Posted on 08/07/2004 7:24:44 PM PDT by Graybeard58
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.
Shouts and silence
The first rumblings of that fault line were heard through the cl
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
He'll meet the constitutional and legal requirements.
Gonna be impossible for the Left to play this card, even if it worked, because of Hillary.
To put it more clearly, it's a deuce they can't even play.
To quote Jim Robinson,
"Go Keyes Go!!"
:-)
Hey OBAMAPARDONS, are you for killing 3000 babies everyday?
Are you a homo lover? Obamasama is. Are You?
Obama and Obamapardons are on the same side. They are against the Pro Life Defender in this race.
When it comes to 3000 murders every day, if you arn't against it, you are part of the problem.
Keyes will fight for Life, for Family, and against Abortionist and homosexuals. Obamapardons is against this.
Millions of Christians all over Illinois and America are motivated now that Keyes is on the front lines slaying liberals. Blacks will now hear from a Black man that the democratic party has supported the murder of 1000 black babies every day for the past quarter century! He will shout out the truth that the democratic party has chosen to equate homosexual civil right with the civil rights struggle of blacks.
Keyes is gonna pound obamasama into the ground and crush him even easier than I crush obamapardons every day. Which ain't saying much cause it is very very easy to destroy someone who protects baby killers and homosexuals. They stand for nothing, they don't value life nor family. Come to think of it neither does obamasama.
Keyes fights for decency. Obama and obamapardons defend indecency.
.....only if the GOP open border free trade globalists approve it. The primetime limelight is already locked in by the Rockefeller wing.
Realistically, race baiting Negroes of the Sharpton/Jackson ilk will isolate Ambassador Keyes within the Negro community in much the same manner they have isolated Justice Clarence Thomas.
I admire the honesty and clear thinking of a strict Constitutionalist like Ambassador Keyes, and wish him well. His political philosophy and strength of character is sorely needed in the present mindless and politically corrupt Senate.
Imagine.....a US Senator who would actually hold sacred his oath of office.
As a man of integrity Senator Alan Keyes presence in the Senate has all the potential of a 'Mr. Smith Goes To Washington' saga.
There is a downside....we're asking Illinois to put a man of this stature in the Senate, when they don't know how to put together a championship baseball team.
I can't remember the website, but there is one that goes into the "skeletons" of different candidates. If I remember correctly, Keyes did nothing illegal. Whether or not it is prudent (or the amount is prudent) is a different question.
I'm not as troubled about the finances. I do have mixed feelings about him moving to Illinois to run. He long ago should have made residence in a conservative state and then later ran there. My concerns are that I don't want him to hurt his best chances for the future.
Frankly, I don't think he has much of a chance in Illinois. Still, I am excited about the race he would put on, and the message he would put out. Under the circumstances in Illinois I'm glad that the GOP chose him over that undercover democrat (Barthwell), and I totally support him.
Go, Keyes!
That's the ticket!
That would depend on the time frame, medium, station and/or channel.
First, you wouldn't waste your money on newspaper ads if you were running for Senate. Billboards would be a waste as well.
You buy a sizable month-long radio blitz in 1992-Maryland for $8500 - a mix of stations and time slots. You could also buy a nice week of TV spots - though not in the greatest time slots for that money. If nothing else, one month of his salary would've bought a very nice number of bumperstickers and yard signs.
Keep in mind that $8500 per month equals $102,000 per year. Also, keep in mind that Keyes is the ONLY candidate I have ever met who dipped into his campaign fund to pay himself. I've known candidates who could be starving - and still wouldn't buy so much as a Big Mac out of their warchest.
Let me ask you (and anyone else on this board): Have I encountered the anomaly here? Is it the norm for a candidate in your respective areas to pay him/her self out of his/her campaign funds?
As I told RDF on these boards, I am truly happy your experiences with Alan Keyes have been more productive. However, to blankly state that I don't know what I'm talking about shows your ignorance and blind loyalty.
Of course, most people don't slam their boss - certainly not in print.
I respect your opinions and thoughts on the matter. Really. However, I must ask if you react as defensively towards Republicans like Arnold and Rudy when they are getting slammed by the social conservatives.
For the most part, I like Keyes politics. In his case, it's not the message, it's the messenger.
"Correction: Obama ain't it!"
Obama isn't conservative (as you know). Keyes is a conservative - but if he's who we are relying on to be an "icon," we are in deeper BS than anyone ever imagined possible.
See, that's the nub of the matter. You are a 'moderate' to liberal Republican who doesn't have much use for hardcore conservatism.
Why can't y'all just be honest about why you don't like Alan Keyes?
We don't pretend that our political opposition for the men you mention has anything to do with anything except for the fact that we don't like their liberal positions on issues.
Observation #1: Some Republicans support a moderate candidate instead of a very conservative candidate, because they believe that the moderate candidate is electable and the conservative candidate is not.
Observation #2: Other Republicans support a moderate candidate instead of a very conservative candidate, because they themselves are moderate (or liberal) and do not like the conservative positions which have been espoused by the conservative candidate.
Observation #3: Most Republicans who support a moderate candidate instead of a very conservative candidate fall into category #2. However, they avoid professing to be in this category, while simply claiming to be in category #1.
Sad but true.
Just some observations based upon my experiences. (It's sometimes helpful to know what we're up against.)
You're putting words in my mouth, EV. (Of course, you tried to do that to nearly everyone on this thread who dared say Alan Keyes doesn't walk on water. If you're going to resort to those tactics, at least be innovative and creative - otherwise you simply look foolish.)
My only point was to note how many people will target/defend a candidate strictly because of ideology. If an "R" can defend Keyes simply because he is an "R," (which seemed to be FlagLady's point) than that "R" should defend (or at least not attack) all "R's" - especially those who do not have a questionable method of financing his/her lifestyle.
As for me, I am a conservative who believes in individual liberty above all forms of collectivism and communitarianism. I believe society should engineer itself, rather than being engineered by the fed - be it from the right or the left. I believe in state's rights, the right to keep and bear arms, the abolishment of the federal income tax, and the right to defend the nation. I believe in free speech and right to live life as I choose. EV, I probably believe (and have fought and worked for 20plus years) for many of the same things you believe.
Get an argument, will you? Jeez, this is "taking candy from a baby" material, here. Pull yourself away from the computer now and then. Take a walk. Spend time with the family.
Grow up.
EV, I think most of us are, you just can't accept our feelings and beliefs.
Politically, I agree with Alan Keyes, but I feel that several of the things he's done have been hypocritical and perhaps even immoral.
On the hypocritical and/or immoral side, you can put his playing the race card during the last election, the fact that he's currently apparently planning to run in a state where he doesn't reside after excorciating Hillary! for doing the same thing in 2000, and the money he apparently owes for his previous campaigns and taxes. I happen to think that someone who promotes a higher moral standard ought to pay his/her bills - if you take goods or services from others without paying, after you've said you'd pay, what is the moral difference between that and stealing?
There's also the part about him not supporting the President or the GOP, but he (or at least his supporters) get upset when he doesn't get the support they think he should get from the GOP or the administration. Recently, Dr. Keyes has been rather supportive of the President, but that hasn't always been the case particularly before 9/11, (I am not a Bush Republican!), although there were also slings & arrows thrown during the short-lived "Making Sense" television show in 2002.
Personally, I voted for Keyes in the 1996 and 2000 primaries, and GWB definitely wasn't even in my "top 5" list of GOP candidates, but the comments Dr. Keyes made about George Bush during the Bush-Gore campaign and immediately after the election are what turned me against Keyes. Especially while the Democrats were accusing Bush of "stealing the election", we didn't need all that criticism from the right. It was not in keeping with Reagan's "11th commandment" - I've noticed that those who criticize Keyes are breaking said commandment, but Keyes doesn't seem to be held to the same standard if he's criticizing other Republicans. More hypocrisy. There was also a distinct smell of sour grapes.
I'd like to see Republicans win in every state, including Illinois. I think that the debates between Keyes and Obama will be great, and I hope they get a lot of airplay. But don't deceive yourself - Keyes comes with lots of baggage, and the liberal Illinois press will certainly air it, just as they did Ryan's divorce papers.
Again, please note that none of my objections to Dr. Keyes have anything to do with his political beliefs.
Alan Keyes is the Frank Lautenberg of Illinois.
If Keyes speaks at the convention he will be what Pat Buchanan was in 1992.
Finally, someone who understands Alan Keyes.
Your right EV, This guy's a lib.
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.