Posted on 08/04/2004 6:13:51 PM PDT by tame
It's official! Yahoo!
A good example of "evil" in a sentence: Partial Birth Abortion is...evil.
Goodness, Luis, I cannot believe you are actually debating with me the fact that there are evil leftists. Please spare me the PC stuff re: the word "evil".
We don't have to be fair to EVIL.
And the DEAD and the illegals and the moved vote in Chicago.
That's okay,then, :-)
I'm still unclear on the distinction. Political ideology usually is, or should be, based on certain principles.
Around here, that only seems to apply to moderate or liberal Republicans.
Conservatives are fair game. Or so it seems.
I will be happy to vote for him. Will be a fun one to watch. Even the Fitzgerald/Braun race was close, which is hard to believe considering her performance.
This is the old Paul Simon seat that no one has settled into yet. Maybe Keyes will split the Chicago vote a little and slip in. Maybe not.
It will be a barnburner.
=8-O
Keyes is handicapped by his late start and lack of campaign organization and residence in Illinois, but he is energetic and an extraordinary speaker who will take Baraka on directly without the hesitation and apology that would hinder a white Republican candidate. As the Republican nominee, Keyes neutralizes race as an issue and reframes the choice as liberal vs. conservative. Keyes is such a wild card that a victory is plausible even if highly unlikely. Watch for Keyes and Baraka to generate some of the best political oratory of the season.
First of all, cash from the national parties is never about qualifications, and always about polls. It sometimes appears the other way around because states and districts that don't get funded don't attract good candidates.
Secondly, this race would not have been a cakewalk for Fitzgerald. Had he been running against anyone other than Carol Mostly Fraud in 1998 he probably would have lost. (And, just to note, he self-financed in 1998 because the party wasn't willing to spend money then either.)
Finally, we never had a great candidate, but there were several qualified, highly qualified candidates who walked away from the race because they knew that financially speaking, the well was dry. Even a small (by Senate standards) commitment of a million would have made a huge difference.
That's the second time you gave that to me, and they were both on Keyes threads that went well over 700 posts. I think the last one was an argument over how "irrelevant" Keyes is. Well, not here, apparently. These are some of the most popular and fun threads. :)
Yes, there are several Rs that we like but that have never won a major election. Gotta be out there.
That too. :-)
Oh --- I'm quite sure Conservatives would vote for Keyes --- but I can see by this thread that regular GOPers would vote for a pro-abortionist like Obama just to beat out a Conservative. Who will The GOP put out in 08? Especially if they help Obama win against Keyes? There are times I think the split between Conservatives and the GOP will get too wide. It seems all Conservatives are to be despised --- like Keyes is.
Was that before she made the move to New York?
This is definately a gamble. At this point the Illinois GOP had lost when Ryan pulled out. There's a small chance Keyes could pulled this off. It's a chance nevertheless.
No. That's what I say when you label people who disagree with you politically as evil. Hillary's a power-hungry bitch, but she's not evil. I would have no problems, for example, letting her babysit my kids. Same with John Kerry. Or even Al Sharpton.
Goodness are you actually arguing that I'm wrong to call the left evil?!? It's exactly accurate and it's a GREAT word that I will not give up.
Call them whatever you want. But remember, neither Ronald Reagan nor George Bush have ever called their political opponents evil. Any idea why that is?
Mostly, I don't think Keyes is being criticized because of his conservatism.
"The evil that you know, the evil that inspires you to fight again is not the worst evil," Keyes said.
"The worst evil creeps behind your lines and dominates your leadership."
If i may be so bold (and surely others have said this) i can fully understand how that can be understood An example: I personally do not think Bush has an evil bone in his body (any more than the rest of us do) however, bush has repeatedly asserted the patently evil philosophy that Islam and Christianity worship the same God.
I see nothing in that quote that could not be said about my example. If I wanted to warn a group of people about an evil idea taking root in the leadership of my party, I would probably have used very similar words.
Now, do I KNOW Keyes was referring to an evil philosophy - that it's okay to sacrifice human life for the "common good" of possibly curing some disease - as opposed to an evil MAN?
No, I can't prove it conclusively. But it's certainly within reason and, given that Keyes is (by reputation) a bit of a blowhard and loath to recant anything he's said before, it seems to me quite unlikely that he would have called Bush evil 3 years ago and never went back to that well again.
Perhaps the benefit of a doubt is in order.
The earlier explanation was dead wrong.
None. However, Alan Keyes hasn't run on my ballot. If he moved to Ohio today and ran I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
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.