Alan Keyes - GOP Sacrifical Lamb?

Keyes is a real conservative, who opposes abortion, even in cases of rape or incest.

Why would Bush help a conservative, with whom he disagrees on moral issues?

 

For once I must agree with you, Galatian.

Keyes is the kind of Roman Catholic you should be.

 

"Why didn't President Bush go out to Illinois & help campaign for Alan Keyes - like he did for Arlan Spector in Pennsylvania?"

Because Pennsylvania almost went Republican but there was no chance of a GOP victory in Illinois. Alan Keyes became a carpetbagger and was a mistake. He should move back to Maryland.

 

So, are you implying that it's not about being right, it's about winning? (An honest question, by the way.)

 

Baptist in Richmond, it's all about politics. I really can't blame Bush for not going to Illinois to help Keyes campaign. The time was much better spent in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida where Bush had a decent chance of winning the states. Keyes had no chance of winning in Illinois, and quite frankly I think his running upset many people there who saw him as an outsider, whether they be conservative or not. I would not vote for someone who moved to my state just to run for an office.

I can, however, blame Bush for supporting Specter. I think Bush, looking back on things now, would not do it again. It's really coming back to bite him in the rear end.

This is politics and playing the odds, pure and simple. It is what any politician would have done.

 

Keyes is an arrogant know it all. It isn't enough that everyone agrees he is the smartest guy in the room (which he probably is) but he has to go out and tell you that he is the smartest guy in the room. Besides it was Keyes who hammered H. Clinton for going to New York to run for senate even though she is from Illinois. Now he goes and does the same thing? Come on Allen, get real!

 

So, are you implying that it's not about being right, it's about winning? (An honest question, by the way.) </font>[/QUOTE]No, Keyes went overboard on his own.

I don't think that Specter was a mistake. Although Pennsylvania was lost the Republican Senate seat was held. He has since promised cooperation with Bush.

 

Hey Bro. James,

Are you okay with that?
Does "it's all about politics" concern you?

(Again, an honest question.)

Hope this post finds you well,

BiR

 

Keyes turned out to be more of a sacrificial goat than lamb.

 

Keyes was put into the vacant spot in an effort to keep Republican voters from zig zagging on the ballot. It's a very common practice. In this case, Keyes had no interest in winning a race, as he openly stated last year, and no money was wasted on his bid.

 

BiR, the 'it's all about politics' does concern me in many instances, such as when Bush endorsed Specter. However, his not endorsing Keyes seems to have been an 'I don't have time to spend endorsing candidates who have zero chance of winning, especially considering I won't win Illinois anyway' type of political play.

While it would not be genuine of me to say I only want him to endorse very strong candidates, I do agree with his decision, at least not to campaign with or for Keyes as it would have been time wasted which was better spent in other battleground states. This, aside from the fact that he probably didn't care for idea, as I didn't, that Keyes was running for a seat in state that he did not live in, regardless of what diane has pointed out about it above.

Had he known that he would lose Pennsylvania anyway, I seriously have my doubts about Bush endorsing Specter. I certainly would not have voted for Specter. I was pulling for Hoeffel, seeing that we were clearly going to a have a Republican majority with or without the liberal Specter.

 

Thanks Bro. James for sharing your opinion.
I am sure you could find several other worthwhile things to do on a Sunday night than respond to questions from a left-leaning guy in the Commonwealth you don't even know. You have given a very good explanation of your opinion.



Have a great week,

BiR

 

Alan Keyes lost a bit of my respect with this whole debacle. First of all, the move to Illinios...who does he think he is, Hillary Clinton? Then, he said some pretty odd things during the campaign. I'm not sure what he's up to, but will have to watch closely if he makes any political moves in the future.

It's not too odd that Bush did not campaign for him. First, they probably figured out that he didn't stand a chance. Second, Bush normally campaigns AGAINST conservatives, nor for them.

 

I agree Jim. Everyone was critcal of Hillary when she moved to NY to run for the Senate, but it was fine when Keyes did the same.

I was in IL for two weeks right before the election and very few could see that very simple fact.

 

Myself, and a lot of other people I know, did not vote for Alan Keyes for that very reason...

ALL Illinoians were not blinded.

(You were in Chicago, Roger, and that is totally different from being downstate - that explains it )

 

What saddened me though Sue is that these were rock solid christians with the "right" bumper stickers on their cars.

 

But they are in the minority in Chicago.

Chicago has always voted democrat, while downstate has voted republican.

I think Chicago should become a state in itself...

 

Sue, wasn't he the lesser evil?

 

Yes, but he had no chance of winning...