Alan Keyes: Hypocrite Extraordinaire

Obama will eat him for breakfast! But it is interesting that if he runs it would be the first race with both black candidates.

Hold on there, trigger happy:


Yes, how unreasonable and selfish and hypocritical.

He said he wouldn't imitate it, then he did.

It's not rocket science.

So what you are saying is that outside parties asked Hillary Clinton to run for Senate after their previously chosen candidate dropped out due to a media created scandal involving making a sexual desire known to her spouse?

Clinton carpetbagged on up to New York with the intent of running for Senate from the get go. Keyes is pondering running for Senate after being asked and also after the previous candidate dropped out and also several other offers have been made to other people (Mike Ditka being one)

If you can't see the difference between the two then that is really sad for you. One is a clear powergrab, the other someone pondering signing on reluctantly.

Nick

A democrat upset by flipping.

Mike Ditka was never offered anything. It was PR-BS.

I don't believe Mr. Keyes is going to accept either. He's just looking for some ink as well. In fact I think his entire career has been an act of self-promotion.

So who does that leave the Illinois GOP with? White House deputy drug czar
Andrea Grubb Barthwell. She's quite zany.

It's going to be fun.

Is this the same guy who flat out lied to his own party about whether there was anything to worry about in his sealed divorce papers, and then it was revealed he wanted to fuck his wife in front of strangers in a variety of sex clubs, some with cages and whips hanging from the ceiling? 'cos your description doesn't really cover it in enough depth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ry...ate_candidate)

As for this other guy, if he wanted to make such sweeping statements about Hillary's behaviour he should have been clearer about exactly what circumstances these 'bad things' he was railing against would actually turn out to be acceptable i.e. when he does it.

sun-times is reporting that he'll run.

story here

it'll still be fun.......

Here's what my favorite political blogger Kevin Drum said about it. It's worth repeating in its entirety:

Hypocrisy confirmed:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040808_991.html

Only to a Democrat could there be a sex scandal for wanting to do something with your wife.

You also neglect to mention that neither he nor his wife wanted their divorce records unsealed. They were unsealed by media petition. Curiously they haven't sought the same information from Kerry who was a know to be sleeping around for several years before he actually filed for divorce. Finally you neglect to mention that it is an allegation that isn't proven nor is it a crime.

Leave it to the same folks that brought us political correctness to bring us sexual correctness. What Clinton does with an intern is none of our damn business, yet what Ryan does with his WIFE is our damn business.

Talk about your height of hypocrisy...

Nick

Firstly, I'm getting sick of people calling me a Democrat, I'm not even American. The labels you use to avoid thinking do not apply to me.

Second, I never used the phrase "sex scandal", I just thought you left out some important details in your incredibly one-sided portrayal. And now your just getting hysterical.

Where is the bright dividing line between a married man getting a blow job from an intern (and then lying about it) and a man trying to talk his WIFE into performing LIVE SEX SHOWS for STRANGERS (and then lying about it)? It is apparently obvious to you.

Talk about the height of lunacy...

Then why was it the Republican party that turned their proverbial backs on him? This is obviously a rhetorical question and the true answer is that you're incorrect.

It was the repubs that knew it wouldn't fly with their constituents. Illinois dems just sat back and watched the show.

The dividing line is quite large. First there is no proof that the allegation regarding Ryan was even true. It isn't hard at all to imagine spouses making nasty comments about each other during divorce proceedings. The second dividing issue is of course that Ryan and his wife never did any of the acts. The allegation was simply that he asked her about the possibility.

So we have an allegation about someone asking a question.

The dividing line with Clinton of course is that he didn't just think about it, ask about or have it alleged about him. He really did the act. Then he lied about it under oath. There was DNA evidence that he did the act. Additionally he participated in what would have been pure sexual harassment with anyone else in that she had to leave her job and go to a better job he and his friends arranged for her in part so she would shut up.

If you can't see the difference between multiple forms of breaking the law, breaking an oath, and breaking a vow and some guy having a claim that he asked a question of his wife about a sexual fantasy (who else is he supposed to ask?) then it is you wearing the blinders.

Nick

Because a lot of Republicans do more than talk the talk. Several Republican congressmen ended up resigning while investigating Clinton and having their own dirt come up. Even Bush had trouble turning out evangelicals in 2000, and likely will in 2004.

It could also be that Republicans are smart enough to know that there is a clear media double-standard on things like this and that since the media themselves were the ones petitioning courts to get the records, they weren't going to let it go away. We saw the same sort of "sexual correctness" used to attack Ar-nald here in California right before the election.

Nick

The dividing line is clear for Republicans.

Keyes is not a hypocrite because he thinks his running in Illinois is "good for the nation".

Hillary, on the other hand, ran for Senate in New York because she hates the US and wants to infiltrate this great nation with her wacko liberal ideals of freedom and equality.

Right, Nick?

And the sex scandal. I think the sex scandal against Jack Ryan was bullshit. It was a personal matter, and it shouldn't have affected politics.

But to say that it's "not that bad" and then condemn Clinton's acts and say they're "worse" in the same sentence is just freaking unbelievable. Personally I don't think either of these issues should have had any place in politics. But I'm offended by the hypocrisy, not of the candidates here as much as of the electors.

Personally, I think the Repubs actually hate Keyes, and have asked him to do this, knowing that he'll go down in flames, just to get rid of him. I mean did you see his statement that he's "going to make this a fight"? He was screaming like a madman, shaking his head and popping his eyes out like he was on drugs or something. Do you think that's the tactic the Republicans are looking for here?

It was mentioned on ABC news that there's speculation that his running is intended to distract Obama(and the election) from the issues. But don't they see that this is going to make the issues even more obvious? It's going to bring so much more media attention to Obama, as if he hasn't been getting enough, and each time he speaks, it's another nail in the coffin of Bushco.

Unless the Repubs are planning to smear him with something.

Keyes just looks really bad here. I mean really bad. I wouldn't expect him to get 5%, AND he's going to harm the GOP's cause in the end.

Was it the Republicans who made the decision to have Keyes run, or the Democrats? Hmm...

I clearly explained what I thought the differences were and they had nothing to do with party.

Clinton went to New York, where there were already qualified candidates and won on her positions and name recognition. She went there with the clear intent of running for Senate. She didn't fill in for anyone. She also went in knowing that once she got the nomination, she would pretty much have the seat. She had huge advantages in connections, fund raising you name it.

The reality is that the Republicans have to run a candidate in Illinois. The media took out their candidate. They needed someone who could have some quick name recognition since they are probably going to start out 20 points down and still lose. Alan Keyes does not have a large national fund raising machine. He will likely be outspent and has no time to even attempt to make up the difference. I mean we are what, maybe 90 days from the election or so?

They asked several other Republicans with good name recognition and none of them wanted to be the sacrificial lamb. Keyes has agreed to run and it is very, very likely he will lose. But he can toss out enough red meat for the Republicans and generate enough excitement to at least get people out to vote which probably will help in other races.

I don't see any hypocrisy in this. He is likely just going in and helping the Republican's cut their loses in a somewhat respectible manner. Keyes wasn't even good enough at fund raising to erase his debts from his failed presidential attempt. What likely is happening is that he gets to be the good lamb led to slaughter, the vote still gets turned out which helps the rest of the ticket, and Keyes gets some campaign cash and exposure. What is so bad about that? Is the hatred so bad on this board the Republicans are now bad when they even field a candidate?

Nick

So you're admitting you were wrong a few posts ago when you blamed the attack on the democrats? Good for you.

Oh, now I get it, Nick. You've made it perfectly clear. Hillary was a carpetbagger because she knew she was going to win. Keyes is not because he knows he's going to lose.

Why can't the Republicans just let Obama win without fighting, spending millions of dollars and drawing attention to their biggest future threat?

It seems like they're fighting for the sake of fighting. Where's the dignity in that?

I still think this whole thing is good for the Democrats, both in Illinois and nationally, and it will contribute to Obama's rise in the long run.

In fact, he doesn't need to spend a lot of money and he'll still win. Let the Republicans throw away their dollars for the sake of a fight. Nick, please send money to the Keyes campaign.

Come to think of it, it's pretty dumb for the Republicans to have this guy run. They ought to let some up-and-coming Republican Illinois politician run, to get some name recognition for future runs, assuming Obama will win.

There's a lot of talk about how the more reactionary elements in the traditionally relatively moderate IL repub party basically took the opportunity to stage a coup. So not only do you have the wackos running the show, but the big-shots in the party just sort of grunt (literally) when asked by the press about what's going on.

Read more carefully. Foxy was claiming I left the "scandal" out of the Ryan actions. I was declaring that he thought it was a scandal. I've attributed the opening of the divorce records to the media throughout the thread.

I was replying to Foxy's quote here.


Foxy wanted me to blame Ryan instead of the media. I said only he (called him a Democrat) would consider it a scandal for a husband to have sex with his wife in a kinky manner.

Nick

The Republicans have to run someone on the ticket because there are other races and it helps people turn out for them. Sure maybe Obama is practically guaranteed a win, but there are congressional seats to consider as well. There are also the respective seats within the state houses.

Think of it in a positive way Tonton, who's going to give money to Obama so he can campaign against... no one?

Keyes probably doesn't have enough support to beat Obama. Especially with little to no money and entering the race this late. But Keyes can excite the base and help turn them out for other contested seats.

Please don't tell me that after 2000, you don't believe in getting every vote out you can.

Nick

Great reasoning. So because republicans won't vote for a guy in a sex scandal somehow it's the dems that are turned off by it. Right about know I wish I knew where I saw that article joking how it was too bad his constituents weren't chicago dems.

BTW: I don't think dems would vote for him either. Asking your wife to fck in front of a bunch of french people is a pretty douche bag thing to do.

Interesting point. Will he be effective at turning out the base-- especially considering his weak relationship to the state and his late entry to the race? It's a good idea-- but perhaps executed too late.

Giant, I really like you, but that's extremely judgmental. There's never anything wrong with asking. If she says "no", then she says "no". In this case, evidently she didn't. That doesn't make him a douchebag. Maybe the whole thing was her own suggestion. Or maybe she was really into it. If she hated the idea, she wouldn't have done it.

It seems like you're judging people's private sexual practices.

Hiding the info from fellow Republicans was the scandal.

Sure it does. A rich boy with dyed hair who thinks the sex he has with his actress wife is just so great that everyone else have to see it. If you want me to use a different word to describe him, that's understandable, but it's the best one I can think of to get the point across. I suppose we could just enlist vice magazine to make him a don't and see what they come up with.

Actually, I'm judging his public sex life (or at least his fantasy of one). It's not like I'm invoking the stereotype of the closeted leather and studs conservative (oops!).

How is having sex in a sex club in front of people who want to see you having sex "public"?

Will he be effective? Who knows, but someone pretty much beats no one which is what they had running before.

Nick

I agree with you however they didn't do it. The "scandal" was that Ryan was alleged to have asked his wife about it. They never did have public sex at any of these clubs. It was just alleged that he asked for it.

Nick

That's so lame. What a "scandal"!

But even Clinton's cigar incident was a private matter, and should have remained private.

It probably would have if it weren't in a public place.

Nick

Tonton, if we were talking about some hot pakistani chick in high heels and a dead pelican tattoo with her nerd boyfriend, you might have a point, but we aren't.

And here we see the crux of your argument. But there are some problems.

1. it has absolutely nothing to do with what my criticism of this guy

2. it only has a superficial parallel to rich boy exhibitionist because...

3. what clinton did was perhaps one of the stupidest and more irresponsible things a modern politician has done. His little cigar has directly affected the lives millions of people. It doesn't matter whether you like live sex shows or go to bangkok for the ladyboys. Clinton's mistake was a MAJOR one. "Should" this and "should" that, but the fact is that it does matter (maybe not to you and I directly, but certainly to some people ^), and responsible people deal with it. It's the same reason I don't dip into one of the many hot students I'm surrounded by day in and day out.

This, of course, does not apply to ryan, who remains a douche for the reasons detailed in my last post (and some that I haven't mentioned, like what a kick he gets out of looking at his greasy, curly hair).