The GOP is going to lose the Illinois Senate race and they are going to lose badly. Recent remarks by GOP candidate Alan Keyes are already solidifying my worst fears. Obama is very smart and has a very good feel for his constituency. According to the 2000 U.S. census, Illinois is 15.1% Black and 73.5% White. Obama is looking for the issues that unite (God, I hate admitting that) while Keyes is using language that is offensive to both demographic camps. "Slaveholder's position!" This is the best the GOP has to offer? At the Boston Convention, Obama spoke to a whole nation when he dreamed about a colorblind America of "just Americans" without prefix or subtitle.
Obama's response to Keyes' recent rant offers a window into a man with a superior political compass:
Asked specifically about the phrase "slaveholder's position," Obama said Keyes "should look to members of his own party to see if that's appropriate if he's going to use that kind of language."
He's right. Keyes is a wildcard. Unless the Illinois GOP has some incredibly bad political consultants, I cannot imagine anyone actually agreeing to these comments in advance. There will come a point in this campaign when Keyes' radical views will dominate public discourse in Illinois. The GOP asked for an old-guard Conservative vs. Liberal fight, and that's just what they have on their hands.
Here is the real reason why Keyes doesn't have a chance:
"As I travel around this state, I don't get asked about gay marriage, I don't get asked about abortion," Obama said. "I get asked, 'How can I find a job that allows me to support my family.' I get asked, 'How can I pay those medical bills without going into bankruptcy."
While Keyes is talking about the plight of the unborn, Obama will be talking about getting people jobs and affordable medical coverage (whether he can provide these things has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make).
I do not like saying this, but in many ways, I hope the liberal Obama wins with an overwhelming majority (I am in no way endorsing Obama or his liberal ideas of governance). The GOP has to learn a lesson about alienating huge blocks of potential voters. Conservatism is a good thing up to a certain point, but it must take into consideration an ever-evolving America.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/keyes09.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
And that's precisely the point of the New Republicans: to move the GOP away from this ridiculous insistence on a conservative at all costs mentality. Keyes is a liability -- cut him loose.
Alan Keyes may not be the best candidate for the Illinois Senate seat, but he certainly is not the worst. He has a great knowledge of the constitution, american history, and conservative principles. He articulates these principles better than most conservatives.
Barrack Obama is an old style liberal democrat in new democrat clothing. His speech at the Democrat convention, while well delivered, still articulated the same great society/new deal views held by most far left Democrats. Bottom line, if you really think about it, he's as much an extremist as Keyes.
If Keyes does one thing in this race, I hope that he exposes the real liberal underneath the new democrat clothing.
Let's make it a race between failed Democrat promises, and Republican follow through. Then let Illinois make there choice. That's what Jack Ryan wanted to do, and it is a winning strategy.
That being said, I still wouldn't sign anything more than a month to month lease in Illinois if I were Keyes.
Your argument is very interesting, but fatally flawed. The religous right is not going go to the polls in large numbers for a Republican-In-Name-Only. Granted, the candidate doesn't have to wear his religion on his sleeve, but he/she must be pro-life at a minimum to bring them to the polls in droves. They are an important voting block, and you ignore them at your peril. Remeber - they can always stay home on election day.
That being said, the voting bloc that will swing the Illinois election isn't the Christin Right, but the independnet voter. I think Obama appeals to them because he doesn't appear to be hard hearted, he presents well, and he gives voters a lot of "happy talk" about "one nation" (ask Al Gore and George Bush if there are two Americas) without ever taking vocal partisan positions on controversial issues like Alan Keyes.
There is only one kind of cure to deal with the Obamas of the world in tough Blue states such as Illinois - run a tough anti-crime, pro-national security/defense tax cutter. Obama can talk all the happy talk he wants, but the bottom line is people want to feel secure.
Alan Keyes, if only you were a middle aged Brooklyn Italian-American former prosecuter and former NY Mayor with a name like . . .Guiliani?
Let's set the record straight on the Christian Right.
The Christian Right helped give the Republicans the majority of the House and the Senate during the Gingrich revolution, ending 50 years of liberal domination of Congress. I think we can all agree that Newt was a member, if not the leader, of the Christian Right in his day. I don't remember liberal Republicans ever leading any revolution - quite the contrary in fact - they got more environmental/animal rights legislation done during the Democrat controlled congresses.
As far as Roman Catholics or Christians voting for Democrats in places like New York or Massachusetts - they are not the "Religious Right." By definition, how could they vote Democrat and still be considered on the right? The Democrats are not running good conservative Blue Dog Democrats in these east coast states, they're running liberal ideologues. If you vote for one, you are at best center-left. Am I missing something here?
Bottom line - before we discard the opinions of the Christian Right, let us consider all that we have today because of their support.
But the one thing I agree the religious right will not give us is a victory in the Illinois Senate race or put New York in Bush's column come November.
The Religious Right sit on the edge of the Cretaceous Period politically. Demographic trends of immigration, changes in young voter preferences and the generally insular culture which many of them espouse are all reasons why they will cease to be the most important voting block for the Republicans. The sooner we realize that keeping 20M Christians happy alienated 230M other people, the better off the party will be.
Whatever feats of strength the Christians pulled off with Gingrich, the brute fact is that they are a lessening power in politics.
You mentioned in an earlier post that these Christians could always stay home, if the Republicans were that "in name only" [What in the hell does that mean anyway? Is their an inherently Republican gene, some piece of mitochondrial definition that does or does not inhere in a candidate (or his platform)? The very definition of a Righty or Lefty is flexible. Always has been, always will be.].
Yet, if you read the comments, articles of associated literature of (say) the Evangelical Christians, they beleive that it is a moral and civic duty to vote -- just as it is a moral and civic duty to oppose abortion. While some of them many not vote, large numbers of them will continue to vote, regardless of how centrist the party's platform becomes.
The Republicans must reposition themselves away from the Christian Right if we hope to become anything more than a minority party of disaffected Christians.
If the libertarian wing of the party bolted and joined hands with the moderate wing of the Dems, they would be the largest voting block in the US. The Right would be the last redoubt of the Christians, seeking an American version of Biblical Utopia and their opposities would be the party praying for a multicultural world of socialist peace and international solidarity.
The end game is in sight. Choose your side wisely.
I don't think we will be writing the political obituary of the Christian right just yet, or any other time in the near future.
The Christian Right was a product of a backlash to the liberal 1960's and 1970's. They caught every political pundit by surprise when suddenly Ronald Reagan was elected. Who would have thought during two eras of Berkley, hippies, studio 54 and free love that there would be all these Christian voters. Democrats and pundits were asleep at the wheel, and they paid for it by losing the White House.
Fast forward to today, with the immigration wave that every political party is courting. Latinos are more conservative than most, with strong family values. As they move up the economic ladder, will they vote for the Democratic party? I am not so sure they will.
The point is if you advocate a political realignment along the lines of the Republican party abandoning the Christian vote in the South to somehow appeal to the Northeast and West Coasts, we will risk losing Southern states with no real garuntee that the Democrat strongholds in California and the Northeast will vote for us.
I think we are doing a good job now of courting Southern voters, while at the same time expanding our party into states like California, Hawaii, Vermont, Maryland, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York where we now hold the Governorships, and states like Minnesota, Maine and Pennsylvania where we hold Senate seats. We also have the Mayor of New York.
This was not accomplished by abandoning the Christian right or any other group withing the Republican party. We are a big tent party and all Republicans should respect that.
We (the GOP) don't have to abandon the Christophiliacs, just not write the party's platform around their beliefs.
Move the party towards the center to maintain its viability: that's the idea.
What's wrong with the New Deal?
Obama has given America a gift of new liberalism, one that will appeal to a broad swath of voters including no small numbers of Independents and Republicans.
The skinny kid from Kansas with the funny name is likely to do for Democrats what Reagan did for Republicans.
Keyes is the tip of the RNC spear. He is canon fodder in the first asault against the new left.
So here's a question. What's more imortant - country, party or ideolgy?
Post a Comment