Third Party & Independents: Archives

If someone can say with a straight face that they opposed Hillary’s run and now oppose Keyes on the same grounds, they will get my respect. Somehow, I doubt that there are more than 5% of the country who can say that. IF that.

Our governor Mitt Romney (who is mostly excellent, other than his gay-marriage stance) is from out of state, and yet I voted for him and proudly (he had previously run a great campaign against Kennedy for Senate, which was the first campaign I was really into in my life- sadly our state’s voters are pathetically in love with the Kennedy name, so he lost).

On the other hand, if I thought someone who had no connection to the state whatsoever and was only running in my state because it was an “open” seat, I would not support such a candidate, unless the alternatives were all egregious.

In any case, that is up to the people of Illinois, and not up to me. Somehow, I think those who are going to be most “outraged” over this carpet bagging where pretty solid Obama votes to begin with… that’s politics for yah :) Whatever may be said about Keyes, I am pretty sure that the debates between him and Obama will be more spirited, intelligent and interesting than those between Bush and Kerry. And Obama is gonna win anyway- so don’t worry.

I thought the most interesting part of Keyes’ acceptance speech was where he calls Obama a baby killer.

“…what we have to look at is what finally arrested my attention and forced me to consider whether I not only have the opportunity to oppose him, but the obligation.

And that was when I learned that he had actually, in April, 2002, apparently cast a vote that would continue to allow live birth abortions in the state of Illinois.

We are talking about a situation in which, in the course of an abortion procedure, a child has been born alive - is out of the womb, breathing and living on its own - and he cast a vote against the idea that we should not stand by and let that child die!”

By the same token, I wonder how many are ready to admit that Keyes got the Republican nomination for the same reason that Obama, a state rep who has yet to be elected to any national office, was the keynote speaker at the Democratic Convention.

I like Keyes as the candidate just because I think it’s going to be good political theater, but I agree that Keyes and anybody else who complained about Hillary’s run looks pretty inconsistent at this point. For myself, I’m comfortable with the voters making the choice about whether or not they want to be served by a carpetbagger. In fact, I also think the voters should get to decide whether or not the governor of California should become the president of the United States. Niggling electoral regulations should be secondary, at least in these cases, to the will of the voters.

But Ultra-leftist Obama vs. ultra-conservative Keyes! A debate to shame that between Bush and Kerry. In fact, I think it would do quite well on cable pay-per view, the political scrap of the season.

Hmmm… baby killer or carpetbagger. I know which I would choose.

Ive seen these so called votes, and most of the really controversial ones that nuts like alan keyes want to flaunt are simply innacurate. He claims that because obama voted “present”, instead of no on certain votes, hes some kind of anti-christ. Obama is quite moderate, no matter what the conservative smear machine wants to paint him as. The guy actually wants to work with people, not be a crazed religious demogogue. Alan Keyes is an extremist that cant even stand on his on princeples.

Keyes stands pretty well on his principles, actually. My problem with him, even as a conservative, is that he embraces such a purified version of those principles that he may not be equipped for the give-and-take of actual governing (as opposed to campaigning). Obama is of a similair sort, but a leftist variety.

Saying “I am a moderate and want to work with others” as Obama does not make one a moderate, especially when everything else that comes out of your mouth is pure partisan dogma. It’s a way of co-opting an imaginary middle and painting those who disagree as extremist. We’ve seen this on the left as well as the right, and it will be fun to see Keyes flush out and expose Obama in the debates.

Jeez, I almost said “Osama.” But after all, what’s the difference between Obama and Osama? ‘B’ and ‘S.’ In other words BS.

(joking here, folks, so spare me the outrage about comparing Obama to bin Laden)

Martin said: “Keyes stands pretty well on his principles, actually. My problem with him, even as a conservative, is that he embraces such a purified version of those principles that he may not be equipped for the give-and-take of actual governing (as opposed to campaigning). Obama is of a similair sort, but a leftist variety.”

One of those rare occasions upon which you and I agree, Martin. He is a man of principle and I respect him for that. His principles are inordinately inflexible however, and would not permit him to lead a majority of the electorate on issues that define them as a majority.

He is one helluva debater, as well. Obama will need to be sprite on his toes.

A David-Martin lovefest here!

Obama vs. Keyes is going to be like Chrismas in October for we political junkies. Keyes has nothing to lose, really, and will come into the debates with both guns blazing. I’m serious, folks, pay-per-view. Where’s Don King when you need him!

Well, Don King is out stumping for Bush on the campaing trail. What a weirdly exciting political season. All we need now is the bearded lady and the elephant man!

I’ve threatened my leech of a Republican friend (who keeps leeching off of her friends in order to avoid signing up for welfare, since losing her job), that if she doesn’t get a job before November 2nd I’m voting a straight Democrat ticket. Now we’ll see if devotion to her beloved George Bush will be worth launching her overfed ass up off the couch and into more job interviews than just the odd chiropractic receptionist gig where she thinks the doctor is “hot”.

Now, with that as a contrast, to hear of Alan Keyes’ purported inconsistency on the subject of “carpetbagging” to foreign districts to run for political office, I think that’s rather mild by comparison. It maketh me yawn.

Thanks for sharing, Ciggy.

Martin,

Unfortunately for you, many of my fellow Illinois voters are alot like me! The state has swung very progressive over the last three decades, and Barack Obama perfectly represents that political mindframe.

Sen. Obama has amassed an impressive legislative record, over the 12 years representing Chicago’s South Side 13th District.

You can slap on that tired ‘Ultra-Liberal’ label, but ask that you read up on his stated positions, before repeating it. Obama has the full support of the equally popular Senior U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, and the bittersweet endorsement of the late Paul Simon.

Already, Mr. Keyes has stumbled, by launching a campaign on the abortion and gay marriage issue. State Conservatives know that the only issues to possibly gain traction against Obama, are on taxes and spending. Or, does Keyes have a tin ear?

Martin, don’t rub it in, eh? :-) Lovefest my …!

You are right again, though. There are so many trainers, owners, jockeys, and scorepersons on this November 2 race track, I can hardly see the horses, anymore! It is going to be one shocking landslide which no one could see coming (except me, of course!)

Bert, I know full well that Obama has it in the bag. It’s not my misfortune, though. I live in… well either New York or California, but not Illinois. My misfortunes are still Hillary, Schumer, Boxer and Feinstein (damn their eyes).

Sorry, but I have no taste for either Obama or deep-dish pizza—you’re welcome to him AND your crappy weather. :)

Cheers, David. You still haven’t told me where to send the Republican registration card once the mists clear. The clock’s ticking, you Buddist procrastinator. Come away from the dark side soon because the credits are about to roll.

Wait a second, did Obama actually vote against the born-alive infant protection act? I knew like 13 congressmen vote against this bill (which stops the killing of infants who are accidentally born during botched abortions. Basically, they let the child die right there in the hospital- i know about this cause one of my profs at Amherst was one of the original authors of the bill). Was Obama in Congress 2 years ago when this bill was up for a vote? I would really really like to believe that he isnt one of these 13 or so people (I had a much harsher term for those who voted against this bill here, but I will restrain myself) who actually opposed the bill.

I mean, even if you are not pro-life, an abortion performed AFTER birth is something we can all agree is wrong, cant we? or are we that far gone?

And yes, you read the above correctly, more than 10 people in Congress do not agree with the above statement, obviously. kind of scary.

Martin, the North Pole, via Santa Clause!

Misha:

I lay claim to being one of your 5%. I dont like the fact that Keyes is running in Illinois simply because there is a chance to run there. It’s kind of like the Miami Dolphins eying the Arena Football League schedule, thinking that even without Ricky Williams, they might have a shot at a championship there.

That having been said, there is a big difference between this move and Hillary Clinton’s move. Hillary looked over the country (recognizing that she was from either Illinois or Arkansas) and chose New York for obvious political reasons. First was the opening of the Senate position and second was the Democratic leaning of the state.

Keyes situation is more like that of Frank Lautenberg. Keyes didnt hunt out this opportunity—the opportunity hunted Keyes down because he is at least a reasonably legitimate challenger.

Its still the wrong thing to do, and I doubt it will pay any real dividends, though it will be interesting to watch. I’ll bet Obama cuts down the number of debates that he was planning to have against Ryan, knowing that he will face an even tougher debater. Without debate time, Keyes will certainly face a tougher prospect.

Martin—

I agree, the voters of Illinois should be given the choice, and they will, and Keyes will be sent packing. About Arnold, that is a federal Constitutional issue and not for voter referendum. I for one am again such a change…

Obama is hardly ultra-left, but I will admit that Keys is way out there on the right…

It’s amusing to me that every voice in this thread that has no grasp for the Illinois voting electorate is from (surprise, surprise) out of state.

Let’s be very clear… Illinois is a generally well-informed electorate with very progressive tendencies. Our most recent flirtations with the Republican party have been nothing short of disastrous. The three unrelated Ryans: former Gov. George, former Gub. candidate Jim, and current sleazebag Jack all rubbed this state the wrong way. And Fitzgerald’s pathetic tenure in the Senate is rivaled only by Carol Mosely Braun’s.

All the state’s political heroes, on the other hand, have been Democrats (with one exception, Gov. James Thompson). Paul Simon and Dick Durbin have been enormously popular Senators. We’ve got Mayor Daley, congressional heavy-hitters in the black community like Jesse Jackson Jr. and Bobby Rush, and a major up-and-comer in Rahm Emanuel.

This state bleeds progressive politics, and while Obama may have a liberal voting record, he also has a well-tempered, moderate voice that captures the progressive attitude of the electorate. Keyes is fairly extremist in his voice and will not be viewed as an acceptable candidate in the state.

As for his principles? We already know he’s a hypocrite on carpetbagging, and we all know he’s only in this race to erase his prior campaign debts. So what it boils down to is this: Keyes is perfectly willing to compromise his so-called principles—under the veil of God no less—in order for financial gain. How principled is that?

On the Issues shows the race as between a left leaning liberal and a hardcore conservative. I’m looking forward to that debate!

> First was the opening of the Senate position
> and second was the Democratic leaning of
> the state.

You’re forgetting another reason: New York is the greatest place in the world ;) and they were going to move here anyway.

-Cf

[Andrew wrote] “All the state’s political heroes, on the other hand, have been Democrats (with one exception, Gov. James Thompson). Paul Simon and Dick Durbin have been enormously popular Senators. We’ve got Mayor Daley, congressional heavy-hitters in the black community like Jesse Jackson Jr. and Bobby Rush, and a major up-and-comer in Rahm Emanuel.”

You left out the best governor the state has had in the 20 years or so that I’ve lived here — Republican Jim Edgar. Of course he doesn’t fit your idealized list that includes ultra-partisan Durbin, beer distributor Jackson, “Vote early and Vote Often” Daley, former gangster Bobby Rush, and famed Clinton cheerleader Rahm Emanuel, so I’m not surprised that you omitted his name.

Actually there is a little-known part of Illinois that’s located south of Chicago and that, generally speaking, isn’t quite as “progressive” as those brilliant folks way up there on the lake. If you exclude Chicago, and of course the Birkenstock wearers of tasteful Urbana, the state is actually pretty moderate.

I came to realize that most people up north don’t know about us because Governor Blago almost never comes down to the state capital in Springfield. You know you’re in trouble when your own governor doesn’t know you exist.

I must also disgree with your portrayal of Fitzgerald. I didn’t go along with many of his positions, but I really respected the guy for voting his conscience. He was never afraid to vote against either party’s official position, thereby guaranteeing that he’d never reach a leadership role in the Senate. You inaccurately compared him to Moseley-Braun, who voted for whatever the Democratic leadership told her to vote for…whenever she was in Washington anyway.

But back to the Keyes issue. He’s likely to get clobbered in the election, but he’s another guy who isn’t afraid to tell you where he stands, whether you agree with him or not. If by some miracle he actually managed to win, I think it’s safe to say that he would irritate just as many conservatives as liberals in the years ahead.

NOTOTH

NOTOTH, Point taken. I did leave out Edgar and he was very well-respected. A lot of that respect came from the fact that he represented the constituents of Illinois. Even as a Republican he rarely stepped on the toes of Democrats.

Now you say that the state is moderate if you exclude Chicago, but Chicagoland makes up almost half the state’s population. So what you have in the end is a lot of progressives, a lot of moderates and a handful of conservatives. That is why Obama was doubling up Ryan in the polls before Ryan dropped out.

On the Fitzgerald-Mosely Braun comparison, I stand by it. Both were utter failures in office and seen as such by both their constituents and their respective parties. Neither one served their constituents while in office — Mosely Braun because she was lazy, and Fitzgerald because he didn’t listen to anyone but himself. Draw whatever distinctions you want between the two — whatever makes you sleep better at night — but they both got “fired” for not doing their job and serving their constituents first and foremost.

Obama leads 67% - 28% in the latest SUSA poll. What a nail biter!

Well said, Andrew. Neither Carol nor Peter are likely to head their respective parties anytime soon.

Scrutiny Hooligans has more on Keyes.

He’s comparing abortion providers to terrorists and saying that God flew planes into the twin towers. Wow.

Recently attended a presentation at North Park University on health care issues that featured both Keyes and Obama. This was not a debate, but a sequential airing of views. Obama spoke first and left before Keyes took the podium — and that was a wise choice on his part. What a contrast. Obama’s halting attempt to connect to the crowd before getting to his prepared notes was painfully inept — and these were college kids (and a few administrators and teachers). It was pure party-line content once he got to his typed speech (I was in the balcony looking right down on him).
Keyes, on the other hand, spoke forcefully and clearly, no notes whatsoever, basing his remarks on ideas he has developed and polished that included a fresh approach to health (not health care). His comments at the end focused on his primary reason for running: Obama’s unbelievable opposition to the Illinois Senate’s Born Alive Infant Protections Act — that the U.S. Senate eventually passed unanimously!
I fervently hope that there will be a televised debate betweent these two candidates!