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
COLMES: You've got a very energized populace now, as seen by the number of people. More than most years have turned out for these primaries. You also have places where the president is vulnerable. We see the Taliban is now regrouping in Afghanistan. We have seen warlords regrouping in Afghanistan. There is still great debate in this country about whether going to Iraq diverted attention away from where we should have been focused--Osama Bin Laden is still at large, and the idea that intelligence reports and David Kay's message is that, what we were told was the reason for going has not panned out. That's not sitting well thus far with the American people, Alan.KEYES: Frankly, I think that it's not sitting well, and I think that we need to look into it--but that's a question of the competence and professionalism of our intelligence community and the national security apparatus, in terms of the information they gave to the president. It's not a question about the soundness of the judgment he made based on that intelligence.
It would have been irresponsible in him not to act against a threat that was outlined in the intelligence estimates that he had.
And that's part of the problem here. The Democrats talk as if they would have faced that situation and not made the same decision based on the intelligence he had. How can you trust them, then, when they won't do what is preemptively necessary to keep the terrorists from getting weapons of mass destruction?
http://renewamerica.us/archives/media/interviews/04_02_04hc.htm
COLMES: We continue with Alan Keyes. Ambassador Keyes, as a fiscal conservative, as a true conservative yourself, do you have some problems with the spending of this administration?KEYES: Oh, I sure do--and I wouldn't want to give the impression that I don't have other problems with this administration on some areas where I think that the president has fallen short of the kinds of things that I really think are needed in some areas.
But I also wouldn't want to give the impression that I think that anything can be more decisive for the American people right now than the question of our national survival in the face of the most insidious threat this nation has ever faced.
In the face of that, I think a lot of us are going to be putting our other issues behind those issues that have to do with the survival of this nation in wartime.
COLMES: Are you saying there's only one issue in this campaign, that other issues don't matter? Because, if you look at what the American people are saying, a lot of issues do matter, and to many conservatives, the president's not measuring up on those issues.
KEYES: Well, see, I think that the one problem--and the media, I think, is looking at all these other things because they've got to have stories. When people get into that voting booth and confront the reality of our situation, as we have had to confront it now since the terrible events in 2001, I think a lot of people are going to find that they are reminded of who they are and how they felt at that moment when we confronted the abyss and knew that we had to measure up. That is still our situation, and when they finally get to the voting booth, I think that's going to be the one that decides their minds.
http://renewamerica.us/archives/media/interviews/04_02_04hc.htm
HANNITY: Ambassador, I couldn't agree with you more. You know what I find amazing--and I guess this is all part of this political process--is the very same liberals who lead the charge to cut defense, who attacked the intelligence community, render it impotent in the 1990's the way they did, the ones that gave us the worst deal imaginable under Clinton in North Korea, didn't finish the job with Saddam, oh, and passed on Osama, are now lecturing the administration on how to deal with defense issues. It's somewhat humorous, if it weren't so scary.KEYES: If it weren't so serious, it might be funny--but it is very serious. And I think that when you look back on that record, when you look back, to be quite frank about it, there has been a record of hostility, not to say contempt, for the requirements of our national security, for the military and what's involved in sustaining it--especially, by the way, for our national intelligence apparatus, where they seem to be more afraid of rogue American actions than they were of the rogues who are trying to kill and destroy us.
And I think that this is all going to come out in the wash during the election campaign.
HANNITY: I'm confident, as well--and I love the fact that we're having two very distinct visions, which is what I said initially to you, that this will come down to two questions: one, will you, John Kerry, continue the War on Terror, track down terrorists where they are, or not? Do you think the American people are overtaxed or undertaxed? Should we extend the deadline for taxes?
But one of the things--I take heart in the fact that they're out there saying the president's AWOL, that he started a war for political benefit, that we're not better off with[out] Saddam. Doesn't it show they're desperate?
KEYES: Well, I think that it shows that they don't have much of a grasp of the real situation if they think this election's going to be decided on the basis of base personal attacks, and that sort of thing. They have got to get out there and begin to articulate concerns that will strike at the heart of the real issues and dangers the country faces. They are not doing it right now, and that's why I think they'll fail.
http://renewamerica.us/archives/media/interviews/04_02_04hc.htm
"He would have won if only Karl Rove had done more for him."
Anthony Newly.
I can hear the howling from the FR fans now.
HANNITY: Have you been following this Paul O'Neill controversy at all?KEYES: I have. I think that that's an area where, if you examine it, the question of what was the rationale for our involvement with Iraq, I think there was only one, and that is the national security rationale--the tie with terrorism, the weapons of mass destruction. I think there's some honest questions about whether the president got really good intelligence and advice about that, and they still remain open questions. But we're also in a situation where, given what he was being told, he had no option but to act.
If he had sat on his hands in the face of the possibility that there were weapons of mass destruction that could be funneled to these terrorists, and one of our cities had faced this kind of threat, and tens of thousands of people had died, who would people have blamed? They would have blamed him for his inaction.
And so, I think the folks who are trying to criticize now in hindsight are doing something that's totally unjustifiable.
http://renewamerica.us/archives/media/interviews/04_01_13hannity.htm
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...
I also wonder about "conservatives" who believe Dr. Keyes should not be running since he does not currently live in Illinois. Why should THEY have a problem with it when the Founders obviously did not since they allowed it in the constitution. I will stick with the Founders.
Go Keyes.
Nothing personal against Luis, but he has been proven to be incorrect, by that quote and the others above.
I think Luis is a decent guy. He just needs to keep more informed before making accusations.
Only to the simple minded.
I've seen similar lunacy on threads regarding Pat Toomey and Tom McClintock. Conservatism seems to drive folks like Luis to distraction; they respond with bizarre tactics such as his decision to deliberately misquote Keyes here.
I'll tell you what's truly dishonest:
"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." Alan Keyes, Fox News, March 17, 2000
The quote I commented on came from post #36.
Yes, I know some Freepers reserve more vitriol for conservatives than they do for Democrats. Makes you wonder about trolls, moles, and plants. But I think some of them are old-school Nixon Republicans who don't like strong conservatives.
With Luis, he is going by an article he read over a year ago with the headline: "Keyes criticizes justification for war, limits on freedom," and concluded that, based on this, "Keyes is highly critical of the war in Iraq." He therefore dismisses all rebuttals to that conclusion.
Turns out, the article he found was from a student newspaper, with few actual quotes. Most of it is the student paper's own words, with paraphrases of what they thought Keyes was saying.
I can't fault Luis for believing the headline article, but it is inaccurate, and a person who has kept informed would know it.
So, maybe it's an honest mistake by Luis.
You certainly appear hellbent on damaging Keyes. I couldn't care less what Keyes had to say about Hillary.
That's an obvious falsehood; had you included the remainder of the quote it would be obvious that Keyes was defending Bush.
You feeling alright? I'm not sure why you'd resort to such obvious (and easily disproven) tactics to make a point.
I'll allow that it could be a lack of competence as opposed to any particular agenda, but he seems pretty determined to smear Keyes on this thread.
I know you wouldn't want to give the impression that you don't have problems with Alan Keyes, but given the times we live in, you should support the GOP Senate nominee in Illinois. We can't afford to lose any Republican-held Senate seats, particularly to flaming liberals like Obama.
I zoomed in on the part of the quote highlighted (obviously the part that I was supposed to see) and commented on that.
I feel just fine, thank you very much.
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.