Posted on 08/07/2004 7:24:44 PM PDT by Graybeard58
I don't want to get into a big argument about this, and I'm certainly not accusing you of this, but do you realize that every single time something like this has happened -- the "bullet" and "evil" things and many others -- somebody is always on these threads explaining to us how WE misunderstood what Keyes said; why we've even been told that he is so much more brillant than anybody else, it's no wonder we don't understand.
If he's so smart, why does it take legions of people to explain what he "really meant?"
And how on earth will he explain himself to the people in Mr. Daley's projects?
Sounds like a metaphor. I think the gist of the comment was that Bush should have adopted an absolutist stance but instead drifted as far to the center as he could while still appeasing those in favor of the absolutist stance. That drift to the center is what Keyes is calling "evil". I don't read it as analogous to Bin Laden's evil, or the USSR's evil.
From everything I heard, Bush was very grateful to Keyes in the 2000 primaries, for exposing McCain as a closet pro-abort. Bush insisted that Keyes be in on debates, when McCain didn't want that - if I recall correctly.
Leni
Still not trying to be smart and honestly interested in your explanation, if we say that this is the definition of metaphor:
Main Entry: met·a·phor
Pronunciation: 'me-t&-"for also -f&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French metaphore, from Latin metaphora, from Greek, from metapherein to transfer, from meta- + pherein to bear -- more at BEAR
1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language -- compare SIMILE
Can you tell me how that applies to the above statement.
(I am NOT being argumentative, I swear!)
Agree with every word of that.
*grin* I find it difficult to defend myself, especially given the fact that I wasn't there. I just have a slightly different reading of it. I don't throw the word "evil" around loosely (I don't even call the Democrats evil, as many here do), so I don't excuse his usage of it. I just don't see him calling Bush evil; I think there's a difference between calling the person evil and the process (for lack of a better word) evil. Not sure if that makes a lot of sense...I just think there's a difference between the two.
Because there's always a few who insist on remaining stubbornly clueless.
Keyes speaking:..
"Now, I think you all have to ask yourselves, when you see somebody agonizing about something that's clear and making a decision they are under no particular pressure to make, where the facts don't bear out your opponents and yet, at the end of the day, they come down with a view that crosses the line between complicity and principle, they didn't do that because they were forced to it. See, my problem is that I sit in front of a decision like that and I say this is a decision where somebody sat down to figure out how much evil they could get away with."
See Leading up to the above excerpt he was discussing the decision President Bush had made..... Thus the [somebody] that sat down and made the decision is Bush.... who was trying to decide how much evil he could get away with....
All this is history now and I think we really need to focus can he bring the GOP a winner in IL and can he help the President on the national level. JMO of course.
I'm kind of tired of being labeled a Keyes detractor; it didn't bother anybody at all until he started attacking the president.
And he didn't do it just once or twice.
And every time he did, there was a big argument.
But every time he did it, Keyes got some press; and after a bit, it begin to look like that's why he did it.
Far better that everyone lockstep, eh? God forbid Ron Paul bring a diverse idea or two to the Congress, huh? You'll get a dose of that from Tom Couburn in any case so try not to take such offense.
None of Paul's bills ever get voted on. None of them. At least he can be counted on to vote for mainstream Republican legislation most of the time.
BTW, I use www.m-w.com all the time...
and I'm certainly not accusing you of this
I know you weren't involved in those discussions.
Yes, I agree. There will be varying interpretations, and understandably so. Had Keyes used better rhetoric in the first case it would be so clear as to avoid later misunderstandings of this sort.
And in the more immediate future, I need to focus on eating dinner...I'll check back tomorrow morning.
Perhaps it's because he shoots off his mouth before he thinks and somebody always has to come behind and clean up the mess.
I know...I wasn't insinuating that you were accusing me. (I guess this confusion is what comes with our history...LOL).
Me, too. I love my little MW button on my IE Links bar!
I just told technochick I'm waiting to see what Keyes said today in his speech about the Hillary thing; if he copped to it, as far as I'm concerned, that's over.
I join Miss Marple in predicting that if things don't go well with Keyes, Bush will be his target.
I'm trying to be nice, hoping we could get this straightened out.
Remember I told you: 1) Keyes will attack Bush, and 2) the Keyes people will come on here and explain to us all how he's not REALLY attacking Bush, WE all just don't understand.
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.