pudge's Journal: Keyes vs. Obama

For the first time ever, we could have two black people -- one from each of the major parties -- fighting for the same Senate seat. Alan Keyes has been offered the Illinois nomination for the open Senate seat.

Re:Why?

[pudge]

The "they" who disallowed Keyes from speaking (good memory!) in 1996 was not the Republicans, but the TV station in Atlanta that was running the debate. They based who would be allowed to participate on their finishes in the *New Hampshire* primary. They had him carried away by the cops because he wouldn't leave. It was really really bad, but unfortunately not much came of it, except that the mayor apologized.

Re:Why?

[pudge]

Well, yes, it was the sponsors of the debate, which was the TV station.

Re:My bad

[pudge]

Ah, I see. You got the name basically right, just capitalize it. But the Commission on Presidential Debates [debates.org] handles only general election debates, not primary debates. And it lies directly on its hompage when it says it is nonpartisan. (And as I have noted before, see Open Debates [opendebates.org] for more information.)

Re:Why?

[jdavidb]

Wow. Did not know that when I voted for Keyes in the 2000 primary. (In Texas. :) ).

I currently still stand in favor of the man and am glad to see him have an opportunity to serve in the Senate, though my politics have changed in the past two years and as a libertarian I would now be against some of his positions, and I also have some concern that he is "pulling a Hillary" and going to represent a state he is not a citizen of. But, to each state their own.

Re:Why?

[pudge]

Which positions of his would you be against? He's against the income tax, he's against government power being used to coerce people. The only thing I can think of offhand that most libertarians would disagree with -- apart from his stance on abortion --
is his stance on gay marriage.

Anyway, the one reason I am less opposed to Keyes' candidacy than Clinton's is that he was chosen by the party of the state, only after no one from the state could be found. And it is not as simple as finding someone who is w

Re:Why?

[jdavidb]

Which positions of his would you be against? He's against the income tax, he's against government power being used to coerce people. The only thing I can think of offhand that most libertarians would disagree with -- apart from his stance on abortion -- is his stance on gay marriage.

This is all very tricky, and I've got to say that the problem is my opinion on the issues is in flux. I'll say upfront that I would love to have the man as my President, despite any issues where I might disagree with him.