Keyes' candidacy will expose rift within GOP

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - At one point during last week's Republican leadership gathering in Chicago, the debate over conservative activist Alan Keyes grew so contentious that journalists standing outside the closed doors heard - and reported - the shouting.

The Illinois Republican State Central Committee later barred reporters from the entire floor where they were meeting to choose their party's new candidate for the U.S. Senate.

But with Keyes' candidacy likely to become official Sunday, it will be much tougher for Republican leaders to hide the internal strife in their divided party.

On Wednesday night the committee formally asked Keyes - a former United Nations ambassador and two-time presidential candidate who has never lived in Illinois - to run against Democratic candidate Barack Obama for Illinois' open Senate seat. All indications are that Keyes will accept, kicking off his campaign Sunday at a Chicago-area rally.

Keyes will replace Jack Ryan, whom Republicans nominated in the primaries for the Senate. Ryan bowed out of the race last month amid embarrassing sexual allegations.

While Keyes' candidacy solves one problem for the GOP, it generates another: His far-right views on most major issues will, once again, highlight the deep fissure in the Illinois GOP between moderates - like former Govs. Jim Edgar and James Thompson - and the more conservative wing, which has been trying for years to move the party rightward.

"The state party is divided in the same way the national party is divided. The difference in Illinois is that the more moderate branch tends to run the board," noted political scientist John S. Jackson of Southern Illinois University Carbondale. "The hard-right decided they wanted this ... but it will magnify the fault lines" with moderates.

There are people who are posting on this very board who work closely with him and tell a different story. I respect your opinion, but I also respect theirs. those of us without personal contact with Keyes have little basis to take your word over their or vice-versa. It seems to be an impasse.
That said, supporters of any candidate in any race do him and themselves a disservice to put him on a pedestal. We set ourselves up for disappointment if he turns out not to be the knight-in-shining-armor we suppose, and we feed his ego in a profession already prone to inflating one's opinion of one's self. I believe in letting the men I support be free to be human.

Is he arrogant? Possibly. How does that make him different from thousands of other successful prominent men and women? it virtually comes with the territory.

I do not excuse such behavior, I merely recognize from whence it comes and further recognize that few are the people at that level of prominence who aren't similarly afflicted. Should he ever be posed in a race against a humble man, it will be an issue for me - but not until then.

In any case, it is his IDEAS that I support. In that he is the most articulate and gifted spokesman for those ideas, he will continue to have my support. If he doesn't have the personality of Gandhi, so be it.

I have a tough time figuring Arkansas out

Its a fairly complicated story that goes back to the Civil War. Hope you have a few minutes LOL. The State has pretty much always been divided into the Northwest/Mountain Republican area and the Delta/Lowland Democratic area. Those areas that were in favor of the Union in the Civil War remained a poor Republican minority and the rest remained Democratic.

This remained so until Winthrop Rockefeller came to the state to get away from his family. He wanted a quiet life but could not ignore the corruption, intimidation, and ballot stuffing going on. He reinvigorated the almost dead Republican Party and recruited a majority of conservative citizens who voted Democrat based on tradition but who wanted reform. His reforms were stifled by the overpowerful and corrupt legislature. The Governor under our constitution is weak.

The citizens are socially conservative but at the same time are not opposed to government involvement. This stems from government intervention and funding for a poor state. Arkansas also has a serious inferiority complex (and I mean serious) and does not want to appear backward, or racist, or dumb. For this reason, media influence has an exagerated effect here. If Arkansas thinks the rest of the country is FOR some liberal idea then an Arkansan is seemingly more likely to go along with it even if they don't agree with it to avoid being perceived as "backward". Democratic politicians take advantage of this incongruity by voting liberal in Washington or Little Rock and then coming home and telling the locals "wink-wink, I don't really believe all that but I had to vote that way because the alternative is so....non-progressive."

For this reason you end up with David Pryor and Blanche Lincoln voting against gun rights but coming home and dressing in camo and praising the NRA. Our liberals are not Berkeley liberals, they are stealth liberals. They downplay their liberalism and promote themselves as conservative Democrats. But make no mistake, they are liberals and not old-time DINO's. They are very good.

Arkansas citizens (except Little Rock) are socially on the side of Republicans without doubt. But they remember the poorest days (my mother still hoards food in vast quantities!) and they know that Republicans are not in favor of the "safety net". Democrats play on this old fear by highlighting their support for the "safety net".

Arkansans also favor Republicans for executive positions. Currently, Arkansans have no problem voting for Republicans for Governor, Lt. Governor, or President and in fact favor them for such positions. They view Republicans as good managers, good executive decision managers, and more efficient at running the godawful bureaucracy. But they don't trust them to actually "make law" for the reasons listed above. They trust Democrats to "make law" that will make them not look "backward" and keep the wolf from the door.

We had a pretty good roll going for a few years, with a Republican Senator, two Representatives, Governor, and Lt. Governor. We were on the cusp of establishing a real two-party system in the State. Candidates were just starting to feel that they could run as Republicans and have a chance of winning instead of being forced into the Democratic Machine to have a chance to win. We got a favorable court ruling to make our primary competitive with the Democratic Primary.

But the Republican Party divided into two groups and started fighting with each other and some money came up missing. Conservative Republicans turned on our Senator because he got divorced and voted him out in a fit of spite (cutting off nose to spite face). Our conservative Governor started falling into the trap of wanting to appear "progressive" and started pardoning criminals and advocating school mergers and big bureaucracies.

The Republican Party here is about to fall back into the mountains again as a purely regional party. Our Governor is coming to the end of his term limits and given his recent performance the voters will decide that if you are going to have a Democrat no matter how your vote, why not just elect a Democrat. The Party feels creaky and tired and out of ideas. It has no new faces and no new voices. It advocates a watered-down version of the Democratic party as far as government goes and has had no appreciable influence on social ideas.

We have fallen back to traditional Arkansas one-party politics due to failure of the Republicans to put forward exciting candidates or do what they say. Boy, if someone like Keyes had come down HERE it might have relit the fire.

Okay, double the coy quotient. That's the ticket.

You know as well as I do what's going on, and so does every FReeper who has been aware of the politics of FR for the last four years.

Now, I will admit that you have been civil in recent days. It's kind of nice, since I think you are a very bright, albeit misguided sometimes lady.

But forgive me for saying that it feels like a 'good cop' routine to several other Keyes-bashing 'bad cop' to me.

That feeling comes from experience...and the attacks have been uglier than ever in recent days.

But for the purposes of this conversation, I will play along.

I have explained to you repeatedly the facts in the cases you mention. All of them are overblown by a hostile press, and by Alan's enemies.

None of them come even close to having any significant effect on this race.

The times have changed here, forced by circumstances no one could have foreseen, and the shoe is now on the other foot.

Congratulations on your stated desire for Alan to win.

Kudoes.

But I will continue to refute those who carry Obama's water when I have the time.

The Dems WILL then use his loss,to attack ALL of Conservatism,saying that Keyes is THE icon of Conservatives and his loss proves that Conservatism isn't viable

Forgive me for saying so but the rest of your post contradicts this claim.

If the long list of roadblocks to Keyes' being successful is so obvious to you before hand, will they not be equally obvious to all after the loss? Where then will come the credibility of using that loss to broad brush all conservatism?

Further, even the political novice knows that Illinois is not representative of the rest of the nation - does the failure of conservatism in Illinois means conservatism is dean in Indiana? Of course not, and even the passing observer knows it.

Spend all your time proclaiming Keyes will lose if you want, I'm inclined to agree with you when forced to an opinion. Spend lots of bandwidth restating the already exhaustively stated list of Keyes failings (I even posted a handy reference list for you guys if you are having trouble remembering them all)...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1186943/posts
Post#13

...I've acknowledged those are at the least potential problems.

But the charge that the Dems will use this to discredit all conservatism is the weakest sort of red herring, or else obsessive paranoia no better than those Keyes supporters who are convinced that Bush & Co. will purposely knock him off.

Amen. Blance Lincoln would have been anihilated by Keyes. And gaining that seat would have offset Ill.

Yes, I think Keyes would have stood a much better chance down here. Arkansans have a complex about appearing "backward". Keyes would have obliterated that feeling because their real "non-progressive" views on social policy would have been coming out of the mouth of a black man who would be immune to the standard Democratic tactic here of painting any conservative view as being "so 1957".

Arkansans would be comfortable with his social views and comforted by the fact that it was "okay" to vote for those views.

====================

On a side-note, the 1957 Little Rock Crisis has a lot to do with this. Arkansas was on the way to integrating, some schools in northern Arkansas had integrated without incident. Faubus was not really a racist (he was a socialist). But internal Democrat Party politics made him try to "outsegregate" his primary opponent (Jim Johnson) to get the Democrat racist vote on his side. That incident harmed our self-perception very, very much. If you read the history, the main Arkansas newspaper castigated Faubus for it, the women of Little Rock banded together and opposed him on it.

My father was a National Guardsman during that time and got called out by Faubus in that mess. He hated it, and never had a kind word for Faubus again. He felt that his National Guard unit had been ordered to perform a dishonorable deed solely to help Faubus's election problems.

When I entered first grade it was the second year of integration at my school and there was never a hint of problem, it all seemed as if it had always been integrated to me. I had no idea that there had even been an integration problem until years later.

"And,dear,I am far mores in touch with the REAL world,than you are;obviously.Not to mention the fact that I don't have to be childishly petty,insulting,and derisive to get my points across;unlike you."

So, my dear, dearest, most dear, I must say you make me laugh without fail. That's at you, not with you. I love your constant use of the word "childish" or some variation thereof; you're very fond of that word, and use it liberally (you are one, aren't you) and constantly, against poor "tame", your favorite designated victim. I assume, then, that you are just the opposite, ancient and a whiney old man. Who else would be so concerned about other's childishness except for a cast-in-stone old but not wise man? So, I suggest all of us who receive your insulting replies containing the inevitable "childish" rant, should reply to you as "demented old man" in response, or some variation thereof. Unless, by some fluke, you are actually younger, and thus just demented. One good insult deserves another. Oh, and by the way, you don't get a point across, except for an illogical or nonsensical one. Especially when it comes to Keyes or state of Illinois politics.

You know as well as I do what's going on, and so does every FReeper who has been aware of the politics of FR for the last four years.

No, I don't.

I probably see you as misguided as you see me - but aside from your mood swings and ferocity toward people who don't share your admiration for Alan Keyes, I think you're a very nice guy.

If there's a conspiracy to bring down Alan Keyes, I am not part of it. Like others here that I suspect you are inferring have a greater agenda, I am someone who isn't completely sold on him. I am someone who deeply resents the way he has treated the POTUS. I am someone who sees him as a mixed bag.

But I am not someone who would try to "smear" him unfairly, nor am I someone who would prefer to see a Democrat win this race.

And honestly - if anyone could make me hope he gets his butt kicked, it's some of his supporters on FR. Sheesh.

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.