Alan Keyes: Hypocrite Extraordinaire

Hold on there, trigger happy:

Keyes, a Maryland resident, told Republican leaders who offered him the nomination Wednesday night that he would make his decision known Sunday. Under the law, Keyes would have to live in Illinois only by Election Day.

Asked how he felt about making a Senate run from a state he had never lived in, he responded: "As a matter of principle, I don't think it's a good idea."

"It has to be something where I would be convinced it's not only consonant with federalism as I understand it but that it's in the best interest of the state and of the nation," Keyes said.

Yes, how unreasonable and selfish and hypocritical.

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
He said he wouldn't imitate it, then he did.

It's not rocket science.

So what you are saying is that outside parties asked Hillary Clinton to run for Senate after their previously chosen candidate dropped out due to a media created scandal involving making a sexual desire known to her spouse?

Clinton carpetbagged on up to New York with the intent of running for Senate from the get go. Keyes is pondering running for Senate after being asked and also after the previous candidate dropped out and also several other offers have been made to other people (Mike Ditka being one)

If you can't see the difference between the two then that is really sad for you. One is a clear powergrab, the other someone pondering signing on reluctantly.

Nick

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
He said he wouldn't imitate it, then he did.

It's not rocket science.

A democrat upset by flipping. :lol:

I see we're all splitting hairs and then calling people "sad" when it's not "obvious"...back to our discussion:

Keyes has promised to "think about it" and offer a response on Sunday.

A reminder from an earlier post, Keyes circa March 2000:

"I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there, so I certainly wouldn't imitate it."

It's an issue he's already being forced to address:

Asked how he felt about making a Senate run from a state he had never lived in, he responded: "As a matter of principle, I don't think it's a good idea."

"It has to be something where I would be convinced it's not only consonant with federalism as I understand it but that it's in the best interest of the state and of the nation," Keyes said.

Is there wiggle room in there? A little, but not much.

Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/5/0560/55472)

sun-times is reporting that he'll run.

story here ( http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/keyes05.html)

it'll still be fun......

Hypocrisy confirmed:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040808_991.html

Originally posted by trumptman
Only to a Democrat could there be a sex scandal for wanting to do something with your wife.

Finally you neglect to mention that it is an allegation that isn't proven nor is it a crime.

Leave it to the same folks that brought us political correctness to bring us sexual correctness. What Clinton does with an intern is none of our damn business, yet what Ryan does with his WIFE is our damn business.

Talk about your height of hypocrisy...

Firstly, I'm getting sick of people calling me a Democrat, I'm not even American. The labels you use to avoid thinking do not apply to me.

Second, I never used the phrase "sex scandal", I just thought you left out some important details in your incredibly one-sided portrayal. And now your just getting hysterical.

Where is the bright dividing line between a married man getting a blow job from an intern (and then lying about it) and a man trying to talk his WIFE into performing LIVE SEX SHOWS for STRANGERS (and then lying about it)? It is apparently obvious to you.

Talk about the height of lunacy...

It was the repubs that knew it wouldn't fly with their constituents. Illinois dems just sat back and watched the show.

Originally posted by bunge
Then why was it the Republican party that turned their proverbial backs on him? This is obviously a rhetorical question and the true answer is that you're incorrect.

Because a lot of Republicans do more than talk the talk. Several Republican congressmen ended up resigning while investigating Clinton and having their own dirt come up. Even Bush had trouble turning out evangelicals in 2000, and likely will in 2004.

It could also be that Republicans are smart enough to know that there is a clear media double-standard on things like this and that since the media themselves were the ones petitioning courts to get the records, they weren't going to let it go away. We saw the same sort of "sexual correctness" used to attack Ar-nald here in California right before the election.

Nick

Personally, I think the Repubs actually hate Keyes, and have asked him to do this, knowing that he'll go down in flames, just to get rid of him. I mean did you see his statement that he's "going to make this a fight"? He was screaming like a madman, shaking his head and popping his eyes out like he was on drugs or something. Do you think that's the tactic the Republicans are looking for here?

It was mentioned on ABC news that there's speculation that his running is intended to distract Obama(and the election) from the issues. But don't they see that this is going to make the issues even more obvious? It's going to bring so much more media attention to Obama, as if he hasn't been getting enough, and each time he speaks, it's another nail in the coffin of Bushco.

Unless the Repubs are planning to smear him with something.

Keyes just looks really bad here. I mean really bad. I wouldn't expect him to get 5%, AND he's going to harm the GOP's cause in the end.

Was it the Republicans who made the decision to have Keyes run, or the Democrats? Hmm...

Originally posted by trumptman
Because a lot of Republicans do more than talk the talk. Several Republican congressmen ended up resigning while investigating Clinton and having their own dirt come up. Even Bush had trouble turning out evangelicals in 2000, and likely will in 2004.

It could also be that Republicans are smart enough to know that there is a clear media double-standard on things like this and that since the media themselves were the ones petitioning courts to get the records, they weren't going to let it go away. We saw the same sort of "sexual correctness" used to attack Ar-nald here in California right before the election.

Nick

So you're admitting you were wrong a few posts ago when you blamed the attack on the democrats? Good for you.

Come to think of it, it's pretty dumb for the Republicans to have this guy run. They ought to let some up-and-coming Republican Illinois politician run, to get some name recognition for future runs, assuming Obama will win.

Originally posted by bunge
So you're admitting you were wrong a few posts ago when you blamed the attack on the democrats? Good for you.

Read more carefully. Foxy was claiming I left the "scandal" out of the Ryan actions. I was declaring that he thought it was a scandal. I've attributed the opening of the divorce records to the media throughout the thread.

I was replying to Foxy's quote here.

Is this the same guy who flat out lied to his own party about whether there was anything to worry about in his sealed divorce papers, and then it was revealed he wanted to fuck his wife in front of strangers in a variety of sex clubs, some with cages and whips hanging from the ceiling? 'cos your description doesn't really cover it in enough depth.

Foxy wanted me to blame Ryan instead of the media. I said only he (called him a Democrat) would consider it a scandal for a husband to have sex with his wife in a kinky manner.

Nick

Originally posted by trumptman
I said only he (called him a Democrat) would consider it a scandal for a husband to have sex with his wife in a kinky manner.
:lol:

Great reasoning. So because republicans won't vote for a guy in a sex scandal somehow it's the dems that are turned off by it. Right about know I wish I knew where I saw that article joking how it was too bad his constituents weren't chicago dems.

Originally posted by trumptman
But Keyes can excite the base and help turn them out for other contested seats.
Interesting point. Will he be effective at turning out the base-- especially considering his weak relationship to the state and his late entry to the race? It's a good idea-- but perhaps executed too late.

Originally posted by trumptman
Foxy wanted me to blame Ryan instead of the media. I said only he (called him a Democrat) would consider it a scandal for a husband to have sex with his wife in a kinky manner.

Hiding the info from fellow Republicans was the scandal.

Originally posted by giant
Actually, I'm judging his public sex life (or at least his fantasy of one). It's not like I'm invoking the stereotype of the closeted leather and studs conservative (oops!). :)

How is having sex in a sex club in front of people who want to see you having sex "public"?

Originally posted by tonton
Giant, I really like you, but that's extremely judgmental. There's never anything wrong with asking. If she says "no", then she says "no". In this case, evidently she didn't. That doesn't make him a douchebag. Maybe the whole thing was her own suggestion. Or maybe she was really into it. If she hated the idea, she wouldn't have done it.

It seems like you're judging people's private sexual practices.

I agree with you however they didn't do it. The "scandal" was that Ryan was alleged to have asked his wife about it. They never did have public sex at any of these clubs. It was just alleged that he asked for it.

Nick

Originally posted by tonton
That's so lame. What a "scandal"!

But even Clinton's cigar incident was a private matter, and should have remained private.

It probably would have if it weren't in a public place.:devil: :lol:

Nick

Mr. Keyes, Carpetbagger ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50885-2004Aug8.html)

try bugmenot.com

Also, check out this endorsement
"I spent five weeks trying to find good people," said Mr. Hastert, who said he approached state legislators and the former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka and Gary Fencik, an Ivy Leaguer who was a hard-hitting safety.

"I got down into last week interviewing a 70-year-old guy who was a great farm broadcaster in Illinois," Mr. Hastert said. "He decided because of his health problems he couldn't do it. You know, we were down we needed to find somebody to run, somebody who wanted to run. And, you know, Alan Keyes wants to run, and I hope he's a good candidate."
So basically, he was the absolute last choice. Got it.

Originally posted by giant
try bugmenot.com

Also, check out this endorsement

So basically, he was the absolute last choice. Got it.

It's always the last choice isn't it?

"I know! Let's get Mikey to run. He'll run for anything!"
</lifecerealcommercialparody>

This endorsement of Alan Keyes by a prominent Illinois Republican is so deeply feeble that I'm not certain it counts as an endorsement. But former Illinois Governor James R. Thompson tells the Sun-Times: ""I'd be inclined to vote Republican. His views are very conservative. Some of his positions would make me uncomfortable as a voter. I'm willing to give him a chance to tell the people of Illinois what his views are. I have not endorsed him."

Okay, I guess on second thought we can say definitively that that was not an endorsement. But I'm going to let it in anyway.

Meanwhile, yesterday Keyes gave a Chicago television station an impromptu performance of 'Somewhere Over the Rainbow', which you can see here. (http://wbbm.dayport.com/launcher/6848/)

It's actually not bad, makes me think he may have missed his true calling. Of course, Keyes isn't in Maryland any more, or Kansas for that matter. So, if he's offering renditions of appropriate-to-the-moment tunes, I think I would have suggested Otis Redding's classic 'Mr. Pitiful." But of course I wasn't there.

And finally we have one of the first verbal clashes between the two men. Keyes is insisting that Obama agree to meet him in no less than six debates, as he had apparently agreed to do with departed-nominee Jack Ryan.

Obama says he'll debate Keyes two or three times, not six.

To which Keyes responded: "So let's see. Before I came on the scene, Barack Obama thought of himself as if he was in the same class as Lincoln and Douglas in the critical drama of American life. And now he realizes that he's not in that class. Well, I think that the state of Illinois remains in that class. . . . And I think that it is a disservice to the people of this state to allow him to cower in timidity, and before the real historic challenge that is before us in this campaign."

Obama replied, pretty cleverly I thought, that the six debate offer was "a special for in-state residents."

And then Keyes with this marvelous piece of ridiculousness: "OK. So a guy from out of state steps into the ring, and Barack Obama wants to get out of the ring. I don't know, because you see when he goes into the Senate of the United States, if he should get there, he's not going to find one person from out of state standing there. He's going to find 98 people from out of state. . . . If he's not ready for me, he's not ready for the Senate of the United States."
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_08.php#003268

Note the link in the quote to see him singing. You'll need to take off the popup blockers.

More downplaying... hilarious.

And your spelling.

But in all seriousness, the Jack Ryan divorce papers were indeed scandalous-- especially to his own party. You can reduce the whole episode to just "desire," but the fact that his desire was documented in the divorce papers and subsequently publicized in the press is what made it a scandal (assuming an offended Illinois Republican Party, of course). Its release did in fact create a controversy that ultimately forced Ryan to withdraw his candidacy. So, you're wrong. "Sex scandal" does not merely refer to a physical act, but to desires, preferences, etc. that are somehow publicized.

I don't think any of that matters, personally.

No need to "play it up" but the moral nannies that is the Republican party constituency are trying to downplay Ryan's perversion.

They are in such a defensive, reactionary frenzy that honest self-appraisal is impossible.

I still think Bush is going to win, but this naked desperation makes me think the conservatives can feel that their hold on the White House is nearing intermission.

Originally posted by groverat
No need to "play it up" but the moral nannies that is the Republican party constituency are trying to downplay Ryan's perversion.

Groverat, you know my standpoint as a liberal as well as anyone. While it's ironic that the same Republicans who thrashed Clinton for his mistakes are "downplaying" this, I find your assertion (and others') that it's some kind of "perversion" to be insulting. Sex is an important part of life, and if some people like to engage in perfectly harmless acts of exhibitionism or voyeurism, that's in no way "perversion". I'm sure you never do it without turning off the lights first and in the missionary position only. Prude.

Sex is a wonderful thing, and if I had a willing girlfriend and a suitable venue, I'd love to be as exhibitionist as possible with her.

This should not have been an issue.

Perversion is relative, and just like so many other issues, is simply a result of judgmental thinking. If you don't like it, don't do it.

The difference between us is that if I think something is an unattractive practice to me (like what's the point of heterosexual anal intercourse?) but realize that other people enjoy it and don't find it perverted, I don't call that practice a "perversion". To do so is judgmental.

Only the things that I most strongly object to will I call unacceptable (like rape and child sex).

If somebody somewhere enjoys something, even if I wouldn't personally enjoy it, and it doesn't cause anybody any harm, then it cannot possibly be a perversion.

So what does Chicago's Black community think of keyes?
Keyes, an African-American, was greeted with a resounding chorus of jeers and boos that bordered on outright hostility.

"Go back to Maryland!" and "Down with Keyes!" were the most common refrains...

So when Obama's political challenger appeared Saturday, the reception was not pretty. Over the first couple of blocks of the parade route, Keyes got a few down-turned thumbs and groans of dissent.

...

But as the crowds grew thicker and Keyes inched closer to a sea of Obama supporters, spectators grew more aggressive in denouncing him. As Keyes tried to shake hands between 47th and 48th Streets, a woman ran up to him, lifted an Obama sign above her head and screamed repeatedly into Keyes' face: "Obama for president! Obama for president!"

Another man briefly grabbed Keyes' arm and advised Keyes, "Take your [expletive] back to Maryland."
So what about Obama?
By contrast, Democrat Barack Obama was treated to a king's welcome, with thousands of parade-goers hoisting blue-and-white Obama signs, wearing Obama stickers and shrieking in pure joy as his float passed by. They serenaded the Hyde Park Democrat with chants of "O-Ba-Ma! O-Ba-Ma! O-Ba-Ma!"
Guess it's just the liberal media's version. :lol:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0408150393aug15,1,5211767.story?coll=chi-newslocalchicago-hed

In other news, Senatorial candidate Alan Keyes doesn't think senators should be elected and wants to repeal the 17th Amendment.

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/politics/index.ssf?/base/politics-0/1092448143228011.xml&storylist=electionmi

As quoted earlier in this thread:
"I think there's a perception that he marches to his own drummer and I think that's a fair perception," said [republican] political adviser Bill Pascoe, who has long known Keyes and earlier this year worked on Ryan's campaign.
I have to say I agree. And too bad for keyes that neither trumpt nor sdw live in the state. They would boost votes for him by like 50%!

I usually think of Republicans as interested in limiting the franchise for select groups of voters. But in a move which -- and here I have to give the guy credit -- really does seem to look beyond racial divisive categories, Alan Keyes has called for all Americans, regardless of race, creed, etc. etc. etc., to lose their right to vote for senators.

Let's also note that this seems like an exceptionally brave move for a man currently running for senate under the current democratic rules.

In any case, can we get Sen. George Allen, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, to go on record about whether he thinks this is a good idea? Or how about the president?

Perhaps also we can get a response on Keyes' proposal to for slavery reparations in the form of a two generation federal tax holiday (with the exception of payroll taxes) for all African-Americans?

Josh Marshall (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_15.php#003282) at it again! :D

Originally posted by Northgate
You gotta love Josh Marshall ( http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_15.php#003280) for his insight. Yeah I've noticed that he's unnaturally obsessed with Keyes.

After so much stress surrounding political events for the last couple years, I think it's refreshing to have some comic relief.

I like the fact he standing up for what he believes, whether everyone else thinks he's nuts or not.

Like it so much I've changed my sig for the first time.

Originally posted by giant
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that anyone supporting carpetbagger keyes in any way is also nuts.

Mindless name-calling. How typical - and sad - that this is what modern political discourse in North America has been reduced to.