Replies

I have a few questions that I believe should also be asked.

1. Since Alan seems to be able to choose what state to represent in the Senate, wouldn't it be wiser to pick one where his odds are better?

2. Has experience not shown Keyes that politics is a game of give and take and if one SINCERELY wants to be elected, he has to get along with others? (And I do not mean compromising principles)

3. Has anyone on FR suggested that Obama would be the better pick?

4. Is there an expectation here to accept everything Alan Keyes says and does because he is Alan Keyes?

1) I don't think he was looking for a state to run in, I believe the Illinois Republican Party chose him.

2) Guess he doesn't believe in going along to get along.

3) I don't know if anyone has actually said they'd rather support Obama over Keyes, but the words and deeds of some on FR demonstrate that they wouldn't mind and actually might think it's a good thing for Keyes losing to Obama.

4) I believe Keyes. It's a personal thing. You are entitled to your own opinion, but I'd rather not have a gang fight on every Keyes thread on this forum. Eating our own is not a conservative position.

Here's my shot at it:

1. Keyes didn't "pick" a state to represent. He was invited by the IL GOP.

2. When you say "And I do not mean compromising principles", what does that mean exactly? Maybe if an example were attached to it...

3. I've seen at least a few people on FR say they'd vote for Obama. I remember at least a few people saying they'd vote third party.

4. No, why would there be? But I think his critics' reasons for opposing him are focused far too much on disliking his personality rather than anything really substantial (issues-oriented).

1. The Illinois GOP invited him to run after they had so badly screwed up with their original candidate, and were unable to get Mike Ditka to run. Keyes was not cherry-picking a state to run in. He accepted their offer after learning that Barack Obama SUPPORTS MURDERING CHILDREN WHO HAVE BEEN BORN ALIVE AFTER BOTCHED ABORTIONS.

2. Get along with what others? The media? Because he's strongly supporting Bush for President. He's not the one breaking the 11th commandment, but a lot of Freepers are.

I have a question for you. As a Freeper and presumably a conservative, hasn't experience taught you not to trust the media? I understand other people may be decieved by the media's spin (for example, media outlets including FoxNews saying Keyes called Mary Cheney a "sinner" when there is no evidence he ever did), but shouldn't Freepers know better than to trust the Wolf Blitzers of the world? Why is it that, as long as it is critical of Alan Keyes, certain people on this forum will lap up anything the media says?

3. Why yes, at least two on this very thread. Dave S and GovernmentShrinker come to mind, right off the top of my head. This in spite of the fact that Barack Obama thinks it is okay to kill infants after they have been born. The fact that he is pro-abortion is bad enough, but this? How can any conservative support this monster?

Also, there are a lot of people on Freerepublic who say things like "I don't disagree with what he said but". They pick at him and pick at him, and some tear him apart, every day. They hate the man and everything he says. I think it's a personality conflict. However, their sustained hatred of Keyes and their lack of ANY CRITICISMS OF BABY-KILLER OBAMA indicate that they'd support Obama over a man they seem to hate so much, although they don't have the courage to say it.

4. No, I think people are allowed to disagree with Keyes. But I think a lot of this vitriol is payback for Keyes and his supporters' earlier criticisms of Bush. It's one thing to criticize Keyes, but quite another to tear him apart at every opportunity, no matter what. I don't see why that should be allowed to happen to a fellow conservative. The moderators don't let people do it to Bush, so they don't let it happen to Keyes.