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 ...
That was the message...try again.
I'm reading some of the replies. You've hit another home run. I wish I had writen what you wrote and I'm more informed for reading it.
"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"
You know, if you can't understand the point someone is making, don't show your ignorance by responding. The point was not to equate Alan Keyes with Pat Buchanan, as you should know (but probably don't) that they have some very great differences of opinion. The point was that if you lose a race or two, it doesn't mean the end of your life, either politically or financially. Okay, back in the sheep dip you go.
Actually, that's exactly where Keyes fails. Keyes is the ultimate cheerleader. Those who are already in line with the Keyes message uniformly love the guy. I'll give the guy his due, he can inspire the faithful like few I've seen before.
However, as his dismal showings in ALL of his runs for public office stand as testament, Keyes does a poor job of bringing anyone else to the table. His messages aren't nearly as inspiring or convincing to anyone who wasn't already a believer.
"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."
Well, I have to say, the messenger comes with the message. So you're either for the candidate and his message, or you throw away your vote. I am your basic pragmatist, politically speaking. Each state is different and the politics therefore will also be different. In California, the best shot at getting a Pub in was Arnold. Therefore I backed Arnold. He, like Keyes, wasn't perfect, but he was Pub enough for me to accomplish at least some of what CA needed, and that has proven to be true. I like Rudi and think him very brave, and he was exactly what NY needed on 9/11. He makes a great spokesperson for the Pub party, and I'd be happy to see him as a Gov or Senator or Congressman, but not President; as he is too liberal for me for that particular high office. A bit of insight into my political philosophy. Take it for what it's worth.
The rest of it was 100% factual.I'm glad that I was able to give you some facts that you didn't know.It's WHY I always try to post facts and not emotion.
A lot of Republicans on the national stage say unwise things. Understand that this is not a defense of the unwise or over-the-top things that are said. I'm just saying Keyes' strengths FAR outway his weaknesses, and the punishment inflicted on him by some freepers does not fit the "crime".
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.
No. That doesn't mean the President is above criticism. Heaven forbid!
In May, his show averaged 258,000 viewers
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1530760
You equated Buchanan with Keyes. I merely agreed. They are both self aggrandizing scumbags out to make a buck and get some free air time. The easiest way to get that free air time is to attack effective tax-cutting, abortion restricting, and military strengthening conservatives like Dubya. It is much harder to win election than to complain about the winner, and how "you would do it better if only the electorate didn't see right through your false image." They collude with the leftists well and you eat up the propaganda.
bleat on with your baa self
I stand corrected. Keyes earned a .25 rating in May not a .3. Thank you for correcting me.
Gillespie disputes the Union-Leader's characterization of his views, maintaining that the context has been omitted.
Gillespie says he wants to shrink government as much as possible and, when it is not possible, to bring conservatives principles to bear on government programs.
I'd like to see an exact quote of what Gillespie supposedly said but I only get the newsmedia and Russert's interpretation...much like the Supreme courts interpretation that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect gun owners and a right to privacy (read abortion) is in the Constitution. No need to see the exact quote or the context when you eat the media propaganda.
bleat on with your baa self.
I found this post interesting, in light of some of the postings on these threads:
Well if the union leader said it's 100% true and Gillespie says he's been misquoted I guess I should believe the union leader who endorsed Forbes in 2000, and Buchanan in 96, rather than the man. Obviously, the leader has no agenda...with endorsements like that, it's clear they are too screwed up to have an agenda.
Can I get a quote?
So far the only quote from Gillespie you have offered is “Those questions have been decided,” and a lot of extrapolation by the union leader and Russert. Gillespie disputes that extrapolation. I am less than impressed. Here is a excerpt from my web site to be published at a later date...Headline "TBP threatens revenge." In post 593 TBP vows "I'll find you..." to Freeper Once-Ler. TBP refused to clarify the obvious meaning of his post despite repeated attempts to contact him. It well known that TBP owns several assault style weapons and has a short temper. State police have been informed and remain on high alert.
OH MY! Who'd a thunk it?
"What a difference a day [or a year or two] makes"?
I seem to remember FR being the home of Keyes support during '98, '99. Remember the rally in DC that was televised?
Careful who you insult....
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.