I'm not a Jesus person, but I'm against gay marriage at this time. You're treating republicans in a typically condescending manner.

Look, gay marriage is a certainty, but there's a right way to do it.

Your attitude strikes me as baby-boomer mojo, that self-absorbed attitude on social issues where a position is taken without regarding consequences. Gay marriage has to be implemented in a way that doesn't harm low-income women and children.

Our gays are very well taken care of here in america, they're very well-educated and well off financially as a group. I'm not gonna devalue an institution that is the best hope for many women and children on their behalf.

Whoa there.

First, how on earth does gay marriage
harm low-income women and children? And, for the umpteenth time, how on earth will gays marrying 'devalue' the institution of marriage? Is Thom Filicia from Queer Eye going to marry Martha Stewart and churn out little uber-homemakers by the bucketload, as long as he's not allowed to marry his boyfriend? Are straight men going to suddenly marry other guys just because they can (okay, I admit there's a danger of drunken pranks - getting the bachelor drunk before his wedding night, driving him to Vegas and making him legally marry a cab driver)?

And even if gay marriage somehow harmed 'low-income mothers', it's ridiculous to claim that this is basis for keeping it illegal. "Let's not repeal Jim Crow because it would saturate the job market with blacks".

As the quote on the right side of your blog says:

"Son, don't be stupid on purpose."

Yeah, I think you've figured it out. I was wondering *why* they would put Keyes out there, and now it makes sense. He is the whipping boy, or judas goat, or whatever it's called.

But I'm not sure it will work at all, as his run was mocked and forgotten two weeks ago.

Having listenend to Dr. Keyes over the years, I think the man is confused. Dr. Keyes, running for political office is not the same a running for bishop, cardinal, or pope.

As a long time Republican (and Christian), I've always thought Keyes was waaaaay over the top on most social issues. Is it really wise to tell voters they are sinners, then ask for their votes?

Hopefully, after losing (again) in November, Dr. Keyes will travel to Rome and take a job at the Vatican. I'm praying he takes Pat Buchanan with him.

Even before he had a sex scandal, those of us who _live_ in Illinois knew that the Ryan campaign was a joke. The entire Illinois Republican Party has been in shambles for a while now. In 2002 they spent an interminable period hunting around for a card-carrying Republican who was willing to allow "Chair, Illinois Republican Party" to appear on his resume.

And even before anyone had discovered that Obama was the most gifted speaker the Democrats have had in _years_, everybody here knew the Senate seat was his to lose.

So when an out-of-state semi-celebrity with a well-known outspoken anti-carpetbagging stance showed up to be the Republicans' sacrificial lamb, none of us paid much attention to the fact that his political views make Bush look like a freakin' hippie. It was just another round of the same old farce...a little bit louder and a little bit worse.

But I for one think you're right. Nobody in Illinois takes this guy seriously, but his extremism could prove to be a great straw-man for the RNC and the Bush campaign in the swing states.

As a conservative atheist (We're an even rarer breed than gay conservatives.) I don't really care much about gay marriage. However, I do want the principles of federalism and republicanism (small 'r') to run the process that moves the issue. That's why I don't want a 4-3 decision in the Massachusetts Supreme Court to dictate marriage requirements to the rest of the country.

Otherwise, married people miss fewer days of work. Are more likely to have a job. Spend less time in jail. Are less likely to live off the public dole. Are less likely to be sick. Live longer.

Given the above, why should I care whether a gay couple wants to get married? It sounds like they'll pay taxes, support themselves and not ask for my financial support. WOW!! That's a WIN-WIN!!!

Listen, I am no social conservative, but pretending Bush's position against gay marriage is controversial with most Americans is ridiculous.

That said, Keyes is looking worse by the day.

I am a new reader, so I am uncertain of your position on gay marriage and its particulars. Do you support the Goodridge decision? You think gays have a constitutional right to marry??

Best,

Palooka

Look, it will always be "gay marriage" not simply marriage. There is always going to be this tag on it to identify and differentiate it from regular, or dare I say, "normal" marriage. Pretending it is the same thing as a straight couple getting married is simply preposterous.

Gay sex is not the same thing as straight sex, although, generally speaking BOTH are hedonistic activities. We have sex because we like it, its fun, its enjoyable, it lowers our blood pressure. Sometimes we work up a good sweat. Humans have sex because it feels good. Rarely are children specifically planned. Especially in this day and age.

The thing is that straight sex presents a problem to society at large, in terms of babies.

Babies are little barbarians, that need to be indoctrinated and made to understand the rules of society, such as stop beating on folks smaller than you, don't stick a knife in a light socket, and eat that thing you just found on the ground. Who should teach these kids the rules of the society? Who better than the folks who brought them into this world in the first place.

But couples can break up, leaving the child rearing duties to someone else. A lot of times, this is simply a bad idea. I didn't bring this kid in the world, and kids are a drain, so why should I take care and responsibility for someone else's creation?

Which is why marriage was created in the first place. It put a societal taboo on couples splitting up, directing them to stay together, fix any problems that might arrise, and take care of the consequences to their actions. In exchange for staying together, the couple got some benefits from society, (automating probate, tax benefits, fewer stares for smooching in public from old ladies)

Medical technology has changed a lot of this. But the simple fact that gay sex cannot be procreative means that society has less of a problem if the gay couple break up. So what is the benefit that society gets in exchange?

Mr. Green,

One problem. "Pretty Gosh Darn Conservative Capital-R Republican" fits me to a T. But the problem with your analysis is that I think Keyes is an unprincipled jerk who does not come close to speaking for me.

Gerry

Steve,

Instead of insulting us, why not tell us where you stand on every "social" issue. Just by making that statement, you are showing that you see Capital R Republicans as a monolith -- mind-numbed robots perhaps instead of individual people with whom you may disagree and/or agree is different issues.

Sullivan has already gotten cold feet and taken the koolaid. Are you next?

I couldn't be less interested in the Illinois Senate race. Obama is overrated, and his one big speech pales in comparison to the lights out orations we've heard from Guliani and Arnold. He'll be a footnote on election night, and shuffled into obscurity by a party run by aged white dinosaurs like Kennedy, Pelosi, and Daschle (assuming he's still there).

Keyes is no less frustrating. He clings to every letter of the Republican platform like a sycophantic remora, hoping it will bring him legitimacy. He can be a good speaker but more often comes across as methodical and boring.

Oh and just a reminder..."hedonist" doesn't really equate to deserving to be stuffed in the oven...even among non-libertarian Republicans.

Don't nake the Democrat-in-the-newsroom mistake: Don't think that your opinion and the opinions of your friends when you broach the topic of gay marriage are the "mainstream" of Amrerican opinion. The FDMA passed with great public approval, the Massachusetts electorate never would have approved gay marriage in the form of a law or referendum, and Bush's position on this issue is a LOT closer to what most of America thinks than yours is.

I LOVE YOU STEPHEN! **MUAH!** [big wet one on the lips.]

Just kidding about the kiss. But if Bush / Rove / Keyes et al are trying to reshape the GOP into a party of flinty social bigots, then what will ever become of those of us in the middle who are fiscal conservatives, strong on national defense, and socially tolerant?

It's hard to look at the two contenders our major political parties have given us and not want to puke.

An issue, like abortion, that I could not care less about. Defense and foreign policy are my issues of importance.

It’s impossible to discuss any issue involving homosexuality in current U.S. society WITHOUT vehement emotional conflict, because it is impossible to discuss any issue involving sexuality of ANY sort in current U.S. society without vehement emotional conflict.

Simply, human sexuality is a minefield to be traversed. And that is NOT simply because AMERICA has a PURITAN background and Republicans can’t talk about sex without giggling.

GOD DAMN! Look at THAILAND, where it is commonplace for children to be sold by impoverished parents to the sex industry and a huge percentage of the population is infected with virulent strains of STDs. There are many countries in similar situations. In some central African countries, one third of the population is expected to die slow deaths from “the slim disease,” as AIDS is termed locally.

The shadow economy that began in the decades before the collapse of the Soviet Union has lead to hundreds of thousands of women being recruited by deception and brutality for trans-national slave trade. There are regions where prostitutes are so predominantly Russian and Ukrainian that they are locally called “Natashas.”

It sure as SHIT isn’t because AMERICANS are sneakily flying overseas to have sex with other country’s innocents. Rutting males within ALL countries and cultures, thank you very much, drive the traffic in sexually exploited women and children, as they have been since the dawn of time.

In the United States, I think homosexuality has been given a bad name by the outrageous hedonism of a very small but highly visible group that rebels against ANY limits. The same sort of self-indulgence and lack of discipline--- ADDICTIVE BEHAVIOR--- afflicts a number of heterosexuals (see Wm. J. Clinton) and is regarded as a bad thing generally. but not counted as a fundamental flaw of heterosexual orientation.

In saying I have had a number of friends that are homosexual, I have to balance that with the confession that I am not entirely comfortable with homosexuality.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely comfortable with heterosexuality, which is unalterably my own orientation.

IT'S a MINEFIELD!!!!!!!

So, what I'm left with is a sense that someday, we will be able to deal with the hard-wired and aggravating vulnerabilities to which we are all heir one way or another. In the fullness of time, I would hope we can accept the wide range of human sexual behaviors that are at their best, expressions of LOVE and HONORING of the BELOVED, without giving a damn about the gender of the people involved.

I hope that time is not long, and I hope that patience and goodwill will characterize the Republican debate over how best to get there.

Gay marriage isn't a losing issue for republicans. See polls. 30 years ago President Bush would have been considered a liberal democrat.

Majority against Homosexual marriage (but not for long)
In a recent poll the question was asked "Do you think it should be legal or illegal for homosexual couples to get married?" The results came back that the majority still think it should not be legal. It also indicated that it will be legal with in 20 years, I would say closer to 10 nation wide. Looking at the 18-29 years old category it has showed that the younger generation (55 for 42 against) is much more accepting then the 65+ (21 for 75 against). I think it safe to say, that it has changed because of how the media has changed how homosexuals are portrayed.

Three's Company's biggest joke was Jack pretending to be gay in order to live with two women. Seinfeld had an episode where Jerry and George were accused of being gay, after every time they denied it, they followed with "Not that there is wrong with it." Will and Grace have a smart, funny main character who is a homosexual. All of this is a whole lot different then TV from 50 years ago, where they didn't even mention accepted in hushed tones. The movies from 50 years had it as a disgraceful thing.

Every where you turn it is being presented that the truly enlightened, the open minded find it disgraceful when people speak against homosexuals and their rights, much like the Women's and the Black's movements of yester year. Discrimination against minorities and women has been declining when compared to 50 years ago, even 10 years ago.

There is one major difference between what women and black went through and what homosexuals are going through. Being women and black (all minorities), they can do absolutely nothing to change why they are discriminated (well I suppose women could get a sex change but that creates different issues and minorities could go the Michael Jackson route). Physically and mentally handicapped can seek treatment but there are still limitations such as never being completely healed. Leaving homosexuals a slightly different boat from any other discrimination group, because there is a choice involved. So there is the real question to me, "Do they have the right to pursue this alternative life style and garner legal protected?"

The main objection is based on religious beliefs. Christian, Jews and Muslims all can all point to scripture declaring it a sin (some believe they can point to others scripture say it all right). Over time these views will soften like they did for other issues. Divorce was shameful, having an affair was scandalous but that has been slowly disappeared from today society. After all a President was caught in numerous affairs, he is still well respected some circles and his wife is still considered a strong woman and a possible Presidential candidate. So yes, we will see legal homosexual marriages in the near future. This is just the struggle from the old guard to the new guard.

But there is a different approach from the religious view. Consider this, there is a Right for Freedom of Speech but it is commonly held that yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected. So is Same Sex Marriage like yelling “fire”? Or maybe it is like speeding. Speeding has been called a victimless crime but it is still against the law. You pay a fee, take a test and you are given the legal right to drive. You are not given the right to drive at any speed you wish. It all has to do with decreasing potential harm to those around you, to other drivers. But not just physical harm but monetary harm in the form of insurance premiums, that’s why speeding is against the law. Not cause it directly harms anyone but because it increases the possibility of harming someone. Would Same Sex Marriage increase the risk of harm to our society, that’s what people should be asking.

Obama is a socialist and a gun-grabber.

Don't let Bubba-lite fool you.

But we are the Peoples' Republic of IL. And the pubbie party here is old guard and incompetent.

Gay marriage is fake marriage, as gay sex is fake sex. I don't like fakery and I don't think most Americans do either.

To say that gay marriage will have the same effects on those who participate in it as real marriage does is not a persuasive argument but a mere unsupported assertion.

Are we going to start seeing regular gay marriage posts here from now on?

I hope not.

AHHHH! Lost my post.

Christianity is under attack. I am very concerned that those pushing the religion of secularism will use this to make Christianity illegal in the future, because speaking out against homosexuality will be considered a hate crime.

They have very committed activists, attorneys, deep pockets and sympathetic judges.

I know some people here would consider that impossible, Christianity not being a part of the US, but...

There's no way planes wouldn't be driven into the WTC and they'd be gone, would they?

Anything is possible and they will use any means they can to turn us into their version utopian society.

This country can live with civil unions, but not marriage.

Whether people like it or not, we are a Christian country. Take that away, that is our underpinning. Our faith has made us strong. A belief, a vision of something higher than ourselves.

And I'm not a church-goer, but take a look around.

I firmly believe Europe is going down the tubes because it has fallen away, replaced a belief in something w/belief that the State can do all. They've lost their way, they've lost their soul. And our neighbors to the South and West aren't exacly known for their tolerance, either. And they're our future. Europe is our past.

The activist are pushing too hard, now is not the time.

I bet we could come to terms civil unions.

most of us young uns dont care...

though i don't like courts appropriating jurisdiction.. should be democratic (i also don't agree with Lawrence v Texas)

Justice Thomas is my intellectual idol on dubious laws: things can be fundamentally silly or idiotic yet constitutional, and the court should not redeem the shame of another branch of government by stopping them from doing something silly yet constitutional

Give gays marriage rights through democratic action, repeal the ridiculously stupid sex laws on the books (and ideally ritually humiliate everyone who voted for them or didn't repeal them earlier) etc...

But ridiculously conservative capital R republicans can still behedonistic neo-cons who can look at every department except Defense and wonder "Why"?

Go Ayn Go!

"and then force them to convert to heterosexuality before shoving them into the ovens."

why force them to convert, their is a chance that it might be gentic, and according to Keys it is better to just let they die out...

I'd venture to say most Americans oppose homosexual marriage (70%).
Somewhere around half oppose abortion and more than half support restrictions on abortion.
While many agree with "affirmative action" most everyone (even minorities) oppose quotas.
Are these "conservative" opinions out of your "mainstream" of thought? I wouldn't be so certain that you are in the majority.
As to homosexual marriage, when people understand that it will mean the usual references to "Mom" and "Dad" will need to be stricken from all textbooks, newspapers and other major media (clearly unPC don't you think) they'll begin to understand that, yes, acceptance of homosexual "marriage" will have a lasting impact on their kid's marriage and their grandchildren's upbringing.
I can see the conversation now:
"Who are you?"
"Your Grandpa"
"What does "pa" mean?".

You try and explain this to YOUR kid.

OT and back to the world, via LGF:

Gunmen with explosives strapped around their waists took more than 200 people hostage at a school in southern Russia near war-torn Chechnya and threatened to blow up the building if the security forces moved in.

This is setting up as a Sister Souljah moment for the President. He can come out and say that good people disagree on the gay marriage issue, but we need to treat everyone with respect and dignity, etc.

From the sweeping generalization department (Bring Yourself up by Knocking Others Down division)...

Otherwise, married people miss fewer days of work. Are more likely to have a job. Spend less time in jail. Are less likely to live off the public dole. Are less likely to be sick. Live longer.

Fact check on... I'm a batchelor, and spend more time in the office, and take fewer vactation and sickleave days than my married colleagues. I have never been in jail and don't have weekly weekend benders. For me its not a martydrom talking point as they have very good reasons to not have the same hours -- they have families that need them while I have colleagues that need me.

Marriage is nice, and I intended to be there some day. But I've seen the self-serving argument smearing the workethic of singles before by those wanting family perks and it's a reach (they selectively sample the party crowd over the workaholics).

And using it to "put some stick about" regarding traditional marriage is rather... lame.

Steve,

As a young man in his mid-20s fresh out of law school, living in NYC and who is very socially conservative, I think that what Keyes said was ridiculous. There are plenty of hedonistic heteros out there, as anyone who's been to college can attest to.

But implicit in your post is a willingness to assume the worst about people who disagree with you on basic moral issues. It seems, especially by channeling Sullivan (who has gone so far off the deep end that his posts are un-readable) that you've assumed that anyone who disagrees with so-called "gay" marriage is a bigot. That the tide of history is inevitable and will impose gay marriage anyway; so that people who oppose it are a bunch of historical morons. That the selection of Keyes plays into the Rove-as-conspirator role that is used to trick the electorate (instead of a mere monumental mistake).

There's a reason why you should sleep on things instead of posting "late night ramblings." This post of yours is embarassing. Think! Do you really want to travel down the road that Sullivan did, believing these ridiculous conspiracies, hating honest religious opposition (with a significant portion of young people), and assuming that history is on your side.

Wake the hell up, please.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

I suggest to those who are interested, check out out the above page. It show that the majority is still against Same Sex Marriage and barely in favor of an Admendment.

As a native Illinoisan who lives one town away from the apartment Alan Keyes campaign had rented for him, I have a campaign slogan for him: "A Crazy-Ass State Needs a Crazy-Ass Senator". I do plan on voting for him, though.

What's annoying as heck about all this is the general attitude that those who support the institution of marriage as it's been known in the United States for, what, 227 plus years are the radicals ....

And how those who support the traditional definition of marriage, which would amount to probably 70% or so of the people, are considered to be imposing their views on the 30% .... instead of the 30% imposing their views on the 70%.

Look, American attitudes towards marriage already suck - too few people take the institution seriously, resulting in the carnage of divorce.

I can't see how the truly radical idea of gay marriage advances our national interests.

It's difficult enough to explain to children Why moms and dads get married and then Why we have children and then How we have children. I really don't want to have to explain to my kids why all that was bullshit and then how it is that these homosexuals engage in sex.

Call it what you want--I suggest "cornage"--but don't tell me it's marriage. The whole thing is complicated enough these days without throwing gay relationships into the mix.

I wish I were young and single and childless again so I could take the "high road" here and tell everyone how open-minded I am and how homophobic they are, but I have two little kids who ask a lot of questions. They're just not ready for this and neither am I.

Obama may have excellent speaker skills but he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. As for social issues I am passionately pro-life and vote based on that issue. Everything else is secondary where I'm concerned.

Stop saying "impose gay marriage" on people. No one is going to be forced into marriage.

I'm a conservative in all respects -- including respecting the sanctity of marriage and for sex within marriage only.

Alan Keyes upholds conservatism on all fronts. The same morality he supports is the foundation of our freedoms, as the Founding Fathers were careful to explain in the Federalist Papers. Only people who carry a policeman within can be free -- license ultimately leads to despotism.

Keyes is not a madman as social liberals would like to paint him, he is passionate. He also is angry at being persuaded to run in Illinois and then being sabotaged by the regular Republicans who are not social conservatives.

Keyes is correct to link abortion to slavery. Supporters of both claim their victims as less than human.

The same morality he supports is the foundation of our freedoms, as the Founding Fathers were careful to explain in the Federalist Papers.

Odd, that same bedrock of morality allowed Mr. Keyes' ancestors to be enslaved for our first 80 years. So much for consistency.

I don't think Keyes is a madman, just a wacky misguided religious kook.

No one is going to be forced into marriage.

Oh, J, don't be so naive. That's the step just prior to herding all of us straight folks into sex re-education camps where, I'm told, I'll learn to enjoy being the chariot as well as the chariot-driver. It's all right there on page 6 of the SuperDuperySecret Gay Agenda.

Go on, Google it. Would I lie?

This is all so amusing (these comments, this post). Quick, Steve, turn the lights back on so they'll scurry back into the walls!

Andy,

It's the "SuperFantabulousSecret Gay Agenda."

Sheesh, just how straight are you, comrade?

They didn't have to choose Keyes (or even consider Ted Nugent, Mike Ditka, Bozo the Clown, etc. etc.)

They could have selected the second-place primary finisher, Jim Oberweis.

Oberweis probably wouldn't be behind by an unbelievable 41 points.

This page explains why they ignored Oberweis: No other conclusion can be drawn: George W. Bush’s Republican Party is more willing to take a licking in crucial November Senate elections than to allow its candidates to discuss illegal immigration... Nationwide, there are at least three such cases—New York, California and Illinois. In all three, the Republican challenge is so feeble that the incumbents are essentially running unopposed...

I live in Illinois. The proudest vote of my life was also my first -- 1984, Ronald Reagan. The Democrats I've voted for is small in number, with names anymore unknown. Normally I would hold my nose and pull the lever (punch the chad, push the glowing pixels...) for whomever had the R next to thier name. Can't do it this year. The man is a nutjob.

Fine, he has strongly held beliefs. Yes he's been sabotaged by the party. But you don't convince people you are right by throwing bombs. You don't win elections - hell, I'd be satisfied with making it as close as an early season Nebraska football game, keep him under 70 - you don't win with a scattershot message. He's bounced from abortion to reparations; against one and for the other.

I don't know whose idea this was. But if Karl Rove can be credited with Kerry's implosion, can we give Terry McCauliffe credit for picking this candidate??

It was 6 years ago Illinois had a Republican govenor, Republican Senator, Republican state house and Republican state sentate. Now, the party is in shambles and will be in the wilderness for years to come. Thats frustrating, this isn't a "liberal" state. The Democratic party is a machine party, Daley/Blago/etc. govern more like suburban Republicans than Massachusetts liberals. But the party turned a blind eye to corruption and allowed the party to rot away.

Now it's the Democrats turn. They will govern without opposition and the inevitable low level corruption will seep into their dealings, lather rinse repeat (See, Gov. Walker).

I know this state is very parochial about it's sports teams. But why does it have to be the same way about politics?

Andy - we're not going to scurry away.

Remember - we roaches will survive the blast.

From Bros. Judd:

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll reported that 60 percent of those polled believe abortion should either be illegal or legal only in a few circumstances. A CNN poll found that 75 percent of those surveyed support a 24-hour waiting period, 85 percent support informed consent, and 73 percent support parental consent. In addition, 52 percent of Americans believe abortion is homicide, and 72 percent think abortion is morally wrong.

--

Nativeborn - when we're not at war, please.

We're winning, we'll accept the terms that have been offered there for 30 years. The fight is essentially over. There will always be abortions and the majority can deal with that. Time to turn the fight, money, access and power to the school issue.

I think you've got it wrong, Steve. Keyes isn't Bush's or Rove's stalking horse. They really had nothing to do with the choice, other than expressing some displeasure with Oberweis, the guy who came in second in the primary.

What you're missing is a little squabble that's been going on in Illinois politics. The moderate (or liberal) wing of the Republican Party has controlled the state for decades.

Over the past 4 or 5 years or so, however, the state GOP has been a disaster. Conservatives (and by Illinois GOP standards, YOU'RE probably a conservative) in the state have been trying to use the party's problems to argue that the liberal/moderate old guard of the party was screwing everything up, and that the conservatives should be in charge.

After Ryan comma Jack imploded, the conservatives were poised for another see-I-told-you-so moment. Ditka would have really ended the old guard. Keyes, however, is so far over the top whacko that the liberal/moderates in the party saw/see him as a way to discredit the conservatives in the state. Of coures, Keyes is way to the right of just about anyone in the state, and even conservatives aren't supporting him.

But the point of having Keyes was never to make arguments that that the administration wanted made, but couldn't. The point of Keyes was to pick someone who'd lose spectacularly, and therefore decrease the power of the conservative wing of the Illinois party.

In other words, he's not a stalking horse, he's a Judas Goat.

Re: gay marriage - why is the state in the marriage business?

As to illegal immigration I propose we stop that the same way we have successfully stopped illegal drugs. Uh, nevermind.

Re: 2 Nov. I'm a RINO kind of guy. Bush/Obama. Keyes coulda got my vote. He said drugs are a moral issue. Where he lost it was: the government needs to do something.

—==—

Steal this sig:

George Bush never called me “baby killer”.

There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.

New Soldier

What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.

The Ads: Video links

Keyes is what I call a Republican Socialist.

Republican Socialism:

Nationalize the flag
Nationalize permissible eating, drinking, and smoking habts etc.
Nationalize people's sex lives
Nationalize women's bodies.

Spoons is on to something.

I think before we can get honest government in this state the Daley machine is going to have to die.

Things were much better after King Daley the 1st died.

Interesting that the National Party was unwilling to support Fitz. Which is how we got into this mess. The rumor I heard was that he was too honest - i.e. he went after crooks in both parties.

--==--

Steal this sig:

George Bush never called me “baby killer”.

There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.

New Soldier

Sandy P.,

The issue for me is not abortion. It is the black market. It is enforcement. It is the nationalization of women. It is the government poking around with my body. Again.

The way to end abortion without government guns is simple but hard. Convince women not to have them. With RU-485 and home guides to performing abortions sure to come out given sufficient restrictions i think it is something else the government should stay out of.

I have yet to have one of the anti-abortion "we need a law" folks explain how such a law can be enforced without a new alphabet agency. (the PEA?) And intrusive searches and women constantly under surveilance.

So let me ask you my friends:

What did you learn from alcohol prohibition?

spongeworthy,

I find it highly suspicious that you know how homosexuals engage in sex. And are willing if forced to teach it to your children. Where are you learning this stuff?

Do you have a secret?

Sandy P.

News Flash

Not only is Christianity under attack. So is General Motors.

Christianity deserves no more protection from the government than General Motors does.

Margaret,

There are people who claim sperm and egg are less than human. But we know better don't we?

All the sperm is missing is the egg. And vice versa. Put in the right environment for 30+ weeks and we have a human.

So what we need to do is punish masturbation for men and women's periods.

If they aren't procreating they are not doing the right thing and ought to be punished, eh? Birth control? Obviously needs to be banned. It is preventing the holy meeting.

I'm sure you will be with me on this. Your position is already very close to mine.

In The Corner, Rod Dreher nails it.

When he first announced for this race, I thought he was a shameless opportunist, but at least he'd make the race intellectually interesting. Now I'm thinking that he's going to be a continuing source of embarrassment for conservatives.

It's not the government I'm worried about. Yet.

Speeding is NOT a victimless crime.

Bush's stance against gay marriage is only controversial to the 30-35% of America that disagrees with him; I've seen polling numbers in the 65%-70% range supporting Bush's position. So that whole point is a canard.

Then, related to that, we have the argument that says laws are made by legislatures that represent the people and can be un-elected, instead of by judges who are often appointed and serve until they retire, and who imagine their own version of what Constitutional law really means. Judicial activism is seriously out of control, and has been for years; this example illustrates it perfectly. If social change is needed to remedy a social ill, we must first wait for a majority of public opinion to change, which takes generations (and is a good way to weed out dumb ideas from good ones), and then it should happen in accordance with the local, state, and federal laws as written.

Sandy P.,

You will be..... you will be.

Jeff Brokaw,

Even super majority status is not enough.

Look at drug prohibition.

Look at alcohol prohibition.

I have a question for all you Republican Socialists (the one's who want to nationalize my wife)

What have you learned from alcohol prohibition? A program once so popular it got its own constitutional Amdmt.

America was once a common law country i.e. people's actual behavior determined the law.

Under those circumstances we only needed peace officers and people willing to mind their own business.

Now we need a lot of enforcers. Enforcers are a sure sign of socialism.

We have two kinds of socialists in America.

Those who want to nationalize my wallet.

Those who want to nationalize my wife.

We ought to quit calling it the Religious Right. They are Republican Socialists.

"... ridiculously conservative capital R republicans can still be hedonistic neo-cons who can look at every department except Defense and wonder 'Why'?"

Right on!

Right-wing libertarian Republicans unite! Free-market, free-love, free-thinking, Harley-riding war-fighting gun-toting hedonistic right-wing HAWKS are the future of the Republican party. Celebrate Diversity! (The way Glenn Reynolds does. Heh.)

I've been an uneasy "social liberal" Republican all my life, waiting for just the right time to switch to the Libertarian Party, but always their anti-militarism and weak-kneed crime policies made me queasy. How could a party that believes in gun ownership for protection of private property not see the wisdom of extending that logic outward?

The creepy social conservatives, the naked-statuephobes like John Ashcroft and wild-eyed messiahs like Alan Keyes, are meanwhile being swamped by a tide of 9/11 neo-cons, warrior-poet hawk intellectuals like Lt. Smash, Glenn Reynolds, and of course Vodkapundit himself Stephen Green, stirred like Pearl Harbor's sleeping giants, bringing the mainstream media to its knees and incidentally saving the Republican party from obsolesence.

As never before, there may some day be a better choice than "lesser of two evils." There is real hope for the best of both worlds in my grand old Republican party: liberty and strength.

Rudy '08

The difference never goes away, even gays have mothers and fathers. So tell your Dad and Mom what they did was worthless.

Keyes doesn't know how to address homosexuality. Psychiatrist Dr. Jeffrey Satinover does.

TO: Stephen Green & John Biggenwald
RE: Nutjob?

Tell me when either of you become the US Ambassador to the United Nations. Then you can talk about what a 'nutjob' you have to be to hold such a position.

Since when do you have to stoop to Dem tactics of name-calling in order to make a point, Stephen?

You don't like his sense of morals, fine. Dehumanizing him only makes you look worse than you claim he is.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Those who would treat politics and morality apart will never understand the one or the other. -- John, Viscount Morley of Blackburn]

I'm more against the use of the term 'marriage' than the concept. Haven't we used enough political correctness to redefine everything else already? Besides, the term marriage is politically incorrect, because it has religious overtones.

I really don't care what others want to use to define their life. John Kerry thinks he a War Hero. If it's their sex life, fine - just keep ACT-UP out of my face, and don't use your sex life to terrorize houses of worship and the representatives.

Chuck(le),
Let's get his biography straight. He was not the US Ambassador to the UN. He was the Ambassador to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. Not that there's anything wrong with that.... And yes, as a point of personal biography, it's more than I have ever done. But then what level of achievement do I need before I can pass judgement on a candidate? I thought it was reach the age of 18, live in the state for 90 days and register to vote.

His two runs for Senate in Maryland gained him 38% (1988) and 29%(1992) of the vote. Maryland is a very liberal state, but the more people got to know him, the worse he did.

I have no problem with him holding his views. I agree with some, disagree with others and shake my head at a few. What I do have a problem with is the state party leaders choosing someone to run who has no intention of running a serious campaign. He has never run a campaign with the intention of winning. He wants attention, fine but don't destroy my party in the process.

TO: John Bigenwald
RE: Corrections

Thanks for the information; THE ambassador United States to the United Nations to THE ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL COUNCIL.

Again, tell me when you get that kind of position yourself. I'd like to know what sort of 'nutjob' it takes to get it. In truth, it's not a job for nutjobs. And they do not get them, from this country.

As for his ability to 'destroy' the Republican party; I doubt it. Seriously.

Speaking of which, your complaint that he is not going to run a serious campaign, I'm not a avid follower of his, but I have noticed that I've never seen him when he wasn't "serious".

As for his desire for attention, I think that's part of anyone who goes into politics. It's in their genes. So what?

Labelling him a 'nutjob', without his being institutionalized after due process, only reflects poorly on those doing the name-calling.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Insanity takes its toll, please have exact change ready.]

P.S. One other justification for calling someone a 'nutjob', aside from a certification by a proper mental health authority...

...running for an elected office in England as depicted in one of the early Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes.

I agree that Keyes is nuts. A conspiracy to put him out there to make Bush look more moderate? Also nuts.

I have to disagree with your comment that Bush is weak on social issues. His position on social issues is governed by his strong personal faith and heartfelt convictions. Indeed he is at his best when talking about his "faith-based initiatives" -- he truly believes in this. That makes him strong on social issues. Rational people can disagree with him on social issues, and you will find many Republicans who do. But most of the country? Polls and election results over the past 10 years prove otherwise.

He's not the only one, John, via Lucianne from the Det. Press:

Black delegate defends GOP outreach

Flint woman says the Democrats are ignoring minorities

...“President Bush is reaching us,” she said. “He’s talking about us and to us.”

He is talking, she ticks off, about: housing, education, home ownership.

... But Bush has made it possible for black churches to get the money to help their congregations.” The money, she says, has come through faith-based initiatives.

“No one but no one can tell me — and I challenge anyone to tell me — a president who has done as much,” she said, pointing out that she did not receive a “handout” to help start her business making cheesecakes. It was all, she said, “sweat equity.”

The American dream, says Kinnee, is on its way to being fulfilled through the president. “And it’s never been fulfilled in all the years that I have been black, and that’s a long time.”

----

It depends on the social issues. Look at the abortion debate.

Chuck(le),
My resume is not in question here. I could be GWB posting under an assumed name, or Elroy from Doonesbury posting from the public library. Doesn't matter, I'm not on the ballot, I'm not the one being judged on November 2nd.

However, Alan Keyes will be on my ballot this year. That means I have to decide if I will vote for the man. As a conservative Illinois Republican, I also have to think about the Illinois Republican party beyond November.

Ok, maybe 'nutjob' is a bit strong. However he has proven, several times, to be a fringe candidate. He got 29% of the vote in Maryland the last time he ran for Senate. He's polling around the same numbers here in Illinois.

Anyone with their name on a ballot has a duty to the voters to present ideas in a persuasive way. Alan Keyes may represent truth and righteousness, but the purity of a candidates positions is usually inverse to the number of votes they get.

To advance your ideas - the whole point of politics - you learn when to allow that mental filter to kick in and just shut up. A good example of that would have been when he was asked about the VP's daughter. OK, he said what he believed, but if I was at a party with him I would have quickly found a new corner to stand in. The next time Alan Keyes has an unexpressed thought will be the first.

TO: John Bigenwald
RE: Resumé, Anyone?

"My resume is not in question here." -- John Bigenwald

I'm not asking for your resumé. It's probably a boring read anyway. Mine is too. [Note: My biographical summary is a bit different.]

All I suggested was that you walk a mile in his shoes before you declare him a 'nutjob'. And that declaring him a 'nutjob', without supporting documentation, was demeaning to him and, especially, to yourself.

If you don't like that, well....that's tough. But we all makes our choices and takes our chances.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Try to avoid making judgements on other people's states of being. You'll likely be describing yourself.]

P.S. Stephen probably started this thread late at night after a few drinks.

What's YOUR 'excuse'?

TO: John Bigenwald
RE: Interesting Though, That

"Anyone with their name on a ballot has a duty to the voters to present ideas in a persuasive way. Alan Keyes may represent truth and righteousness, but the purity of a candidates positions is usually inverse to the number of votes they get." -- John Bigenwald

First off, I'd like to think that candidates felt as you claim it is their 'duty' to feel, about their ideas. However, watching Kerry, that is hardly the case.

On the other hand, Keyes presents himself as he is. Or he had up to this point. [Note: If he is failing to do that, shame on him.]

As for the concept of inversion of votes vis-a-vis the 'purity' of a candidates position....

...well....

...what does that say about the voters?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Every people gets the governance it deserves.]

Chuck(le),
I conceded 'nutjob' is a bit strong. Of course this is a political discussion so I don't know that I need a psychiatrist's note to label anyone with a mental disease.

Our system tends toward the center. Why? Because that's where the votes are. I don't see that as a bug, but as a feature. Moderate the differences, produce a working consensus, move slowly with the mood of the country.

TO: John Bigenwald
RE: Nutjob

"I conceded 'nutjob' is a bit strong. Of course this is a political discussion so I don't know that I need a psychiatrist's note to label anyone with a mental disease." -- John Bignewald

Thanks.

Politics seems to bring out the worst in US. Wish it wasn't the case, but I've seen it as far back as my readings in ancient Roman history, especially my recent discover of the Social [Civil] War, c. 88, which was all about politics; Sulla vs. Cinna 'parties'. Very ugly stuff that.

[Note: Did you know that the Romans election process resembles our Electoral College?]

"Our system tends toward the center. Why? Because that's where the votes are." -- John Bigenwald

That's where theirs tended too. And look what happened. The Caesars....and what followed.

Don't think that it can't happen here, too.

One interesting point. It seems like personally owned weapons could have prevented a lot of the corruption and decline that killed the Roman civilization.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. How could personal weapons have saved Roman civilization?

[1] By allowing the citizens to defend themselves against the predilections of the emporers.

[2] Instilling within the citizens a willingness and ability to fight, so that when the barbarians came, beginning in the 4th Century, they could hold them off.

P.P.S. It seems that the emporers outlawed the ownership of weapons that could be used for 'military' purposes. Something to protect their a--. And, as it turned out, because the citizens could not own weapons, they could not defend themselves, either from the wonton acts of their government nor from the wonton acts of the invading barbarians.