillary did what she did for her personal power, but there was nothing illegal, anti-Federalist or un-Constitutional about traipsing to New York to run.
Keyes will have to eat his words or draw a distinction between his case and Hillary's that makes sense.
Where I come down is simply this:
Being an outsider is neither good nor bad, it depends on the reasons and circumstances for coming in. yelling 'carpetbagger' like its some automatic disqualifier is narrow-minded, petty, and wrong.
Now, I find Keyes' reasons and the situation more benign than Hillary, who it seems is paving her way to the White House and is ignoring the upstate new yorkers after giving them pre-election lip service. Here we have a plea for help from the illinois GOP, and I am glad they picked a high-profile candidate.
Voters can and will factor this into their vote, and it doesnt go beyond that unless election law is involved.
Note that in 2000, it was a non-issue for Hillary.
So are we to conclude that only Democrats can run non-resident-type races?
Hillary Clinton didn't break any rules either.
What's the difference?
Thank you very much; exactly what I've been saying for two days. Well, not exactly, but close enough.
In the meantime, it will help matters if, instead of all this parsing and spinning, Keyes supporters called for Keyes to explain himself.
A moral principle is a moral principle. Worse, this strikes straight at the heart of Keyes' suppsed greatest advantage, his integrity.
I remember something in Sunday School about "if you have to justify or rationalize something, it's almost certainly wrong."
The voters will defeat Keyes, badly. Does that prove ANYTHING about the principle here? It's freakin' amazing to me how so many Freepers will waive the constitution about ANY issue until it affects them in an election . . . then, suddenly, it's "out of date" or irrelevant.
I see you missed the ironic humor of my post.
Lighten up, Howlin. You'll live longer.
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.