I was one of the many progressives that had to reassess things a bit after the last election. The comments made about that reassessment…okay, they weren't about the reassessment but they attached to the post…make need to ask the question in the title of Republicans in general.
Make no mistake, my goals haven't changed because they've never been attached to any particular political party. And my views haven't changed…I still see him as a prancing absurdity.
But it was said:
To state the blindingly obvious, Keyes is not even vaguely representative of the Republican Party.
and
Alan Keyes was a joke. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, etc. all knew that.Equating him with the national GOP is insane.
And yet Alan Keyes' positions are precisely those of the Religious Right., a significant part of the alliance that is the Republican Party.
Are these comments correct? I don't think so…I think the Religious Right is a major, significant part of the Republican Party. I think it has a huge impact on the Party's platform, statements and actions. So why have so many Republicans distanced themselves from him? Why is he so disrespected by his own Party?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Matt
Because he says stupid things like "gays are selfish hedonists" and lumps Mary Cheney in with that group. Part of the brilliance of the right is that they keep enough bigoted comments to themselves to get elected. Keyes is not so bright. Also, the guy can't get through 1 sentence without invoking God.
2 - jb
It was a no brainer-win for the democrats to begin with. We, the Republicans, had to bring in SOMEONE so he wasn't running alone. Whoever it was would have probably looked bad relative to the competition. He lost, no shocker -- just let him be, now, instead of harping on his beliefs.
3 - bhw
Well, when the guy is selected by the party to represent them in the race for a senate seat, why should anyone think that he doesn't represent the party's views?
When you say the party had to bring in SOMEONE, why was THIS someone chosen over, say, a leser known but more moderate candidate who also would have lost?
4 - MT
To sum up Keyes is simply to say that he is not likeable.
5 - P6
That question was asked and answered to my satisfaction before the election…because he'd do it and no one else would. It does bring another question to mind, though: why is symbolic opposition to Democrats in general so important? I think if you KNOW you're going to lose, let it go and use the resources elsewhere. But that's me.
And I'm not discussion his beliefs either…that would probably be unproductive. This is more about how the Republican Party alliance is structured.
It was suggested that Keyes wasn't taken seriously, and truthfully there was a noticable negative reaction to his campaign in Republican circles. It was said that seeing him as representative of the natioanl GOP is crazy…yet a significant faction of the GOP coalition is the Religious Right, who most certainly will see Keyes as a shining example of a proper Republican…as, given the congruence of their views, they should.
So I wonder why so few Republicans actually endorsed him?
6 - P6
Not likeable.
Is it that he lack traits that would make him likeable, or he has traits that prevent him from being likeable?
7 - Mike Kole
bhw- Actually, what is surprising is how little the major parties stand over their races and actually pick someone to run in them, especially where it is perceived that a blowout will take place. The prevailing attitude seems to be 'you want to run? Fine- knock yourself out'.
There were two such races in Indiana, where incumbent Democrats were clearly going to win handily. Senator Evan Bayh and Congresswoman Julia Carson have always won their seats easily, so the GOP has to decide: do we throw a very good serious candidate out there with a lot of money and other support against these juggernauts, only to have them lose? Or, do we take whoever comes down the pike to at least suck up votes from the straight ticket voters? The latter is chosen in the interest of preserving resources, mainly, but also to shield a good candidate from putting a loss on his resume.
The way Congressional districts are gerrymandered, you often get a predictable outcome, forcing the other side to make these kinds of decisions, with candidates such as Keyes filling the void.
8 - urthshu
I can only hope- as a republican, mind you- that it was a cynical ploy to marginalize the man. Regardless of whether it was or not, he is now. Good result all 'round.
9 - dave
It is interesting...because I think having Alan Keye run against Obama pushed Obama further into the spotlight. It helped create this phenomena of Barack Obama, which is a positive thing for the Democrat party.
As for Keyes and the GOP? Yes, Keyes and the Religious Right completely agree on issues. The reason the Keyes did not receive more support was that Keyes is not capable of being subtle. It also was pretty clear that Keyes would lose anyway, so they had little reason to put any support behind him.
10 - P6
Dave:
Now that is an interesting response.
My first reading was you mean it's because he refuses to spin, just says things. But it also reminds me of how cranky the whole concept of "sending messages" makes me. Republicans send messages rather than simply stating what they mean unambiguously. It occurs to me that it's a way of staying away from the inevitable fissures between the factions of any alliance.
urthshu:
That is the exact response that makes me ask the question.
11 - Al Barger
I confess to having one time been something of an Alan Keyes fan. I would have preferred him to Dubya during the 2000 primaries.
He was a different fellow then. He was a social conservative, but he did not act all crazy and hateful like he does now. If the Republicans had any clue that he was going to act as he did, they would never have nominated him.
For a small example, he has refused even to congratulate his opponent on the victory- as if Obama was something evil. That's not being a social conservative, that's just being a babified little prick.
Much of this stuff that Keyes was saying did not represent the thinking of typical conservative religious Republican voters. Jerry Falwell would never talk so mean and hateful as that.
There's a long way between saying that homosexual behavior is sinful, and publicly excoriating private individuals like this. Maybe Alan Keyes and Fred Phelps can get together and jack each other off, but neither one of them would be well appreciated talking like that in any church I ever attended.
Somewhere along the line, Keyes has degenerated into something highly unpleasant that does not represent the thinking of any significant number of voters. His vote total suggest that only the most yellow dog Republicans voted for him, or people who simply didn't know of him and pulled a straight party lever.
Again in conclusion, the Republicans didn't realize what they were getting into with him in Illinois. They know better now. Republicans would not nominate this schmuck for dogcatcher at this point.
12 - Eric Olsen
two things: because he lost badly and has no particular constituency: he's about the last guy on earth African-Americans would vote for primarily because he is African-American
13 - P6
Al , that's about the clearest explanation I've seen. But you're not a Republican, right?
14 - P6
Eric, it's really hard to claim a person that got 25% of the vote after so little campaign time against the particular opponent he faced has no constituency. It's hard to say he did badly for the same reasons.
15 - Eric Olsen
P6, I don't think it's all that difficult: the hardest of the hardcore Republicans voted for him because he is a Republican. My mother, an otherwise intelligent and reasonable person, ALWAYS votes for the Republican for anything other than local offices (this because she may actually KNOW local Democrats and even LIKE them). THAT's who voted for Mr. Keyes.
16 - P6
No thought or reflection?
I'm trying to understand where the limit is.
17 - Eric Olsen
plenty of thought and reflection - always the same result
18 - P6
"otherwise" and "always" led me to think otherwise.
I'm really curious about her judgement criteria and where she gets her information on which her judgements are made. Even brilliance can't compensate for incorrect data.
19 - Al Barger
P6- I'm definitely not a Republican, and I note that I have never ever voted for anyone named Bush. I will admit to disliking W considerably less than John Kerry- but that's hardly gushing praise.
20 - P6
Indeed.
From a truly Libertarian viewpoint there's little in all American politics that's appealing.
21 - Mac Diva
Shrub won the election mainly because of his stance against gay marriage and abortion and for the ill-fated occupation of Iraq. The first two issues are Keyes' only issues, basically. His stance and the stance most Republicans voted for don't just happen to be the same. They are the same because Keyes' represents a fairly large segment of the Republican electorate.
If Jack Ryan, who held stances very similar to Keyes, had not self-destructed, had completed the run, he would have gotten more than Keyes' 26-27 percent of the vote. He does not have the liability of being black and he was more successful with hiding his extremism, except from fellow travelers.
As for Eric Olsen's bigoted remark about African-Americans:
two things: because he lost badly and has no particular constituency: he's about the last guy on earth African-Americans would vote for primarily because he is African-American
Tain't remotely so. African-Americans have a history of voting for white candidates, they often being the only candidates capable of winning. Furthermore, black voters regularly vote against black candidates in situations where one, some or all the candidates are black. To obtain the support of African-American voters. merely being African-American is not enough. The positions of the candidates obviously matter. Keyes' positions are his problem.
However, many white voters will say they support a black candidate and then not vote for him. Revisit the poll data for Tom Bradley's or Andrew Young's attempts at higher offices, and you will see the discrepancy.
22 - Al Barger
Diva, could you please break down for a Kentuckian such as myself in what way Eric's comment was supposedly "bigoted"? Is it simply that he mentioned black folks, or just that Eric is melanin deprived? Or is it just that YOU have such negative opinions of black folk that you assume that everyone else does, too?
Also, your response to the quote is framed as though it was disagreement. ["Tain't remotely so."] But in what way are you disagreeing with him? Eric said that black folk wouldn't vote for Keyes just for being black; you said, no-no, black folks vote for white folk all the time. How's that different?
Oh, as just one little counterpoint to your argument about white folks not voting for black, I'll note our local results in my recently concluded US Senate race.
Franklin County, Indiana has no significant African-American population. We're some cracker-ass crackers from Kentucky out here. Yet check out our returns in the election:
Bayh, Evan (Democratic) 4597
Barger, Albert (Libertarian) 821
Scott, Marvin (Republican) 4396
Evan Bayh won the state overwhelmingly, and Franklin County is not particularly a Republican bastion- yet the underdog black Republican candidate came within a couple of hundred votes of beating him in one of the whitest corners of crackerland.
I don't know that it proves a lot, but Marvin seems to have done quite a bit better with white folk in Franklin County where he never even campaigned than with black voters.
23 - Mac Diva
Eric Olsen's remark is bigoted because it implies African-American voters support candidates because the candidates are African-American. As I said, being black does not automatically translate into being supported by black voters. The candidate's stance on the issues matters. Only by making the underlying biased assumption can Olsen follow it up with his remark about Keyes being an exception. He is saying; 'If a black candidate other than Alan Keyes ran, he would get support from African-American voters because he is black.' Not so.
Black voters, Hispanic voters, Asian voters, women voters and gay voters have largely not had the opportunity to express the kind of bias at the polls straight white voters do -- favoring people with their characteristics. Since anti-gay bias and white and male privilege guarantee most candidates will be straight white males, they have had to vote for straight white male candidates if they were going to cast viable votes at.
I would tutor a Kentuckian on other matters of common sense, but I don't have time.
24 - Mac Diva
typo = 'viable votes at all.'
25 - Al Barger
I see. So a white guy is a "bigot" if he notices that black voters often are particularly supportive of black candidates. Or are you going to pretend that this isn't actually true?
Thing is, you're diluting the word "bigot" into meaninglessness. If merely noticing real obvious group behavioral patterns around you constitutes "bigotry," then your definition of bigotry makes it no longer a bad thing.