Arnold's corruption of Republican Party

World Net Daily ^ | 10/6/2003 | ALAN KEYES

[BlackElk]

Nothing particularly different from what Arnie or Doofus would do. Cruz or Doofus will keep the blame where it belongs on the Demonrats. Arnie would shift the burden to the GOP.

I simply do not share this overdone demonization of Bustamante which seems to consume so many. Is he a leftwing jerk? Yes. So are Doofus and Arnie and Wilson and Buffett and RFK, Jr., and Rob Lowe and.......

[sd-joe]

You really don't have a good feel for the state of public sentiment in CA.

You play down the effect of taxes: "a few temporary votes from the narrow slice of Demonrats who are now worried about taxes" You have got to be kidding me. There is a huge segment of Demonrats that are incredibly worried about taxes. The tripling of the car tax has hit all the little guys, not just the fat cats.

I know that you have a blind rage concentration on the moral issues, but that is not reflected in the CA electorate, because they do not see Arnie as a threat. He may or may not be a threat, but he is not seen as a threat by the average guy on the street.

Of course "Latinos ... do not want their grandchildren aborted". You make it sound like the Arnold Govt is going to come in and force abortions on them. Actually, even in CA those Latinos would have to decide to get an abortion themselves.

You believe that Arnold is a puppet for Wilson. I think that Arnold is his own man and is using the advice of many people across the political spectrum. I did not like a lot of Wilson's policies, but he WAS an effective campaigner. He was able to get the job done on winning elections. Utilizing him in this capacity is a smart move for Arnold.

[sd-joe]

>> "I simply do not share this overdone demonization of Bustamante" <<

You have no clue. Your comparisons are insane.

[outlawcam]

George W. Bush ran for Congress in 1977, long before anybody even heard of Alan Keyes.

That doesn't exactly put him "in the limelight," now does it?

As for Keyes' saying good things about Bush, you'll have to point some out to me.

Keyes has said Bush is a likeable fellow on several occasions, but I didn't say Keyes said "good" things about Bush, but that Keyes supported the war in Iraq. Where did you get "good?" You certainly couldn't have been addressing anything I said. In any case, measured criticism, even above and beyond what you quoted, does not equate to "bashing." If it did, then I could cite as "praise" the quote posted earlier on this thread, where Keyes told an interviewer that he would support Bush for the 2004 election. In both cases, there is a big difference.

Serious question: At what point is one allowed to criticize someone's actions without being labled a "basher?"

[Howlin]

That doesn't exactly put him "in the limelight," now does it?

It certainly puts him in more of the limelight than Alan Keyes. And for almost his entire life.

Thinking about this last night, it occured to me that the only time we're discussing Keyes is when we are disagreeing over some remark HE has made about George W. Bush.

You need to ask yourself why it is that the only time Keyes gains the national spotlight is when he has said something controversial about Bush and/or the GOP.

Can you name a time that either George W. Bush or the RNC has said anything degrading or controversial about Alan Keyes?

[zook]

I'm saying that, for example, a mainstream Democrat will view another Democrat who's anti-partial birth abortion as relatively conservative, and that the mainstream Democrat can thus make the argument that electing such politicians will surely lead to the downfall of the Dem. Party.

But there's no evidence to suggest this is true.

[outlawcam]

It certainly puts him in more of the limelight than Alan Keyes. And for almost his entire life.

But that doesn't exactly make your point, does it?

Now, I'm not an expert on logic. I know enough to realize there is a lot I don't know. However, when I observe that Keyes has been politically active since before Bush was ever in the limelight, you said he ran for Congress in 1977. Was Keyes using Bush when he stood up for Jean Kilpatrick and liberty in America at the U.N.? Was Keyes using Bush when he ran for the Senate in Maryland twice? When he ran for President (twice)? When he has consistently and persistently spoke out for the unborn? The answer to all questions is obviously no. Bush had nothing to do with any of those decisions, and I think you know that. Yes, Bush also ran for President in 2000, but that had no bearing, as far as I can tell or you can prove, on Keyes' decision to run. So why are you trying to change the subject? That isn't one of your strongest points. Just so I'm clear: You do have some valid points. Presentation and perception are significant portions of politics. And, like you deem Keyes, I'm certain you would consider me a political failure because I have not achieved the level of political success that Bush has, OR because I have not been able to effectively present my arguments in a way that convinces you of what I believe. That is the way things go.

That said, I'm going to offer you some unsolicited constructive criticism. Contrary to what you may think, this is NOT a personal attack. You may, of course, disregard it for whatever reason you deem appropriate, but I've noticed a pattern, which until now I have not been able to identify.

You are consistently guilty of committing fallacies in logic. More often than not, I've observed you change the subject. You do this by either 1. Attacking the person, 2. considering Style over Substance, or 3. Appeal to (dubious) authority (such as when authorities or "experts" disagree). There are a host of others, as well, but to help in this matter, I recommend a wonderful text that you can find at http://www.atomicdog.com. It is called Introduction to Logic: Evaluating Arguments. It is a good book, and the online version is terrific (Multimedia rocks). Whether or not you agree with my assessment of your arguments, you should consider this book. At the least, it will, perhaps, help you to answer my objections to your opinions, because my understanding of the content of that book, regardless of how flawed you may think it is, is the basis of most of my analyses.

Because I understand how sensitive people can get when they are criticized (no matter the spirit in which it was offered), please feel free to lay one on me. I've got thick skin, so please don't hold back. Then, if you wish, we can get back on topic.

[kellynla]

"Keys is now and always has been a self-promoting ass hole. When I want his advice, I'll ask for it, but he shouldn't wait for me to call any time soon." funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you...BTW...you might try cleaning up your potty mouth...for someone who claims to be "educated", your profanity doesn't confirm it. Also the correct spelling is "Keyes"...

[outlawcam]

But there's no evidence to suggest this is true.

Thank you for clarifying. I will also add that being against partial-birth abortion doesn't make one conservative. That, I think, is why having a few members who oppose the horrific procedure will not substantially harm the Democratic Party. There is very little logical difference between the two positions. The first group, which believes abortion is okay until the baby is completely out of the womb, think the right to life comes from a woman's choice. The second group, which generally supports "the right to choose" except when the baby is, in their estimation "viable," thinks the right to life comes from them, or a majority.

[Howlin]

Gee, do you plan to test me after I do all that? You see, there's your and Keyes' problem right there. You talk it to death, and then insinuate that the person you're "discussing" something with needs to be "educated" because they aren't capable of understanding the English language -- or what Keyes means.

And no, Keyes wasn't "using" Bush back then, which makes my point. Nobody knew who he was back then. He was just another government worker. He may have been active in politics, like most of always have been, but lately, the only time he makes the news is when he criticizes Bush.

One of your problems is that you assume this is a debating society, with people scoring points. It's not; it's politics; rough and tumble, you know? You simply cannot LOGICALLY win.

As for your opinion of me and the "requirements" you set forth for my edification, you may think I'm obtuse; you may well think I'm a "lightweight;" you may think I'm not a "real conservative;" but, as I have said numerous times before, I'm happy in the company I'm in -- and I'm happy that most of us share the same opinions, goals, and reasonableness and acceptance of things that go on in the real world and willingness to work to better this country; I'm especially happy about how the majority of folks around here feel about Bush and Keyes. We're working FOR something, not against everything.

Your ideas are just that -- ideas -- and you've never been required to put them into action, since Keyes has never had an elected office. I can see how, sitting on the sidelines, it might be easier to just pontificate on "how it should be done." Those who actually get elected by a majority of people and take office have to live in the real world.

I'll quote again what somebody said about Keyes people:

"And, obediently, his army follows, tearing down instead of building up, dividing instead of joining forces, evidently delighting in being purer-than-thou rather than in actually moving the ball forward and doing something to roll back the culture of death."


Since by now it should be quite obvious to you that I do not like Alan Keyes, nor his tactics, and since it's obvious from your last post to me that you consider me incapable of carrying on an "intelligent" debate -- and since, regardless of what anyone may think, Alan Keyes is irrelevant -- let's just agree NOT to discuss this anymore.

BTW, I'm not so dumb that I don't realize that you weren't able to quote one time when either George W. Bush or the RNC has spoken ill of Alan Keyes. Too bad the same can't be said of Alan Keyes.


Let's just give it a rest; you can comfort yourself knowing you've enlightened me, however "unsubstantive" I may be.

[pollywog]

Great article. I am heading out to vote for MCCLINTOCK right now, and happily announce that several family members have come over into our camp in the past 48 hours!!!!

[strela]

German is my first language.

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

[kellynla]

Thank you for your courage, support and VOTE for the only true blue dyed-in-the-wool conservative on the ballot, TOM MCCLINTOCK! "If you wouldn't allow Arnold to take your daughter out on a date, why on earth would you vote for Arnold to be governor of your state!" VOTE4MCCLINTOCK! or pay the con$equence$! http://www.helptom.com

[strela]

I am dissing Arnold ...

And I'm watching quite a few of your posts get nuked by the Admin Mod. Wonder why?

[hosepipe]

[ I hear Home Depot is having a sale on cement... ]

SHAZZZAMMMMM.!.. really, you're not foolin.?
Goooollllyyy...

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Bravo post #790. So well said, Howlin.

[outlawcam]

Well Howlin, I was hoping you and I could have a nice, amiable discussion. I didn't mean to offend you, but was trying to offer some friendly constructive criticism, because we weren't getting anywhere productive. I'm not sure what to make of it that you take offense to that, but I don't have to understand it; I just need to accept it.

I didn't answer your question, incidently, because it was beside the point. I have plenty of criticisms of President Bush that have nothing to do with Keyes or anything I have heard him say, so I'm not sure what you are getting at. Why does it matter? You are, again, changing the subject, which draws the discussion, again, to my previous post.

Also, when you say, "the only time he makes the news is when he criticizes Bush," and call Keyes "irrelavent," this is demonstrably not true. In fact, this article does not deal with Bush, yet Keyes has been the subject for --what-- nearly 800 posts? Some people, though they claim otherwise, still find him relevant. There is a disparity between what some say and what they do.

you consider me incapable of carrying on an "intelligent" debate

Not true. I believe you are capable. Otherwise I wouldn't even bother to engage. But have it as you want it. Whether or not we can agree on Keyes' relevance, we CAN agree that, to you and a nearly unanimous majority of FReepers here, I am irrelevant. You need not humor me, and I need not humor you. I wish you the best of blessings, and with the way things are going in this country, I likewise hope you are right. Unfortunately, though, hoping doesn't make it so.

[Howlin]

[outlawcam]

Well, technically you can, but it wouldn't do you any good. :)

And my brother tells me I'm argumentative, to which I reply, "Am not!"

[My2Cents]

Keyes does not expect to "appeal" to the etc. He bears witness to the Truth

So, Keyes is a prophet of the Old Testament mold. If he intends to be someone who tells it like he sees it, who doesn't care what people think of him as a spokesman for his views, who is content to put his oar in the water ever election and garner 3% of the vote, then who can complain about him. But I've concluded that in terms of presenting a compelling message, the messenger is just as important as the message. Keyes' message may be the truth, as you say, but it's often hard to hear it because his tone is like fingernails on a blackboard.