Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Aug 11th, 2004, 11:50 AM        ALAN KEYS FLIP FLOPS ON CARPETBAGGING! (Hi, Naldo!)
"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."
- Alan Keyes, March 17, 2000 on FOX News

Thanks to Chimp.

But he only means he wouldn't immitate the pretending part. He would represent his costicuency.

Talk show hosts chosen as sacrificial lambs on account of their skin color.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
ScruU2wice ScruU2wice is offline
Mocker
ScruU2wice's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: thursday
ScruU2wice is probably a spambot
Old Aug 11th, 2004, 12:37 PM       
Now Keyes is desperate to get 6 debates in because he wants to spend virtually no face time with people in Illinois. On top of that he's moved into a predominantly democratic neighborhood and even his tenant says she plans on voting for Obama.

I was watching fox news yesterday and It was funny how they tried to make him out to be the best debator on this side of the world. They showed clips of him sweating and jerking oddly back and forth saying that it was all his charisma.

Furthermore they had an editorial explaining why Barack Obama is scared to debate Keyes and how keyes is god and will win at any cost.

I love fox news..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Aug 11th, 2004, 01:23 PM       
Carpetbagging, and other threats to small-r republican principles

Jonah Goldberg
August 11, 2004

American democracy is in sorry shape these days.

Usually, when I hear pronouncements of this sort, my eyes roll and I start counting ceiling tiles. Indeed, as a democracy curmudgeon, I applaud most of the things democracy fetishists complain about. I wish it were harder to vote and that fewer people did it.

The founding fathers understood that voting in itself is value-neutral. A mob can vote to lynch an innocent man, but that doesn't make it moral. Conversely, few things would be more morally admirable than a man of good conscience thwarting the "democratic will" of the mob to save the same innocent man's life.

Democracy must be tempered by not only the rule of law, but by custom, good will, good faith and good character. Whenever I speak to college students I try to explain to them that the "liberal arts" aren't a description of Michael Moore's cinematic skills. The liberal arts describe the bundle of skills and learning necessary for citizens to both deserve and protect their freedom.

Anyway, what's got me grumpier than usual about democracy in America is the candidacy of Alan Keyes. After a comedy of political errors and just plain bad luck, the Illinois GOP found itself without a candidate to challenge the popular African-American Democrat Barack Obama for the open U.S. Senate seat. So Keyes, a former U.N. Ambassador, two-time presidential candidate and a radio show host, accepted an invitation to run. One problem: Keyes is from Maryland - indeed he ran for the Senate once already in that state.

Now, I like Keyes. He's one of the best rhetoricians in America. Off the cuff he can articulate very conservative positions on everything from abortion to the United Nations better than most politicians can in prepared speeches. Indeed, this may turn out to be a great race. Two hyper-educated, successful and civil African-American men with very different philosophies vying for a Senate seat in the land of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. No matter who wins, Illinois will have the only black Senator in Washington. Even better, race won't be much of an issue between the two because, as Keyes puts it, "if you are racist you have no one to vote for."

That's great stuff.

Except for the pesky fact that the Keyes candidacy is the latest example of a disturbing trend in which both parties are overturning the norms of democracy, with help from the media. Just in the last few years we've seen a dead man (dubiously) elected out of sympathy in Missouri, so that his widow could get a Senate seat as consolation. In New Jersey, Democrats were able to yank Bob Torricelli off the ballot after the deadline, knowing he would lose. In California, Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor because the voters wanted a do-over. In Texas, Republicans violated the longstanding tradition of redistricting only once a decade. And, of course, in 2000 Hillary Clinton won her vanity campaign in New York as a carpetbagger. And, while I think there's a lot of liberal myth-making about the Florida recount, there's no denying the event undermined many Americans' faith in the system.

Now, just as with the Keyes candidacy, each of these irregularities may be justified by no shortage of good arguments. But so what? That just demonstrates the political and cultural pressures driving efforts to rewrite the written and unwritten rules of our system.

The trends at work are complex and numerous. The cult of celebrity allows famous but unqualified candidates to drop into politics in ways that, say, scholars or economists cannot. Loopy campaign finance rules encourage the super-rich to buy their offices, and weakened political parties are only too happy to serve as closing agents for the sale. Worse, consumer culture has infected civic culture. The push to make voting so convenient you can do it with a remote control exemplifies a growing tendency among voters to regard their "choices" as more important than their obligations. Indeed, for some reason, lots of people think it's imperative that criminals vote. Put your ear to the ground and you'll hear the bulldozer coming for the electoral college.

Taken to its logical extreme, these trends would produce a nationalized political system in which voters in California, New York and a few other states would have undue power to select presidents, senators and congressmen.

Keyes understands all of this and admits that, as a matter of principle, carpetbagging is a bad idea because it violates the small-r republican principle that representatives should be products of the communities they represent. (Hillary Clinton, typically, derided such arguments as "dirty attacks" on her character.) In fact, Keyes wants to repeal the 17th Amendment, which empowers voters rather than state legislatures to elect senators.

Keyes also says in his defense that he was asked to run by the party in the state he hopes to represent - unlike Hillary, who foisted herself upon New Yorkers. Fair enough. But doesn't such institutional desperation illustrate how much worse things have gotten in just four years?


Jonah Goldberg is editor of National Review Online, a Townhall.com member group.

©2004 Tribune Media Services
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Aug 11th, 2004, 04:18 PM       
I thought that article was really good, a fine example of what the phrase "Fair and Balanced" ought to mean. I don't agree with him everywhere (Don't like the electoral college) but I love the phrase "Democracy Curmudgeon", and I agree with at least the tebor of his argument, though 'carpetbagging' doesn't bother me. The point he raised about celebrity advanteg in carpetbagging though, has made think about where I stand on the issue.

In either case, Keyes' idea that being asked by Party Leaders means he's not Carpetbagging is bogus and dishonest. If not for the fact that his party recently declared evolving opinions are 'flip flopping', Keyws would be able to say 'That's how I felt then. The political landscape has changed and I feel differently now. Besides, ths is me we're talking about".

If I were Obama, I'd say, for grins, "I'll will debate you exactlt the number of times Bush debates Kerry, and using the same set of conditions, and I won't start the debates until the same week W and Kerry start theirs." It would mean Keyes couldn't call him cowardly or accuse him of denying the voters the information they need. AND it would be funny.

Keyes is his own man and if challenged in such a way, might even take W to task for what I'm guessing will be some serious debate ducking. THAT would be almost as funny as watching McCains face when he stumps for Bush. Did you see the photo where W. hugged him? Talk about party loyalty.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:24 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.