Posted on 09/02/2004 1:57:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Nothing (well almost nothing) would please me more than seeing Alan Keyes win a seat in the U.S. Senate!
Why?
And despite his remarks on reparations or affirmative action, I would be extremely happy and take great pleasure in seeing Alan Keyes defeat Barack Obama. I believe whole heartedly that unlike Obama, Senator Keyes would preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America to the utmost of his ability and would dedicate himself to working with all of us in securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, and if that makes me a selfish hedonist, then so be it.
I challenge anyone here to put up a detailed list of the reasons why you believe Barack Obama would be better for America in the Senate than Alan Keyes.
Probably not a great button to push. But I don't think we should condemn him for bringing it up. And I definitely do not believe we should give Obama a free ride into the Senate.
Is that in the Constitution?
She's with us 99% of the time, even on abortion votes. The times she's against us, it never is the deciding vote. Staying home or voting for her opponent is insanity.
LOL
All true (except the delight part for me ;*) ) but if the desire was to win votes and have a chance of beating Obama, Keyes should have left his hands off his "own" and not embraced the Dem/lib ideas of reparations and affirmative action.
If it were any other person, I think we would call him a bit of a turncoat. No???
What it does is push fence-sitting voters over the line -- to the Democrats. There are a lot of rational people out there who just can't swallow the obnoxious stuff that Keyes dishes out, and when someone like that gets elected as a Republican, and embraced by Republicans, the forces pushing the always-vote-Democrat-'cause-Republicans-are-a-bunch-of-troglodytes line have more ammo in their arsenal.
A huge number of American voters have a friend, relative, or co-worker who is gay and not deserving of dismissal as a "selfish hedonist", and they are very reasonably irked by that sort of hostile, blanket statement. Was Father Mychal Judge, who lost his life trying to minister to those injured and dying in the WTC attack a "selfish hedonist"? These voters hear "Republican" Keyes mouthing of like this, and it definitely impacts their overall voting behavior.
And Keyes' reparations nonsense makes me seriously wonder whether he really does grasp basic conservative political concepts. He seems to have political principles which are easily and impulsively overridden every time an issue comes up that he feels especially emotional about.
There's something to be said for teaching political parties a lesson when they field candidates with wacko tendencies. I voted for the Democratic candidate for my state legislature representive, since the incumbent Republican (Wallis Brooks) was showering me and the rest of the district with gun-grabbing propaganda and promises. She got voted out of office, and the state Republican party and other potential Republican candidates no doubt took notice. I'm sure we'll get a better candidate next time. Believe me, I don't like helping the corrupt Pennsylvania Democratic machine in any way, but it was a necessary step towards a more important longer term goal.
I disagree. It is a non starter as you said, which means it doesn't matter. What's Obama supposed to do, come out and say that he is against it? I think Keyes put him on the spot. jmo
Hey, what about me, Willrain? Don't I get a "difficulty with reality" award for my post #145 ? Please :o)
Hi, there :o) Did you check your mail?
Well, apparently Keyes wants a debate on the issue. I have no problem allowing the debate.
It's in the "Penumbras and Emanations" clause, just after the "God does not exist, and may not be invoked" clause :o)
We'll see what happens.
Exactly.
Now that Keyes is the nominee, albeit an imperfect one, I really don't see what supposedly Republican or conservative folks have a problem with - especially against a lefty Rat like Obama!
Well, actually, I suspect I do.
Obnoxious loud-mouths like Keyes give Republicans a bad name, and invariably push a lot of fence-sitting voters over to the Democratic side in races across the nation. We do want Bush, and not Kerry, naming the judges the Senate will be voting on, right?
Fortunately, I think Bush is pretty safe at this point, since the Kerry campaign seems to be imploding (but it ain't over 'til its over, and another major terrorist attack on U.S soil, and resulting stock market slump, could still flip the balance). But it's a dangerous business, giving Keyes and his ilk a free pass on outrageous statements that garner national negative attention under the Republican banner.
This is an excellent point and I totally agree !!!!!
Thank goodness. I thought I was the only one who felt this way.
It's pretty stupid of you to call Keyes stupid. He might be many things, but one thing he's not is stupid.
That's why I am sending him a hundred bucks tomorrow.
And as far as 1994 goes, I think this is going to be much bigger. I think it is going to be the equivalent of a political tectonic plate shift.
You gotta remember, the Clintons engineered the Kerry candidacy specifically to give Hillary a clear field for 2008. They knew Kerry was unelectable. Think about it. A backlash from Viet Nam veterans was inevitable.
The only problem is, I think the Clintons underestimated just how big the backlash would be, and just how much it would put them in the hole for 2008.
Sounds good to me. Just one question though. Which camp would I go to, the one for gun-nuts or the one for wimmin haters?
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.