Lando 
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 ...
"I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there."
Let me know if you find anything.
If the Keyes campaign can focus on winning the race and attracting the necessary voters from all spectrums of the voting populace then the bottom line is it will help President Bush in his reelection bid. That is my main objective
What the heck is he thinking?
And in the more immediate future, I need to focus on eating dinner...
Well, I tend to agree with you, but I am waiting to hear how he addressed the Hillary thing today.
There's a deeper issue here; the damage to the pro-life, pro-second Amendment, pro-constitution message that this loss will bring about. And while I hope and pray that the people of Illinois can pull this off, it s apparent from this article, and from the commentary within Fr, that it will not happen.
The resounding defeat by a relative newcomer to politics of a conservative icon of Keyes' stature, will be blamed on the GOP by the Keyes camp, and on his message by the left; and that will be the biggest loss of all.
The left will argue that Keyes' pro-life, pro-second Amendment, pro-constitution message does not resonate with the American people, and that pro-life, pro-second Amendment, pro-constitution candidates are unelectable.
If there was shouting in Illinois over whether to invite Keyes in or not, there will even louder shouting when it comes time to play the blame game.
The Illinois GOP invited Keyes in, so they better be prepared to either deliver a victory, or accept full responsibility for the loss...Keyes will not do the latter.
5/6/98: Headlines from the 1998 LPNY Convention in Poughkeepsie:
- Garvey and Silberger head LP ticket.
Conti and Goodman also run for state offices.
- Ambassador Alan Keyes asks for LP nomination for U.S. Senate, but convention chooses Bill McMillen to run against D'Amato
- Successful convention boasts noted speakers an d visitors, including Sharon Harris, Michael Cloud, John Cushman, Ron Crickenberger, Muni Savynon.
- Jim Harris is new State Chair.
Full list of current LPNY Officers, with contact info.
Mmmmm...
Yet, two years later he's criticizing Hillary.
As a follower of Reagan, I will not break the 11th Commandment. Keyes will have my full support.
However, should he choose to go down the destructive path I have seen him walk upon in past camapigns, I will withdraw my support.
The ball is in Dr. Keyes' court. He has the choice as to how to play it.
Should he choose unwisely, he will earn my enmity, and that of thousands just like me.
That came from a quote from Jim Robinson that he would not allow criticism of FR or FRN (or Bush, but that's dropped off my radar screen). Do I find it fair? No, for a few reasons... My main nit to pick is that anytime anyone asks a question that is deemed improper -for whatever reason, by whomever - it only takes a few more posts for that person to be accused of criticizing. If it goes longer than another post or two, that person is labelled an AFer or AKer. And if that person asks anything on another thread, the label is applied much more quickly.
Frankly, that appalls me. There are better ways to handle most of the questions, and you might not think it, but those approaches piss off a lot of people, regardless of whether they say anything. I know it pissed me off - primarily in the case of Sabertooth. It seems to me that certain questions cannot be asked, and in addition, certain people can ask no questions.
FWIW, I really have no questions about FRN. Frankly, you're not on my radar screen. I had a question about FR finances, and Jim replied with an answer I found to be satisfactory. I even donated $, not much since I was unemployed for a time.
So, while tongue in cheek, my tagline is very upfront. I won't criticize the FRN, nor will I even ask any questions since that will be construed as criticism. Of course, who is shielded under the umbrella? I only asked unsych who 'us' was. I got a cup of nastiness and attack back. No answer, though.
who claim to have innocent questions about FRN activities, have never once FReepmailed or emailed your questions to anyone in the FRN?
As I said, I have no questions. But I find it hard to swallow when someone is now labeled the enemy, as Saber has been. Simple as that.
The answer is easy, it's because you don't want answers, you want to engage in public performance art and throw around enough hateful slime (disguised as "I'm just asking
I was once on FR, and mojo dragged in SAS as a way to attack me. Why? I defended the FRN on some minor point. I don't recall what it was, but I would probably do the same thing today, as it was something he was completely wrong about. BTW - I refused to answer anything at all about SAS.
Not too long ago, another AFer contacted me looking for some dirt on SAS. I declined to assist. When that was noted on their board, it was twisted as me running scared, for whatever reason. So, I contacted said person again. Informed him quite strongly that he was wrong in his interpretation. He posted somewhat of a retraction. Still twisted, but I was happier.
Now, you're asking me about SAS too?
I resigned some time back for many reasons. Most of them were of a very personal nature. I will tell you, like I told mojo, like I told LOTF, that I won't answer any questions about SAS, my involvement in it, nor will I say one bad thing about the organization or the people running it. I fully support the organization and have been thrilled to learn that they are suffering from a growth spurt due to an article in Woman's Outlook. I now even converse with some that I had some very bad conflicts in the past. We don't re-hash it. We all believe that the 2nd Amendment is much more important than any ego or individual involved.
ability. In return, I will ask you questions about SAS and you answer them the best you can. When we are done, we will post the results her on FR.
Sounds fair to me.
I'm not sure who you are after Bob, me or SAS. I resigned a long time ago. They're doing great and so am I. If you have a lot of spare time to indulge in something like this, perhaps you could invest your time elsewhere more productively.
That sounds even more fair.
Is there any particular reason you're dragging your dirty laundry on to this thread?
Lando
So, for more info, you might have to ask him. If you do, and get a good answer, ping me. I haven't a clue.
I think too big a deal is being made over the fact that Keyes--who is known for his passion--said some things that may have been over the top. He's even made some stupid comments, I'm sure. But who hasn't?
His occasional failings need to be weighed against his great strenghs. Again, to put this into perspective, Keyes is known for his passion and for holding the party accountable when it veers left.
This is hardly a criminal offense. A lot of Republicans say things about other Republicans (including many freepers speaking against Keyes) that are over the top and unflattering.
The Keyes supporters are not challenging the conservtism of Keyes-haters because they don't blindly follow Keyes (this is a straw man). Rather the Keyes supporters challenge the conservatism of Keyes-haters because they always seem to tack to the left (this Keyes candidacy only being one of many symptoms).
Thanks :o) I appreciate the response!
DavidQ's account squares with what I know about the players and the FEC's irrational rules. He was more in this loop than I, and he's done some fact checking. I believe him.
I'm looking forward to the transcript of today's announcement speech, and the campaign.
I should add than I'm not connected to this campaign organizationally.
Cheers,
Richard F.
So what?
I think Keyes would have made a better President. What others think or do not think has no impact on my view of the situation.
I voted for him before and would vote for him again.
He is an unabashed Conservative, Christian, and strict Constitutional Constructionist - and in this reagrd is refreshing different from the run of current day Republican politicians.
More intelligent conversation, I see.
Flash me your creds, myself6. Show me what, besides ignorance, pomposity, and blinders that you bring to the table. What a joke.
Why does the absence of abortion and the gay agenda in my comments seem striking to you. Those two issues, contrary to what some on the right seem to think, are not hallmarks of the conservative movement. THE hallmark of the conservative movement is limited government.
For the record, though: Regarding the issue of abortion, I support the overthrow of Roe v. Wade, which was an unwarranted power grab by the courts. Return the issue of abortion to the states (where it was pre-Roe) and let each state decide whether abortion is permitted within its borders. Once there, work to elect pro-life candidates. The same goes for gay marriage: Let each state decide.
What a conservative does not want to do is dictate to people how they live their respective lives. Nanny-State Rightist might want to do that, but conservatives do not.
Yup, cross the Bushies and they'll never forget! That's unforgivable. Be a baby killing socialist, but genuflect to the party hacks, and you can be governor of California or chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee! Just keep in line ... that's what the GOP stands for in 2004.
I'll bet Keyes' name is mentioned ZERO times by Rush, Hannity and Boortz tomorrow.
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.