Keyes' candidacy will expose rift within GOP

St. Louis Post-Dispatch ^ | 08/07/2004 | Kevin McDermott

[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

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

A lot of Republicans say things about other Republicans (including many freepers speaking against Keyes) that are over the top and unflattering.

I don't think you can legitimately compare things Freepers say to the things people on the national stage say.

But I have a question for you, tame: Have you ever heard of George W. Bush publicly saying anything remotely negative about Alan Keyes? I haven't. As far as I know, he has been completely gracious.

In fact, I can't recall another mid-to-high-profile Republican saying anything about Keyes that could begin to compare to the things he has said about others. (If you know of something, I am certainly open to hearing about it.) This thing about California Republicans being like the AIDS virus is yet another example.

I'm just explaining that this is why so many people dislike him. If he could use his rhetorical skills to get his point across without alienating so many people who would otherwise appreciate his message, he would be better off - and so would the party.

[myself6]

:-)

Creds? I suppose you have some? I suppose you believe some are needed?

Go back to debating class you dolt.


Intelligence is not something you would recognize even if it slapped you on the head. More importantly, common sense is something you never even get in close enough proximity to be in danger of coming in contact with.

Yuk it up dork. The jokes on you.

[myself6]

Now I will directly address your original comment.


You say you believe in all these things...


... but will FIGHT for NONE.

[NCPAC]

I fight for my beliefs every day. The difference is, I get paid to do it.

[Once-Ler]

Yup, cross the Bushies and they'll never forget!

Not the Bushs...He crossed the party and helped the 'rats. He is a traitor like Jeffords.

I'll bet Keyes' name is mentioned ZERO times by Rush, Hannity and Boortz tomorrow.

I'll bet your wrong, and that certainly won't be unusual but I'm hoping you're right this time.

[NCPAC]

Dolt? Dork? Oh, my. We have, indeed, bottomed out when it comes to intelligent conversation.

I take it you're in bed with EV - I mean when it comes to "debating class." I only say that because both of you cause more laughter than heartburn: NOT a good way to pick or conduct battles.

Are creds needed? Not really. Do they occasionally show what one has to back up their arguments? Well, those without creds obviously think not.

Your comments regarding intelligence and common sense are not even worth discussing. Of course, nothing else you've written was really worth discussing either, but what the hell? I needed the diversion.

Hey, did you know that Alan Keyes asked to be the Libertarian Pary's Candidate for Senate in 1998 - and lost the nomination? A Libertarian. Wow. There's Keyes' principaled conservatism, for you!

[Bob J]

Wow, where do I start. How about your mischaraterizationof Jim's comments. This is what you wrote;

"That came from a quote from Jim Robinson that he would not allow criticism of FR or FRN..."

Here is what Jim actually posted.

"Wasn't one of the mods. I sent him to the box myself. I had warned and suspended him just a few days ago about his antifreeping activities on FR and promised him that he would get suspended again if he continues and each new suspension would be longer than the last. If he continues antifreeping when he gets back, he'll be suspended again. Free Republic Network has my total support and blessing. Attacks on FRN are attacks on FR. Those who wish to attack and or smear FR or FRN or our members can do it elsewhere. It's not welcome on this forum."

Why would you spin Jim's obvious and direct comments like "Antifreeping", "attacks" and "smear" into the noncorrosive "criticism"? I may just be a dumb country boy, but alarm bells went off with that one.

"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."

It wasn't a question. Sabertooths original questions were answered, by your own admission, satisfactorily by Nick Danger and Interesting Times. The 'tooth kept on the attack with more personal questions' phrasing them in a way that implied impropriety.

No one in the FRN has been seeking 'tooth out. He has been following us around, posting on threads about FRN activities, throwing out questions that infer skulduggery (in other venues, it is called muckraking). The questions he asks are very similar to the slander and defamation exhibited on certain well known antifreeper sites. As with your own comment about FR and FRN being separate entities (who cares?).

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, I'm comfortable callings it a duck.

Maybe you could clear up what seems to be contradictory statements. First you state;

"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...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...I won't criticize the FRN, nor will I even ask any questions since that will be construed as criticism."

Let me get this straight. The FRN attempts to answer questions sincerely, even from antifreepers. When they become fishing expeditions and veiled personal attacks, you're appalled. Not at the slimy inference of the questions, but at Jim when he removes the Grand Inquisitor from the room and because "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."

Later in your post you state these seemingly contradictory statements;

"BTW - I refused to answer anything at all about SAS...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'm confused. You think people should be able to ask question and to have each and every one answered sincerely. When they aren't, you're appalled. But you refuse to answer any questions concerning SAS, an organization that you founded and were the Chairman of until recently.

I've got no problem with or SAS. I am concerned that you seem to be spinning the events concerning 'tooth and working an obvious double standard. I'll leave with one of your own comments from the thread in question.

"I am very sensitive to who gets in trouble for what. And I hate double standards."

[rdf]

Keyes did not "seek" the LP nomination in 1998.

Here is an account from inside the NY LP

---

Then came the "race" for US senator (D'Amato's seat). Alan Keyes didn't show up at the convention; a spokesman for him did, although he didn't impart much information of use to us. There was doubt expressed as to how libertarian Keyes is, but in general attendees thought there was little info by which to judge. So someone nominated me. I thought for a few seconds and said I'd accept; again it looked like we had nobody else. Then someone nominated Bill McMillen. He similarly thought a few seconds and accepted. The choice then became a decision over the possibility of Alan Keyes. When asked, I said we'd have to find out more about him, but that if Alan Keyes was considered seriously by our committee to fill vacancies, I'd consider my judgement about of equal weight to any of them, and decline my nomination in favor of Keyes's if we thought it best. Bill said he'd not decline the nomination. He then won the nomination fairly handily.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:M6GcbPuRQBsJ:www.ny.lp.org/essays/goodman/good98a.htm+alan+keyes+libertarian+party&hl=en

[WillRain]

Speaking for myself, I've NO problem with those who consider "carpetbagging" to be a valid issue to express all the disappointment they want if, in the end, the do their all to elect Dr. Keyes. Of course, in not a fire-eater like some of my fellows are...:D

[WillRain]

For the record, I didn't like Buchanan...never have. I thought his statements were essentially correct, but delivered poorly - but I've never been a Buchanan supporter on any level.

Even so, though I think Keyes would state the case more eloquently, I expect the press would give him the same reaction. In fact, I'm guessing they are up to their orifices in past Keyes' speeches right now looking for "outrageous" statements to report on him. the morning papers should be an interesting read.

[Once-Ler]

Remember that the RNC chairman told the Manchester Union Leader that limited-government views are no longer welcome in the GOP.

I remember no such thing. Could you please provide a quote or date or link please?

[WillRain]

And as has been repeatedly pointed out - many who were there found the statement applause worthy. Your claim would carry more weight if there was a consensus among Freepers. From all I see on these boards - and from the applause the remarks generated - I submit to you that you are over stating your case.

[TBP]

From http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru090403.asp

September 2003

"In two editorials earlier this week, the Manchester Union-Leader reported that RNC chairman Ed Gillespie had kissed off small government and Reaganism in a meeting with the paper's editors. According to the Union-Leader, Gillespie "said in no uncertain terms that the days of Reaganesque Republican railings against the expansion of federal government are over. . . . No, today the Republican Party stands for giving the American people whatever the latest polls say they want. . . . The party's unofficial but clear message to conservatives is: Where else are you going to go? To the Democrats? To the Libertarians? They don't think so." Rush Limbaugh has referred to the Union-Leader's reports on the air."

http://www.gaconstitutionparty.org/s.nl/c.ACCT73046/sc.12/category.4/it.I/id.48/.f

GOP Acknowledges That Big Government Liberalism Is Now Republican Orthodoxy

"Tim Russert interviewing Ed Gillespie, "Meet the Press" TV Show, 9/7/03

Here’s the problem. Here’s the headline that greets people across the country. "Federal work force largest since 1990." Mr. Gillespie, you went up to New Hampshire and caused quite a stir. This is how the Manchester Union Leader, a conservative newspaper, described your visit:

Had there been any doubts about the direction the Republican Party is headed, they vanished last week when Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie visited New Hampshire. ...No longer does the Republican Party stand for shrinking the federal government, for scaling back its encroachment into the lives of Americans, or for carrying the banner of federalism into the political battles of the day.
You called the Union Leader; you sent them letters. They stand by your comments, and this is their second editorial:

We wanted to take this opportunity to assure Rush [Limbaugh] and everyone else that the editorial was and is 100 percent true. Over the course of an hour-long meeting with Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, we took great care to give him every opportunity to explain himself fully so that nothing could be misunderstood. The result was a surprisingly frank admission that the Republican Party defines "fiscal responsibility" as increasing the federal budget at "a slower rate of growth" than the Democrats (his words). We asked him three times to explain why President Bush and the Republican Congress have increased discretionary non-defense spending at such an alarming rate, and why the party has embraced the expansion of the federal government’s roles in education, agriculture and Great Society-era entitlement programs. "Those questions have been decided," he said. The public wants an expanded federal role in those areas, and the Republican Party at the highest levels has decided to give the public what it wants."

I'll find you more references later. I hvae the Union Leader article somewhere.

[WillRain]

Don't listen to Bortz (not on in my area), you are probably right about Rush - but you'd lose on Hannity.

Keyes is set to appear on H&C tomorrow night and Sean always pimps H&C throughout the show.

[TBP]

Here is the article:

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0FD5898ECA8F59DB&p_docnum=6&s_accountid=AC0104080906004903544&s_orderid=NB0104080906004303536&s_dlid=DL0104080906012003626&s_username=Timmer

HAD THERE been any doubts about the direction the Republican Party is headed, they vanished last week when Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie visited New Hampshire.



During a cheerful and pleasant meeting (that's the kind of guy Gillespie is) at The Union Leader offices, the party's new chairman, energetic and full of vigor, said in no uncertain terms that the days of Reaganesque Republican railings against the expansion of federal government are over.

No longer does the Republican Party stand for shrinking the federal government, for scaling back its encroachment into the lives of Americans, or for carrying the banner of federalism into the political battles of the day.

No, today the Republican Party stands for giving the American people whatever the latest polls say they want. The people want the federal government to tell states how to run local schools? Then that's what the Republican Party wants, too. The people want expanded entitlement programs and a federal government that attends to their every desire, no matter how frivolous? Then that's what the Republican Party wants, too.

The party's unofficial but clear message to conservatives is: Where else are you going to go? To the Democrats? To the Libertarians? They don't think so.

[WillRain]

Hey, did you know that Alan Keyes asked to be the Libertarian Pary's Candidate for Senate in 1998 - and lost the nomination? A Libertarian. Wow. There's Keyes' principaled conservatism, for you!

There appears to be a very shaky source on that one. Don't run too hard with it just yet.

[TBP]

Follow-up article:

http://www.theunionleader.com/primary_show.html?article=25747

RUSH LIMBAUGH read from one of our editorials yesterday, and a lot of people have asked if what he said was true. It is.

The editorial was titled GOP, MIA and it was printed in last weekend’s New Hampshire Sunday News. Because of all the interest, we have reposted it on the Web site.

We wanted to take this opportunity to assure Rush and everyone else that the editorial was and is 100 percent true. Over the course of an hour-long meeting with Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, we took great care to give him every opportunity to explain himself fully so that nothing could be misunderstood. The result was a surprisingly frank admission that the Republican Party defines “fiscal responsibility” as increasing the federal budget at “a slower rate of growth” than the Democrats (his words).

We asked him three times to explain why President Bush and the Republican Congress have increased discretionary non-defense spending at such an alarming rate, and why the party has embraced the expansion of the federal government’s roles in education, agriculture and Great Society-era entitlement programs.

“Those questions have been decided,” was his response. The public wants an expanded federal role in those areas, and the Republican Party at the highest levels has decided to give the public what it wants.

We were fully aware that publishing those comments — all made on the record — would mean we would never be invited to any $1,000-a-plate Republican dinners in Washington. But the rank-and-file Republicans, the men and women who vote GOP because they believe in federalism and limited government, deserved to know what we knew. Now they do. And they can use the information as they see fit.

And here is another link to the original article:

http://www.theunionleader.com/opinion_show.html?article=25745

[Once-Ler]

Buchanan is all over the TV on the talking heads shows, after his losses. Not too bad a gig.

All Buchanan had to do to make the big bucks is stab the American people in the back and help elect Clinton. The media loves "conservatives" who buck the party and divide the vote like Buchanan, and McCain. They put their 2-faced mugs on screen as often as possible...and you eat it up.

bleat on with your baa self

[Howlin]

I don't care what anybody else says; I trust the people who talked to me about what happened there.

[Once-Ler]

The only talent you seem to have is critic,

Nopardons isn't trying to be a Senator. If I was to imitate your debating techniques I would say "I personally think you're an idiot," but that is not pertinent to this discussion. It is a personal attack that diverts attention away from the discussion of the Senatorial candidate Keyes and his many flaws. When you attack the messenger and not the message then you must continually fear the next messenger. Hopefully you will grow up some day.