Posted on 08/17/2004 2:38:57 PM PDT by unspun
By The Leader-Chicago Bureau (admin@illinoisleader.com)
CHICAGO -- Republican U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes has just released a statement clarifying what appeared to be a surprising position he took at a news conference yesterday.
"I think a cogent argument could be made for reparations in principle," Keyes is quoted as saying to reporters yesterday, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
The Chicago Tribune expanded:
Keyes gave a brief tutorial on Roman history and said that in regard to reparations for slavery, the U.S. should do what the Romans did: "When a city had been devastated [in the Roman empire], for a certain length of time--a generation or two--they exempted the damaged city from taxation."Keyes proposed that for a generation or two, African-Americans of slave heritage should be exempted from federal taxes--federal because slavery "was an egregious failure on the part of the federal establishment."
The response from conservatives was immediate. "Who downstate will now vote for Keyes?" wrote IllinoisLeader.com reader Randall Mead of Springfield today. "I certainly won't."
This afternoon, Keyes released the following statement, clarifying his position:
I have consistently opposed the effort to extort monetary damages from the American people. As I have argued in the past, the great sacrifices involved in the Civil War represented the requital in blood and treasure for the terrible injustices involved in slavery. In this form the so called "reparations" movement represents an insult to the historic commitment that many Americans made to the end of slavery, which included the sacrifice of their lives.I have also consistently maintained that the history of slavery, racial segregation and discrimination did real damage to black Americans, left real and persistent material wounds in need of healing.
In various ways through the generations since the end of slavery, America has tried to address this objective fact, but without real success. This was at least in part the rational for many elements of the Great Society programs of the sixties, and for the original and proper concept of affirmative action developed under Republican leadership during the Nixon years.
Unfortunately, the government-dominated approaches of the Great Society, which purported to heal and repair the legacy of historical damage, actually widened and deepened the wounds. They undermined the moral foundations of the black community and seriously corrupted the family structure and the incentives to work, savings, investment, and business ownership.
The idea I have often put forward to address this challenge involves a traditionally Republican, conservative and market-oriented approach: removing the tax burden from the black community for a generation or two in order to encourage business ownership, create jobs and support the development of strong economic foundations for working families.
This has the advantage of letting people help themselves, rather then pouring money into government bureaucracies that displace and discourage their own efforts. It takes no money from other citizens, while righting the historic imbalance that results from the truth that black slaves toiled for generations at a tax rate that was effectively 100 percent.
I have also made it clear that while I believe that the descendants of slaves would be helped by this period of tax relief, my firm goal and ultimate objective is to replace the income tax, and thereby free all Americans from this insidious form of tax slavery. It is well known that this is one of the key priorities of the Keyes campaign.
In response to Keyes' statement, conservative Jack Roeser of Family Taxpayers Network told IllinoisLeader.com, "I expect Keyes would say this is one of those interesting subjects to be talked about among people sharing ideas. Reparations is an impractical concept. Everybody in every category has been wronged in one or the other, and you cannot single one out."
Roeser continued, "Keyes is a man of ideas, and I expect he gets into discussions like this that are proper in their proper place, but that he would never vote for reparations. The problem with American politics is that people don't get into deep discussions."
© 2004 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved
______What are your thoughts concerning the issues raised in this story? Write a letter to the editor at letters@illinoisleader.com and include your name and town.
I know -- and I wasn't pointing fingers --- but I think all of us started getting bored with just talking about carpetbaggers.
Let's stipulate that...
Affirmative action in college admissions, and job hiring must be OK with you, then.
Projection, but let's stipulate that.
As long as we kill jihadists, it's perfectly OK for the federal government to exempt an entire race of people from paying taxes, forever (you KNOW it would be forever, don't you?).
Slippery slope, but let's stipulate that.
Now my question: Assume all those things come to pass, do you doubt that there would be no better champion of the unborn in the Senate as a cost of those items?
Are 40 million aborted children worth the possibility of one senator never forgetting them? Is his vote which could break 60 votes to appoint judges who could play a role in remanding Roe V. Wade to the states worth it?
I submit that some so-called conservatives and Catholics are less concerned for the unborn and more concerned with pandering and the health of the state.
You have a bad case of selective amnesia.
"I am not a Bush Republican" -- Alan Keyes
So then, we get someone like, oh, I dunno, David Duke to pander to "many whites, especially in rural areas" who "think reparations is just around the corner", and he's "trying to get their attention"?
I can't think of a better formula for catastrophe.
This is just sheer lunacy. Someone deep in the dank interior of the DNC is laughing his ass off over this madness, thanking his lucky stars that the "G"OP has once again managed to shoot itself in the foot.
This idiocy rates right up there with Gerald Ford insisting that Poland was not under the heel of the Soviet Union -- and then "clarifying" it by repeating it and insisting that he meant what he said!
Why did Mike Ditka desert us?!!! Why?? Why?? Why?? Woe is us. Woe!! Woe!! Woe!!
Maybe we should let up a bit. On this one, we have an unfair advantage. I know, twisting the knife is fun, and I have been among the naughtiest at it (maybe the naughtiest of all). I feel a bit guilty about it, and agnostic WASPS don't do guilt, so it must be pretty "series."
So, in your world the ends justify the means. As long as we can overturn Roe V. Wade, any other injustice we have to suffer in pursuit of that is perfectly fine with you.
I submit that some so-called conservatives and Catholics are less concerned for the unborn and more concerned with pandering and the health of the state.
I submit that this is your version of the "F" word to those who disagree with you.
And it is beneath you.
"Actually, its not so bad. What's Obama gonna do? Come after Keyes condemning reparations? Heh."
You hit the nail directly on the head. I love it when someone is able to think politically and strategically, rather than react emotionally. Obama has just lost the ability to go after Keyes on reparations; whereas Keyes doesn't have to bring the subject up at all now. He said his piece, in a theoretical sense, whereas it will never happen, and he knows it, in a practical sense. Touche, Keyes!
Ok, BOY, a whole mess of things for you.
As for ten bucks, good effin luck.
Second, all my up to date poli sci seperates real politik into two words. I understand that its original usage was as one word. My understanding is that current usage is two words...but I am mature enought to recognize that difference is IRRELEVANT.
If your are such the real politik genius, explain how I am wrong in the usage. Compromise on one relatively minor thing to get other more valuable things. How do you use it, genius?
And democrats compromise (that real politik again) all the time....but they make 'good' real politik compromises that advance their their interest at the expense of our interests.
For instance, 'we'll let your non-controversial judges come to the floor for confirmation' (essentially worthless, nothing valuable given away) 'if you promise not to use the recess appointment process'(something very valuable). The democrats made a smart real politik compromise, and we lost. You are right that R's compromise all the time. The D's compromise too...but they give away much less, in real politik terms. In fact, the R's are so bad at real politik that you don't even rocognize the trifles they do give away.
They are kicking our real politik butts. And thinking like yours and sinkspur's is the reason why.
Sorry....I was using the accepted way to calculate a generation,which is 25 years.Of course,that WAS foolish of me and YOU Are correct! I was forgetting about the MILLIONMATH way of counting. Shame on me...that was an error.
Sure I'd vote for him. But I can't.
Reparations was never an issue. Anywhere.
I halfway wish they didn't invite Keyes so that way Keyes will not be blamed for the mess that the Illinois pubbies are. He will though which is sad, and I wonder if that's why he was invited.
I doubt it --- reparations was their issue --- and now Keyes came along and changed it into some kind of income tax issue, a tax relief --- something they abhor, something they won't want to talk about. And Keyes brought up reparations before Obama had a chance to bring it up.
one... they have not left it out.
two... yes, if he wants to run as a republican.
three, what makes you think he cares about the republican platform?
but of course he TRIED to get the pro choice libertarians to let him run for senator:
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.