Posted on 08/06/2004 3:55:06 PM PDT by Mini-14
|
| Keyes' supporters rallied in front of the Union League Club Wednesday afternoon to meet Alan Keyes as he arrived for an interview with the IL GOP. |
|
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS -- Republicans from all over the state are expected to converge in Arlington Heights this Sunday to see Ambassador Alan Keyes accept the State Central Committee's tap as their U.S. Senate candidate for the 2004 campaign.
A skeleton campaign staff is being put together now, and arrangement for Keyes to step into the wild world of Illinois politics is in motion.
"Supporters of Ambassador Keyes are encouraged to come to a rally Sunday afternoon at 2:00 PM at the Wellington Restaurant, 2121 South Arlington Heights Road in the northwestern suburb of Arlington Heights," the campaign said on Friday.
While the Chicago media has been speculating that Keyes will not accept the offer to challenge Democratic candidate Barack Obama for the U.S. Senate slot, IL GOP state central committeemen have been saying since Wednesday that Keyes is indeed coming, he only needed a few days to get his campaign staff lined up and get personal details in place before formally accepting the bid.
Editorials condemning the Republican party's choice of Keyes were prominent in Chicago papers on Friday, but Keyes supporters throughout the state say they are planning to welcome their candidate Sunday afternoon, the campaign said today.
One paper ridiculed the number of Keyes supporters that met him at the Union League Club on Wednesday, suggesting that few people support a Keyes' candidacy. Barack Obama has been met by crowds numbering in the hundreds since his national exposure at the Democratic National Convention last week.
But all that doesn't seem to faze those who encouraged Keyes to come to Illinois and run for U.S. Senate.
"The Republican base is energized with this candidacy," State Senator Dave Syverson, the member of the state central committee with the most weighted vote, said this week. "There's less than 90 days until the election. We're counting on the base now."
WHAT: Welcoming Rally for Ambassador Alan Keyes
WHERE: Wellington Restaurant, 2121 South Arlington Heights Road, Arlington Heights, IL
WHEN: Sunday, August 8, 2004 at 2:00 PM
Funny, I quote Keyes own words, and you call it a smear.
You're not perchance running John F'ing Kerry's campaign on the side, are you?
Are you running Obama's?
Right now, all we have is an article on a student newspaper, and your words claiming that the article is wrong.
Fine, provide the text to Keyes' remarks that the article was based on, or let me know how it is that you "know" that the article is wrong, and we can go from there.
Meanwhile, I will contact the newspaper, and challenge them to substantiate their claims.
There are lots of FReepers who have honest disagreements with Keyes' style, and with his characterization of George W. Bush's stem cell decision as "evil in leadership". I'm not going to forget that; it was uncalled for.
His tendency to criticize many of the very people he wants to vote for him and his condescension on moral matters turns a lot of us off.
He needs to be within 20 points of Obama or he likely won't get a debate.
If I were in Illinois, I'd vote for him, and I do wish him luck. But he hasn't a chance in hell.
You quoted a selected portion of his words that took the actual meaning out of context. Surely you don't think other folks are so stupid as to fall for your dishonesty on this thread, do you?
Let me adopt your tactic...I think you'd better explain why (in your own words) "I quote Keyes own words, and you call it a smear. You're not perchance running John F'ing Kerry's campaign on the side."
Your Keyes attribution is little different from mine. They're your words - just a bit "distorted". I even bolded them, since I intend for you only to see the bolded portion...
Keyes' position on the war in Iraq are clear from the extensive quotes that I posted on this thread, which you apparently have yet to read.
He says he is putting aside his other issues and supporting the president. Why? Because we are at war, and can't afford to fool around with Democrats sneaking into office by our party disunity.
I hope you believe in doing the same: putting aside differences for the good of our country.
I will be wearing the same black flowered dress and hot pink sandals that I wore to the Cook County Republican picnic last Sunday.
The following is from Keyes' web site http://www.declarationfoundation.org re his regard for the President's apology on the prison abuse matter. He has interesting commentary on the war on terror in general. If it comes up with Obama, he will likely be as eloquent.
May 20, 2004, 9:22 a.m.
W’s Apology
He was right. Some conservatives are wrong.
By Alan L. Keyes
I've been deeply troubled by the reaction of some fellow conservative leaders and commentators to the evidence of abusive behavior by a group of U.S. troops toward prisoners of war in Iraq. Some have said that they do not understand why President Bush apologized for this behavior. One, quoted in the Washington Post, "called the prisoners 'murderers, terrorists and insurgents,' many of whom have 'American blood on their hands.' And yet, he said incredulously, some people are troubled by how they were treated?" Such sentiments have apparently been applauded by some conservative leaders and echoed by some conservative talk-show hosts and commentators.
I do not share their views. I believe that they forget, or perhaps have never understood, the nature of the war on terror, and the special challenges that it presents for our nation. No doubt they all applauded when, in the wake of the September 11 attacks, President Bush issued to the world the stirring call to arms, not just against the individuals responsible for the attacks, but against all the forces of global terrorism. He made it clear that all people of decent conscience around the world should join in revulsion against the attacks, and in the effort to defeat and eliminate the scourge of terrorist warfare. The global nature of the war on terror was an important element of our justification for moving against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Because our war is against terrorism (and not just against a particular group of terrorists) it cannot be understood and conducted apart from an understanding of what constitutes the special evil of terrorism; it is that distinct understanding which allows us to demand justifiably that every people and nation join in the effort to eradicate it.
The terrorist kills people and destroys things. But the same is true of war in general. What makes terrorism different is that terrorist warfare aims at the destruction of innocent life. It attacks those who are not armed, and who form no part of the infrastructure that directly supports their enemies' war-making capability. Indeed, terrorism has as its peculiar strategic purpose the cold-blooded, ruthless destruction of innocent life, by means of which the terrorist aims to generate the general fear and confusion that attacks the will not only of his enemies' armed forces but of their whole society.
At its heart, therefore, the war against terror is a war in defense of the claims of innocent human life, and of the principle that even in war those claims must be respected to the extent humanly possible. Now, it is readily apparent that the term innocent life comprehends those who have done or are in a position to do no harm — including, under most circumstances, unarmed civilians, children and so forth. What many people forget, however, is that enemy combatants, once they have been disarmed and confined so as to pose no immediate threat, also fall into this category. They are innocent in the literal sense of the term (which comes from the Latin in-nocere, meaning harmless, or bereft of the ability to do harm). In any war we fight, enemy combatants are likely to have American blood on their hands. It was after all their mission to fight against our forces. Once they have been disarmed and imprisoned, however, it is their objective condition, not their past actions, that commands the respect that is due to their humanity, and to that of any human beings in a like condition of relative powerlessness.
Sometimes passions inflamed by the heat and horrors of combat impel soldiers to violate the principles that ought to govern their conduct. Even so, we Americans have traditionally reacted against battlefield atrocities, and we have held those responsible accountable for their actions. The cold-blooded, and even gleeful, abuse of confined and naked prisoners of war understandably sparks great public indignation. In the context of the war on terror, however, this reaction is not just sentimental. It reflects the fact that respect for the claims of innocent life is the principle at stake in the war, the principle that in fact distinguishes us from our enemy. If we blur or disregard this principle, then the moral distinction that allows us to identify and target the enemy will be lost. So will the credibility of our claim to act in a just cause that ought to command the respect and cooperation of all decent people and nations.
Where a moral distinction is essential to the integrity of our war effort, the moral confidence of the nation becomes a crucial strategic asset. Our sense of our own character and integrity, and that of our armed forces, becomes as much a part of our strategic reserve as our stockpiles of weapons and ammunition. The abuse of prisoners has caused rage throughout the Muslim world, doubtless recruiting new thousands to the ranks of those intent on killing our people. It provides new fodder to those seeking to undermine the allegiance and support of our international allies and supporters. It provides new opportunities for the voices of confusion and capitulation here at home. The greatest damage, however, lies in the shadow it casts over our own conscience, our own conviction, our own resolve. Americans need to believe that we are the good guys; that our sons and daughters risk and give their lives in a cause that can be justified in God's eyes, even as war, all war, must bring grief to His heart. Some may see this as naïve. I see it as evidence that we remain a people of conscience, despite all that our intellectual elites have done to corrupt our morals and our character.
The president was right to apologize to the victims of this abuse. It was not an apology offered in a spirit of guilty complicity, but from the spirit of those who are the defenders of innocent humanity to those whose helpless humanity was abused. We failed them and through the degraded antics of the troops responsible, we were ourselves humiliated. We must identify and punish the guilty, regardless of their rank. But more importantly we must take from this episode a new resolve to match deeds to words in the war against terror, defeating its evil manifestations both in the world at large and where necessary, in our own actions. In this war more perhaps than in any other we have known, victory begins at home.
— Alan Keyes, a former U.S. ambassador and GOP presidential candidate, is founder and chairman of the Declaration Foundation and chairman of Black America's Political Action Committee.
It's fair to say that Keyes has been a strong supporter of Bush's handling of the war, even more than even some conservatives. I guess some people around here didn't know that.
By the way, what's Obama's view of the war? Does anyone know?
I reposted an entire article posted in FR sometime ago, in included several quotes from Keyes, and I don't recall anyone disputing the quotes at that time.
So if you are now disputing the article, then something beyond later quotes from Keyes are called for here; I'll give the college sometime to respond and see if they can provide the text of Keyes' remarks.
But this doesn't change my mind about the potential damage to Keyes' career and most importantly, the potential damage to the conservative message that what I and several other people who are far, far more knowledgeable in the political arena than myself, find alarming.
On a personal level, I also find the fact that Keyes is doing the same thing that he was so critical of Hillary Clinton for doing not all that long ago, completely disgusting.
There are people in Illinois who worked long, hard hours to try and gain the nomination for candidates who came in second or even third place in the State's primaries who are probably outraged, and feeling betrayed by the State's GOP.
The potential losses here are mind boggling.
I would have voted not to authorize the president to go to war given the facts as I saw them at that time.Source: Meet The Press, NBC News Jul 25, 2004
http://ontheissues.org/International/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm
You make it sound as if Keyes is not a conservative.
I think it's statements like this from Keyes that make some people question his support of the administration:
KEYES: Well, I think one part of the problem — and we've come, unfortunately, to the end of the time we have for our discussion — but I think that one part of the problem, precisely, has to do with a failure to think through in a strategic sense the implications of our stated policy goals and desires. What I used to call when I was involved in all of this stuff, policies of wishful thinking that in point of fact are not a substitute for policies that are based on a careful assessment of the realities of the situation and the kind of tough decisions we have to take in order to take advantage of those realities to produce the result we want to see.That kind of coherence hasn't been there. And in part, I have to say, I know there are institutional stresses and strains and all this within every administration. But it is a president's job in the end to impress coherence on those kinds of stresses and strains. And it's going to have to be done if we're going to see a resolution of the confusion that I think is now being encouraged in U.S. policy.
There are more transcripts from the Making Sense show here.
Why don't you just shut your yap concerning all the negative comments about Alan Keyes? The GOP picked him as their candidate, and all Republicans ought to be rallying behind Keyes and hope that he beats Obama in the Senate race. Your harping on old speeches that Keyes gave is really pointless and detrimental to the conservative cause in Illinois. Be supportive, and support the Republican nominee for Illinois Senate. A Keyes victory in Illinois is also a victory for Team Bush, if you hadn't picked up on that yet.
What, and have someone like Jim Oberweis get a hold of the GOP nomination? Not in a million years, there is a reason why he was passed up for the Senate nomination even though he came in second place in the Republican primaries. Oberweis made the mistake of running for Illinois Senate strictly on a severe anti-immigration platform (which made him look bigoted against Mexican immigrants) and importing drugs from Canada. Oberweis must have forgotten that Illinois Republicans don't care two hoots about immigration and that the Democrats have already embraced buying drugs from Canada. Yeah, real smart strategy there.
Keyes will trounce Obama in an open debate and expose Obama's actual socialist views to the Illinois public.
If you were running Obama's campaign, why on Earth would you legitimize Keyes' candidacy by agreeing to a debate? After all, all that Obama has to do for the next 80+ days is raise the issue of Keyes' lack of connection with the people and issues of Illinois, and the legitimacy of his candidacy.
Because I don't have to.
What you've failed to pick up on is that the inevitable Keyes defeat, is a bigger defeat for the Bush team, and by the way, Keyes will not shoulder the responsibility for the loss, but will more than likely blame it on Bush.
By the way...ask me how I can tell that you're a Keyes supporter.
Words worth repeating. There is neither need nor call for argument now. What is done is done. The time is now for action. Why bother fighting with someone in FL? There's work to do!
Keyes supporters have one thing in common; they all support Keyes' criticism of the Bush administration, but can't handle other people being critical of Keyes.
Interesting observation, and I meant to get back to it yesterday, but didn't find the time.
If I was ever in fact a "well-respected name around here", it could have only been due to the fact that I spoke my mind freely, and stood firm on my convictions.
Now, you suggest that because I speak my mind freely, and stand firm on my convictions, I am becoming less well-respected around here.
I suggest that the change is in you, and not in me; I'm still doing the same thing.
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.