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
Now you have raised harsh criticism of Alan Keyes to the level of 'conviction'.
Unbelievable.
"Harsh criticism"?
I posted quotes from his speeches.
That's to harsh criticism what discussing John Kerry's Senate voting record is to "attack ads".
You just go ahead with your pointless whining.
We'll go try and put Illinois in play.
Have fun.
Just saw my first Obama bumpersticker.
Want I should try and find you one?
When the debater insists on misrepresenting the issues, what's left other than to malign him?
If you honestly argued the issues I'd be happy to debate. I'm not seeing that here.
He DID NOT imitate it. HE was called upon by the Party to help it in its time of need. BIG difference to any objective observer.
Uh, nobody cares about your predictions swamy just the deceptive attack on Keyes.
Now you have gone from deception to outright LYING.
I thought there was a big tent. LOL.
That's your post, corect?
Here's the sequence of events on this thread, surrounding the issue that you continue to harp on in order to obscure the ones you will not address:
This issue began when a poster posted the following Keyes quote to me:
That was about two weeks before our nation was attacked on September 11th. Try something current.
"I am a conservative. I'm part of that group of conservatives in the party who is not altogether happy with G. W. Bush. I see lots of reasons to find fault with steps that he has taken in various areas, but I'll tell you one thing: I think it's time that everybody in this country understand that when we are faced with a threat to our very survival, we put aside other things and we focus on the fact that we have at the helm somebody who is--even if, let us say for a minute that Iraq was a mistake, as some people are trying to argue. I'd rather have a president who errs on the side of defending this country, and going after our enemies, than somebody like John Kerry who wants to sit on his butt and does nothing while Americans die. And I think that's the key issue here." -- Alan Keyeshttp://renewamerica.us/archives/media/interviews/04_03_30hannity.htm
As you could see if you actually opened your eyes, the poster boldened the portion of the quote that he thought significant, and that's what I read and commented on in my response to his post:
"I'd rather have a president who errs on the side of defending this country, and going after our enemies, than somebody like John Kerry who wants to sit on his butt and does nothing while Americans die."
err 
Listen: [ ûr, 
r ]
intr.v. erred, err·ing, errs
Obviously, in Alan Keyes mid, Bush made a mistake (erred) by going into Iraq.
My original statement stands; Keyes is critical of the war in Iraq.
Enter you!
And here's what you did:
That didn't sound quite right to me, so I googled the quote. And look what I found - the entire quote:
"Even if, let us say for a minute that Iraq was a mistake, as some people are trying to argue," he continued, "I'd rather have a president who errs on the side of defending this country, and going after our enemies, than somebody like John Kerry, who wants to sit on his butt and does nothing while Americans die. And I think that's the key issue here," said Alan Keyes.
You see, you took the quote out of context in an attempt to smear Keyes.
Seems a little dishonest to me...
You decided to ignore the portion of the quote that I had been directed to by the previous poster, and start a discussion on some OTHER boldened portion of the Keyes' quote, AND you refuse to discuss the main issues that I have with what Keyes has done...then you have the gumption to call me dishonest, while engaging in dishonest debating techniques yourself.
But then again, that's par for the course with you, isn't it?
You took the bolded portion and misrepresented its meaning. You weren't debating over it - you quite purposefully separated it from the remainder of the quote in an attempt to draw your own (mistaken) conclusion. Now, I allowed upthread for the fact that you may have done so out of incompetence rather than some malignant motive.
Whatever the reason, you'd do well to admit your mistake and move on. Your defense of the clearly indefensible is embarrassing to watch. But I'm not about to engage in a serious debate over a quote you purposefully took out of context.
Why you haven't is painfully obvious, lacking the ability to defend Keyes on some many other levels, you zoomed in on the one you could.
Making you look truly foolish here, but that's easy.
I told you what I did several posts back, and you have yet to move on.
Physician, heal thyself.
Pretty lazy, but that's fine. You admitted you were wrong about Keyes' level of support for the war, so I'm ready to move on.
I did?
Where?
I admitted that I should have read the entire quote prior to commenting on it...that's all.
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." -- Source
Implicit in your admission that you took Keyes' quote out of context, is an admission that Keyes support for the war is not what you purport it to be. Anything else would demonstrate a complete lack of logical consistency on your part, and I'm sure you don't want to make such a serious mistake for the second time on one thread.
I admitted that I should have read the entire quote prior to commenting on it...that's all.
Yes, you should have. But at least you've since come to your senses.
A black woman, and she may well be in a tiny minority, stated that she'd vote for Keyes. She was concerned about Obama's stand on same-sex marriage and that his background was Kenya. I didn't hear the rest of her comments.
Keyes should make this an interesting race. Since Rev. JJ is scared about Keyes makes me believe that he might have a chance. Keyes well might bring out the more conservative black voters.
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.