Posted on 09/02/2004 1:57:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
I can't disagree with that.
Please articulate. I'm interested in the other ways.
One of the reasons I like FR is that I do find better arguments than the ones I hold.
Flame war hardly intended, Amelia. I don't think you have dandruff, what's that on your shoulder? ;-)
Does he want to win? If so, he needs a good message AND good tactics to get that message out.
I am narrowing my argument here to Keyes and where I think he goes wrong. All the stands in defense of marriage can remain strong without making it so vicious. It's really that simple for me.
Okay, you got me. What is "crevos"? Why do you avoid the Keyes threads?
I agree with your apt observations about the kind of affect Keyes had in 2000 --pretty ludicrous to attack you and call you childish names for stating them. Of course we have millions of people to thank: every Bush voter, etc., not to mention God Himself.
The Keyes bashers refer I think to comments he made during his campaign in 2000 (and yes he did his true damage to McCain's candidacy) also the comments he made during the Bush administration before 9.11. They don't seem to know how to put those comments into context and realize he was not being ad hominem. He was characterizing Bush by implication, but based upon his view of how well Bush was repsonding to moral priorities, regarding issues. That was what he was addressing: issues, not persons, just as when he stepped into the Mary Cheney ambush, this week.
The moral priorities of political issues and the causes and effects in them are nearly always Keyes' subject matter, whatever issues he addresses.
BTW, I was about 12 feet away from Alan Keyes during Bush's acceptance speech, Friday. He applauded (for just about everything but Bush's comments on incremental income tax adjustments) at times, standing.
Often, instead of speaking on the subject people want to hear about and in ways they want to hear it, Keyes tries to change people's priorities (to the valid priorities of a morally sane and principled people). This is how he has given the media ammunition to use against him.
Good article, and he may be dead on in his analysis of Keyes. Keyes' uncompromising stands would not seem so harsh if the media would do the true work of a free press in a free society whose aim is self-government. Compare today's press with that which printed the Federalist papers. I think that Keyes untactful stands are not the real problem. The problem is with the media (and to a large extant us Americans who for so long slumber through the sound-bitism).
Nay, to speak the truth, I would not have Keyes quiet his rhetoric one decibal. Only by open, fair and principled debate do we have a hope of restoring the Constitution and remaining self-governed. That is the duty of every generation. We must stand to defend the Constitution and make use of our freedom of speech. Otherwise lose it. The lie of not discussing politics and religion, the real worthwhile matters is the surest way to forfeit of government over these matters.
I applaud Keyes for setting principle before votes. It is the only real way to lead. The other road is to following the changing breezes . . . that reminds of I forget whose critism that Kerry is just a weathervane LOL.
sorry that should read "...to forfeit our government..."
Indeed. There were many factors that decided that narrow election like the prudence of the Founder's electoral college wherefore I confessed that my point was hyperbolic.
Why don't you go troll somewhere else...
Sincerely I still ask: what are the other arguments for supporting traditional marriage?
I am interested in finding better arguments, especially since Keyes' argument seems so abrasive to many.
... and the point that is being made is that GOOD people of GOOD conscience in MY party, just don't see him as that. IT doesn't make them antichrist, anti morals or prochoice baby killers. He is a good spokesman in the opinion of his prolife backers. That's it.
But being a good spokesman, is just NOT the same thing as being a statesman, and it is not enough to win. Perhaps Alan will get lucky and be swept in on the President's coat tails. Right now, I doubt it. But that is his ONLY chance. In fact, Illinois is one of the only states where I don't think we have a real chance of winning for the Presidency. And Alan's "statesmanship" as you call it, is NOT really helping, in my opinion.
I am not saying that Keyes defines them incorrectly. Why can't you understand that?
I AM saying that he turns people off when he personalizes it and attacks the very people who need to be open to his message.
It's Keyes, the person, and his methods. Can't you comprehend this?
It has been mentioned here that this whole hubbub is because of the media. While it is surely the goal of the liberal "news" to pounce on any chance to harm conservatives, some people, (ahem)who know better, give them fodder.
I guess I have to say it again and try to word it more clearly. Alan Keyes needs to use his gift more wisely. He needs to stop short of the little sound bites that feed the enemy. It is called self control. This is not the first time he has used poor judgment and I predict it won't be the last.
I suggest that anyone who sincerely wants to see the minds of America change and realize God's truths, he/she needs to communicate in a way that opens the ears and hearts of those who need to learn it, instead of pounding one's chest and believing that singling out individuals and calling them names is victory.
Please don't tell me again that he was asked a question about Mary Cheney. We've been through all that. He is responsible for his comment and could have easily refused to personalize it and the news would not have their story.
Whether or not you and others like what he said is not the point. You're already on board. Do you think the homosexual who might be hearing Keyes speak and who could be doing some soul searching would feel God's love or just go on misunderstanding why we reject the gay lifestyle and see it as hateful?
However, if you do have another argument I would be glad to hear. Your distaste for the way Keyes makes the argument is understandable.
That is a different question: namely how to make the argument without being as abrasive.
I think the objective is to convince the citizens that, as a whole, our culture needs to reject the idea of any other definition of marriage. The majority will make the decision and the majority is not homosexual. The desired result may be more likely achieved by appealing to the senses and respect of God's law to that majority.
When the attack, if you will, is aimed at ridiculing as opposed to enlightening, it is more apt to make some people defensive and sympathetic to the wrong cause. It is disappointing that the nature of people is often that way, but it is reality.
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.