I heard this on ABC News this evening that former Presidential candidate Alan Keyes® says he is going to run against Barack Obama in Illinois. Keys is anti-abortion and anti-gay rights. This should be interesting. Lets see if Keyes goes negative early and often much like Shrub has done. My bet is yes, he will. One thing is for sure, Keyes has an uphill fight.

Didn't he blast Hillary for "Carpet Bagging"?

Guess he's a flip-flopper too.

Yep he did.

Isn't there already a thread about this? Keyes was specifically asked to run by the intellectually and politically bankrupt Illinois Republican Party. He is extremely far to the right, farther in fact that ANY OF THE OTHER REPUBLICANS who faced each other in the Republican primary. His candidacy is a farce.

The main reasons I can see that any voters in Illinois would vote for him would be: 1) they are diehard Republicans and would vote GOP even if a dead dog were running; 2) they are diehard religious fanatics; 3) they are ultraconservatives and want to make a statement; 4) they see this as the joke it is and want to play along.

BTW, is he making Arlington Heights his "residence"? If he loses, will Maryland promptly take his crazy *ss back?

Yes, Keyes is the one who ripped Hillary for moving.

And yes, Keyes is (ALREADY) in financial trouble. Not only does he owe money for his income taxes, he also has other money to pay back for his previous campaigns.

What a stupid move by the Illinois GOOP.

This isn't any different from most here who would vote Democratic this November is a dead dog were running.

Regardless, the circus that is the Illinois GOP is definitely better than Ringling Brothers, for the former is free and the latter charges too much.

I think the point was that by bringing Keyes into the race, the Rebpulican party has actually shrunk its voting base, as only die-hard Republicans and religious extremists will vote for Keyes, where Ryan (if he hadn't been such an incredible idiot) would have appealed to at least some moderate swing voters, none of whom will vote for Keyes.

And if that wasn't the point, it should have been.

I missed Barak Obama's speech to the Democratic Convention but decided to buy his book "Dreams From My Father" after hearing so much about it and seeing a short clip of his delivery. Very powerful. My favorite line is "I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper". It sums up his campaign and perhaps his life's goal. He is probably what Malcom X would be now.

Keyes on Hillary:

“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, so I certainly wouldn't imitate it.”

Wow, MIB, Judge Hypocrisy, where's the outrage??


[ August 09, 2004, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

Or as you would say Raze, pot meet kettle. wink

I'm not going to waste my energy on something so obvious, but as JIP would say, "This is different." That's because Hillary went to NY on her own seeking political office for her own selfish purposes, whereas Keyes was asked by the party to come here and be their savior. Now where's that white horse he's riding in on?

See the difference?

If you dont think people in NY were asking Hillary to run, you really should turn on the news now and then or read a paper.

Maybe you were just real busy dispensing justice online when all that was going on.

Keyes was certainly not the only one to criticize, the now, Senator Clinton for carpet bagging. So that's not something you can put only at Keyes' feet.

However, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between going out of state to run for a district where you don't live because 1)you want to or 2)the party ask you to. To-may-to... To-mah-to. What's the dif! You're either carpetbagging in order to seek office or not.
and MIB, if you're gonna use the "they invited me" rationale as sufficient to justify Keyes' decision, then you have to admit that the democratic party of NY state were very glad to have a political superstar (like her or not) like Hillary come and succeed Moynihan keeping the senate seat in democrat hands.

and if you saw Dennis Hastert on Meet The Press yesterday, you'd know that the GOP of Illinois are not taking Keyes seriously themselves either. He kept laughing while trying to explain how Keyes would up as the GOP candidate and actually admitted that they were scraping the bottom of the barrel when they finally turned to Keyes.

basically, it's better than not running a candidate and with this crazy 21st century Uncle Tom running as their man, they can also say that they are being very inclusive. I mean.... How else dop you run a campaign against a charismatic, intelligent, attractive black political star? You name a crazy, black radio host against him. :confused: Is this supposed to be "fight fire with fire"?

It's just like when Daddy Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to fill the spot previously held by Thurgood Marshall, and then claimed it had nothing to do with race. Thomas was simply the best qualified person for the position according to Daddy.

[ August 09, 2004, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: KeyWest Guy ]

Yeah, no way a black guy is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Has to be a race thing.

Given that hanky-head Thomas replaced a distinguished African-American lawyer and jurist, Thurgood Marshall--who was required by no less than arch-racist Senator Strom Thurmond to answer a series of obscure questions on the law and Constitution at his confirmation--your comment hardly holds water. 41's move was extremely cynical and craven, but he made up for it by also appointing David Souter. That almost makes the Thomas mistake bearable.

As for Keyes, this is nothing less than a farce. While there is a long tradition of Americans moving between states to hold office--in early New England, in the South, etc.--the situation with Keyes is glaring. First, he accepted the call to run while not holding state residency. Hillary Clinton had actually purchased a home in New York before she ran. (Yes, it's true.)

Second, he has very little support (and constituency) in Illinois, even among the GOP, I would bet, particularly because he is so far to the right of MOST Illinois Republicans. The extremists (Matt Hale, etc.) don't like black people anyways! Hillary Clinton was assured of winning New York City (save Staten Island) and at least 2-3 of the states other most populous counties and cities (Westchester, Nassau, Buffalo, and Albany). That she also romped in Suffolk County, in upstate pockets, etc., was testimony to her superb campaigning.

Third, while others criticized Clinton vociferously, Keyes actually made an argument based on the 10th Federalist paper, I believe. Yet now that he's so desperate for attention and a job, he's willing to pimp himself.

What's particularly appalling is that this is a man who has repeatedly argued against using "race" as a criteria for anything. Yet the Illinois GOP purposely chose him BECAUSE OF HIS RACE--they know he'll lose, and lose badly, but they can at least claim to have made history. Would they have chosen a white person--seriously--from some DISTANT state--I mean, it's not even like he was born in Illinois or lives in Indiana or Missouri or some metro area that borders on Illinois--who had lost TWO previous Senate races, as well as TWO presidential races? I DOUBT IT. There are more than enough qualified white Republicans across this country--why not David Duke? Or Bob Dornan? Or Anthrax Coulter? Or Phyllis Schlafly--hell, she lived in Illinois for over 50 years!!!? I mean, if it doesn't matter where they pluck the right-winger from, then why not at least someone with LINKS to Illinois? Is this how you honor the memory of your party's founder, Abraham Lincoln?

Will Keyes stay in Illinois after he's blown out by Obama? I doubt it--but he'll pick up some chits and bucks along the way, to help his family out. And maybe he'll learn a lesson and stay away from politics.

[ August 09, 2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

You really are clueless, aren't you? It's called sarcasm, genius.

Read my post above to Raze. Jeez.

In a word.... NO. As George Wallace once said in a slightly different context, there's not a dime's worth of difference.

I agree, marcus. Why you and a few others here can't grasp my original point is beyond me. I even added the little rolling eyes to emphasize the point, but alas, it escapes people--again.

No one's mentioned the Illinois GOP's underlying reason why Keyes was chosen. This is the sole reason: the Illinois State Senate.

There is a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes with control of the state senate, and with current Senator Emil Jones battling House Speaker Mike Madigan, downstater residents--far more conservative than their northern Illinois counterparts--are being courted to come out and vote for the Republican state senate candidate in their district. It's believed by many insiders that a Keyes campaign will at least draw out a lot more conservative downstaters, where a switch in only a few seats would throw the Senate back into the GOP.

On tonight's local news, several black ministers were interviewed. Each was the head of a large congregation. Each emphasized that their congregations would not support Obama if he kept to his abortion views and his views of gay marriage and civil unions. "Our congregation just won't accept a candidate who supports such positions. This is contrary to our moral upbringing," said one black church leader.

If anything, this is going to be fuuuuuunnnnn! I'm grabbin' me a front row seat, a cold Coke, and a bag of that unhealthy, heavily buttered popcorn!

I'm not sure mobilizing the base by bringing in someone who will be an anethema to the sane voter is all that much of a good idea. Keyes is an alienating force much more than he is a energizing force. Of course, that's coming from outside the party and the state, so I could be reading Southern Illinois Republicans wrong. I don't think I am, but I could be.

As has often been noted, what church leaders say and what church members do are two entirely different things. Yes, community leaders of all stripes are important bellweathers of how their community thinks, feels and votes, but I wouldn't put all my electoral eggs in the "black church leaders don't like Obama" basket. I'd also like to hear what those same leaders had to say about Keyes. While his moral stances may be in line with theirs, these leaders have a tendency to have strong moral positions on social issues diametrically opposed to Keyes.

Is the
Im a federal judge...
I never said I was a federal judge...
If you say I said I was a federal judge you're part of a conspiracy routine sarcasm also?

William, do you honestly believe that Clarence Thomas was the most qualified person to sit on the Supreme Court? If you try to say that with a straight face, you lose all credibility whatsoever on any issue. And if you think the color of Thomas' skin had nothing to do with his appointment, I've got a Coke can with a pubic hair on it to sell you.

Oh, dear. This certainly puts me on the horns of a dilemma. Through all of life's travails, one thing that keeps me going is having credibility with you, keywestperson. If I lose that...well, what else is left? The credibility issue gains importance in light of the fact that I seem to have earned this credibility despite having never met you, despite you having no idea who I am, etc etc etc. Your obviously so generous with the credibility, I hate to risk it.

At any rate - and bear with me, I'm not down with all the various icons we are offered here on the board - is it possible to say something with a straight face online? Would it be something like (:I)? That seems a bit off, but glancing at my keyboard I see no other options.

Now the question, I believe, is this: Was Clarence Thomas the absolute most qualified person for the empty spot on the Supreme Court, more qualified than anybody else in the entire nation, anywhere, including presumably people who do not hold law degrees but, gosh darnit, just have a lot of plain old common sense, and also including those notorious Will Hunting types with hidden talents and unconvered genius that is tragically suppressed, repressed, oppressed, whatever by whoever. I honestly cannot say. I don't know if it's possible to say that about anybody who's ever been named to any position, public or private sector. It's a strange standard you've set there, but perhaps it's the whole Key West thing.

As for your pubic hairs, unfortunately I'm trying to wean myself from buying things online, so I'll have to take a raincheck. Thanks though.

Actually it was Daddy Bush who proclaimed that to be the standard :

But intellectual honesty has never been a strong-suit of your GOP friends.

Way to go Maureen Dowd for taking a big chunk out of what I wrote and then twisting the remains for your little "why'd he nominate the black guy?" game. Itellectual honesty is alive and well and living in the Florida Keys.

I guess it depends on one's criteria. If they are that a jurist should ignore the standing laws, centuries of legal practice, and the United States Constitution, and should be silent during all oral arguments, and should not have distinguished himself by the measures that most of the members of SCOTUS have in the past, AND that he should be a member of a racial minority (in the USA), then Thomas would be one of the most qualified. By the criteria through which most of the other (but not all, for there have been doozies before CT on the court) justices were evaluated, he was not well qualified for his position.

I can't speak for William, but I would imagine that the usual criteria were not so important to many of Thomas's supporters. I know of people who admitted that Thomas was "not that smart," but felt it was great that a black person was getting nominated no matter what his politics. A similar analogy might be made to the evangelicals' support of W; maybe his programs have been failures, maybe he isn't so smart, maybe he really is screwing up a lot of things, but he's a devout evangelical, so that's all that matters. Of course this is awful for the rest of us, but for the evangelicals...hey, it's great!

It has always, then, struck me as a powerful irony that Thomas is the staunchest advocate for meritocratic systems.

Actually, it was you who put words in my mouth. I simply exercised my option to take them back out.

The standard simply was whether Thomas was the "best qualified", a standard laid out by Daddy Bush--not all the other extraneous crap you attempted to throw into the mix.

I love that you think it's a bad thing that 41 was seeking the "best qualified" person. At any rate, the question is, "best qualified" compared to whom? It's essentially subjective, as the answers to the questions "What qualifies an individual to sit on the Supreme Court" would vary from person to person, President to President. Maybe some people think the saucy waitress at the local coffeehouse is "best qualified" to talk some sense from the bench, or maybe others think only people who graduated from Georgetown Law are "best qualified" to sit on the bench. Your criteria and someone else's would be completely different. So when you say CT wasn't "best qualified" to sit on the bench, it's more a reflection of your bias, prejudice, preferences, political views, bigotry, etc than any sort of convincing analysis of CT's actual qualifications - i.e. just because you think black conservatives aren't fit to serve on the Supreme Court doesn't make it so.

Who, exactly?

So William, you haven't answered the question yet. Do you personally believe that Clarence Thomas was the "best qualified" person in the entire country that Daddy Bush could find to fill the seat? It's funny that you won't answer such a straight-forward question. Yes or no?

Yeah, William, what he said. wink

Yes, yes, yes, I do think that CT was best qualified at the time, more than anybody else in the entire universe, anywhere, though I did respond to your question by pointing out that people do in fact have different ideas of what qualifies a person for any particular role, so thinking that CT is qualified or not qualified is more a reflection on that individuals preferences, views, etc than on CT himself. At any rate, I obviously don't share your hatred of CT and don't agree with your implication that black conservatives are unfit to serve on the Supreme Court or, presumably, anywhere else. That's a sad thing to think, maybe one days you'll get over that kind of prejudice.

So does this mean I have no credibility with you anymore? Oh dear, Isn't that a kick in the pants.

[ August 10, 2004, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Thomas wasn't the most qualified jurist at that time. He wasn't the most qualified black jurist. He might not have been the most qualified conservative black jurist (but I don't keep a census of conservative black jurists, so I'm not sure). Thomas was a conservative black jurist who minimally filled the requirements of being a federal judge and whom Bush felt the Republican party (or at least Scalia) could control. It certainly has turned out to be the case.

My late grandfather, who grew up in the rural South, and thought it wonderful that Thomas was nominated. Many black liberals I know, who thought that Thomas would "change" or "get some sense" or "not hurt black people" or "take a lesson from Thurgood Marshall." A white right-winger I used to work with, who thought that the court should always have a "minority," and that Thomas, despite his lack of qualifications, wouldn't be "that bad."

In fact, there were a number of well-known black liberals and moderates who thought that Thomas wouldn't be such a disaster--that is, until the GOP began trashing Anita Hill and swept Thomas's past under the rug. Because sexual harassment and mistreatment of women by GOP folks (Thomas, Schwarzenegger, Barr, etc.) never merits any condemnation from right-wingers.

I'm sure you're grandfather was wonderful, but I assumed you were talking about relatively well-known people. Who were these well-known liberals and moderates who were so willing to give CT a chance? Just curious, I wasn't so involved in politics at this point in time, was probably still in high school.

Again, putting words in my mouth. How GOP of you. Because I state that Thomas was unqualified to sit on the Court, you attempt to brand me as a racist who believes ALL black conservatives are unqualified for any job at all.

And yes, you have lost all credibility whatsoever.

KeyWest has spoken, so it must be true.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

Uh, anyway, back to what the thread's about...Alan Keyes is a borderline wacko. He's not a stupid man, but he is a publicity/attention hound whose initial comments towards Obama are a pathetic attempt to draw blood and denigrate this rising star of the democratic party. I think the churches are incredibly foolish and shortsighted to dismiss Obama just because he's for a woman's right to choose. He's a terrific speaker with a fascinating background and clearly, he's got heart. I don't know why african americans all over the country wouldn't be thrilled that America has a rising star like Obama. Duh! No one's running around praising a disappointment like Clarence Thomas, that's for sure.
And while the current administration does everything it can to destroy the seperation between church and state, as far as I know, it's still intact and religious conservatives should smarten up and respect that. And for minority churches to be against civil unions, which aren't just for gay people, just shows me how successful the current administration has been in making cultural and state issues into wedge issues. This also distracts from big stuff such as our flailing economy, the huge deficit, and the constant lying of the Bush white house about just about everything.

And remember, George W. Bush thinks the pre-war intelligence he received was 'pretty darn good." Speaking of unqualified candidates...

anyway, back to regularly scheduled bickering...

[ August 10, 2004, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

You seem to have a very strange obsession with me putting things in your mouth.

Actually, you seem to be the one with the penchant for putting things in my mouth; I, on the other hand, am intent on trying to take them out of my mouth.

Basically. I spent 20+ years among them, and that's exactly how they think.

They've thought about Bush that way for 20+ years? That seems odd.

Why did you stick around so long, perhaps you could have worked your way into some sort of less evangelical setting.

[ August 11, 2004, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Former Illinois GOP gov Jim Thompson refuses to support Keyes. I love his comment: "There are no liberal Republicans anymore." Well, maybe not outside California and the Northeast.

BTW, General Borling was the one who warned about Jack Ryan's seamy past. Of course, he was ignored by his party. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no....

From Salon.com:



[ August 13, 2004, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Perhaps Salon should have been more accurate. Governor Thompson didn't "refuse" to endorse Keyes. In an interview on the local news here, Thompson specifically stated that he hasn't decided whether to publicly endorse Keyes. Apparently, he's still thinking about it.

Like it makes much of a difference anyway.

Thompson's also incorrect when saying there aren't any more liberal Republicans. He's one of them, as is the state chairman, current Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka (there ARE rumors that she's a lesbian, BTW). This is one of the main reasons why the Illinois GOP is in such a mess. The left-wing, country club, blue blood, Republicans--who are really no different from the Democrats--have been locked in a power struggle with the conservative Republicans.

It's the same story being played out in several states, especially TX, where the RR is in firm control of the GOP. In California, however, it's starting to lose control, and Arnold is the one giving it the slip. What's disappointing about this slippage is that it's essentially going unreported by the unrepentent GOP-bashing press, especially the gay press, for fear of doing anything that would make GOPers seem less than monsters and more attractive to moderates. Once the story does get some coverage, it'll make for an interesting read, but so far the Fourth Estate seems to have only Bush-bashing on its mind.

Sorry I wasn't more specific. Outside Texas, evangelicals haven't been aware of George W. Bush any longer than the rest of us, let alone held an opinion about him. They do, however, tend to support politicians they believe to be one of their own, based on religious statements by those politicians and/or endorsements by preachers they respect. This is more evident at the state and local levels, but now someone they consider one of their own is in the White House, and many of them will "support our brother" come what may.

As for why I (having been raised Catholic) spent 20+ years among evangelicals and fundamentalists ... I wanted someone to "cure" me of homosexuality, they said they could, and I believed them. I guess it took me longer than it takes some people to realize it didn't work.

Edited to add:
Almost forgot I originally came here to post this (because I saw it in the weekly email digest I get from across the pond) ...
The Politics of Tokenism: Keyes vs. Obama
For whatever the thoughts of the limey Tories are worth.

[ August 13, 2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: danimal ]

OK, first of all, if Topinka were a lesbian, why exactly would that be a bad thing, particularly in the eyes of a gay man? (Oops, there I go, paying attention to context again. Never mind. I really must stop being so literate. ) As far as I know, she isn't, but why would it discredit her if she were?

Disclosure: I once saw Topinka at a meeting of a gay business organization, but she was there at the invitation of a state bureaucrat who was a member of the organization, was accompanied by several straight staffers (note to Wm1865: I know people who want to work in politics, I just don't think they deserve some special immunity), and was clearly in "politician working the room" mode. She's gay-friendly because that's consistent with her beliefs on other issues. If you don't agree with those beliefs, MIB, that's your choice, and I respect it -- but it doesn't make everybody who disagrees with you a "moron" so try using something other than ad-hominem arguments occasionally.

As for "left-wing, country club, blue blood, Republicans" ... putting aside for a moment the illogic of rich people (who, if they didn't know better, could easily hire someone who does to tell them) acting against their own economic self-interests ... conservative Republicans like Jim Ryan, Joe Birkett, Pate Phillip, Patrick O'Malley, and Andy McKenna aren't any less "country club" or "blue blood" than Topinka, Thompson, or Edgar (and neither is Peter Fitzgerald, whom you admire so much) ... and you know it, so you can scrap the talk-radio canards about the "populist" right vs. the "elitist" left, because they're transparent fallacies designed to foment exactly the kind of "class war" mentality that conservatives accuse liberals of trying to start. The working class, if there is one in this country anymore, doesn't need the DuPage GOP's crocodile tears. :mad:

And, by the way, country-clubber Jack Ryan's campaign positions (including on gay rights) were no different from those of GOP conservatives ... because, hello, he was one. Being sexually "avant garde" or whatever euphemism he used didn't make him a liberal -- it made him a hypocrite. And, like Clinton, his undoing wasn't the sex (he was with his wife, for pete's sake), it was his lying about the sex (or, more accurately, about why he wanted his divorce papers sealed -- which turned out to be because of the sex).

But back to the "morons" as you like to call them ... if these liberal Republicans "are really no different from the Democrats" ... why would this be a problem to someone who repeatedly objects to being described as conservative or a Republican because "I've voted for so many Democrats" (and, as I've said, the hick homophobe Glenn Poshard doesn't count)? Hmm? Why, if you're ... whatever you say your perspective is ... would it bother you that they're like Democrats? Or that they're liberal for that matter? (Unless, of course, you think they should be like the conservatives with whom they're fighting for control of the state GOP ... which begs the question of why you'd want them to be if you're not.)

Finally ... if liberal Republicans like Topinka, Thompson, and Edgar are to blame for the "mess" that the Illinois GOP is in ... why is it exactly that they've been able to win statewide elections and conservatives like Birkett, O'Malley, McKenna, and Jim Ryan haven't? Hmm? Maybe "the people" (for whom the conservatives claim to be the voice), or at least the ones who vote, aren't as conservative as the conservatives in the GOP think they are? Ever consider that possibility?

If conservatives want to say, "We don't care if we're the majority -- we stand by what we believe because it's right" ... fine! This country, among others, has a long history of people doing that. It's honorable and often leads to long-term change. But if any group claims to have majority support, that group had better have the numbers to back up that claim. The conservatives in the Illinois GOP don't. And if you say they do, prove it. Bring it on, counselor. Bring it on.

[ August 13, 2004, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: danimal ]

Hey! Here's another way to look at it.

Those you call the "left-wing, CC, blue blood republicans"... perhaps they are the true republicans after all. and those you call "conservative republicans" (a misnomer since these same people support so many things contrary to conservatism) are, in fact, fringe people who are trying to take over the republican name to gain a sense of legitimacy.

You see.....Unlike those intimidated by The Cheney White House machine, I don't believe that just because W says something it automatically becomes gospel. Just cuz these "nouveau GOP" aka "neo-cons" say they are the "real republicans" doesn't make it so.