Posted on 02/16/2002 10:22:38 AM PST by edmundburk
Andrew Sullivan-hating Michelangelo Signorile, who for some reason gets to write frontpage stories for the right-leaning New York Press, falls into the condescending liberal trap when discussing Alan Keyes talk show, using the A-word to describe an intelligent black man. First it was Clarence Thomas, now it's Keyes:
Keyes, who has twice run in Republican presidential primaries, each night unfurls a smorgasbord of ideological, far-right ideas. He’s a lot smarter than Pat Robertson, and a lot more articulate than Jerry Falwell.
In other words, he talks good for someone of that color!
People for the American Way did this to back in 1999 while covering a Keyes speech at CPAC for their handwringing Right Wing Watch column.
At least the liberals can't help but praise Keyes, albeit in a backhanded way.
Alan Keyes is articulate.
Somebody get this person a bible.
So where are all the armies of leftist talk show hosts? The feminists? The gays? The blacks who, unlike Alan Keyes, are not right-wing extremists (and no, Oprah doesn't count as a political show)? Where are all the people that Bernard Goldberg appears to be talking about in Bias?
Where are they? They are hiding! Why are they hiding? Because when they show up on talk shows, any halfway articulate conservative chops them up that's why! They prefer to spew their liberal ideology in the absence of any cross-examination.
That's true of many liberals. They often avoid direct confrontations with articulate opponents. Of course, the same can be said in spades for Rush Limbaugh. Totally gutless.
Alan Keyes, though, always seems to relish in going toe-to-toe with proponents of opposing views. That's one of the reasons I admire him as much as I do.
What planet do you live on? I listen to Rush most days for about 20 minutes or so at noon. He takes calls from liberals and let's them have their say. Then he gives his rebuttal. And chops them up.
Rush Limbaugh is a valuable spokesman for the conservative cause, but between endless monologues and screened calls, he is in no danger of receiving a Purple Heart. He does what he does well, but there is no risk of him being embarassed.
In fact, he has always insisted that the major purpose of the show is "to make the host look good." While it's true that there are occasional liberal callers placed on the air, they are invariably witless shills that have been selected because their argument is one for which Rush has prepared an effective response.
Rush's show is just a show. It's more like an infomercial, and while that does not detract from its value, Keyes should be recognized for having the guts to engage in the kind of hand-to-hand combat that Limbaugh avoids.
Alan is articulate, but he is also distinguished by offering well-grounded arguments. That more than the mere ability to articulate is what distinguishes him from some of the articulate "Liberals" in his race.
The fact that you disagree with him on one point, is no reason to imply some form of "put down." (I will not inquire what "a word" you have in mind, because it is beside the real point.) I do not agree with Alan on all issues, but I voted for him in the Ohio Presidential Primary in 2000, because he and I clearly agreed on more issues than would have been the case with any of the other Republican candidates at the time.
Personally, I am also uncomfortable with applying the general policy against abortion to the case of forcible rape. But there are actually very few pregnancies that result from such. (The mutual willing participation, where the woman is aroused, is far more apt to result in a pregnancy.) And, I believe, that it is still the case, that hospitals' clean up procedures for a woman who has just been raped, would in many instances terminate a conception taking place.
But be that all as it may be. You cannot fault Alan Keyes for being more consistent than most people on what is to him the towering moral issue of our time. We need the Alan Keyes of this world, just as we need those who would make the exception that you imply.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
In the second place, studies have shown that raped women who have abortions generally feel even worse about their experience than raped women who bring their babies to term and, if their circumstances dictate it, give them up for adoption. In fact post-abortion depression is extremely common, and many women never recover mentally from the experience.
I have a clue for you. The baby wasn't the rapist.
OK, YOU wouldn't. You would have a "doctor" do the murder.
We decided that if anything like this happened to me, I would carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption, this way making a horrible assault have a positive outcome. We need to shift our view of pregnancy from that of a burden and nuisance in this culture to that of a wonderful new life.
Counseling any woman who has been raped in this manner might do much to heal her sense of shame and humiliation, rather than make her feel that she has to compound her original horror with another one...
This taking of an innocent life, in my opinion, can only make the woman's recovery process even more difficult, but while I feel I have the right to express that view, and encourage others to see it the same way, I do not feel I have the right to impose my view on others who feel differently.
Keyes, who has twice run in Republican presidential primaries, each night unfurls a smorgasbord of ideological, far-right ideas. He’s a lot smarter than Pat Robertson, and a lot more articulate than Jerry Falwell.In other words, he talks good for someone of that color!
This totally misrepresents the original article, which is an attempt to discredit Bernard Goldberg's book Bias.
What the author is saying in this sentence, if anything, is that Dr. Keyes is smarter & more articulate than the average Christian conservative - not that he "talks good for someone of that color".
Most of the article is pointing to various conservatives on TV in an attempt to discredit Bernard Goldberg, however.
He seems to think Chris 'Goldilocks' Matthews is a conservative!
Boy, we know where he is coming from!
Of course the bible only mentions homosexuality once if you disregard all the times it mentions a man lying with another man and women lying with women. Yes if you ignore all those references than it is true there is nary a word.
I hate to admit it, but Mr. Signorile is correct here. Jesus himself, in his words recorded in the Gospels, does not mention homosexuality. Of course, as a pious Jew, he supported its condemnation in the Law.
And his followers, such as Paul and John, later unambiguously condemned the practice. But Jesus himself didn’t say anything recorded about it.
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.