Keyes’ Company

Keyes’ Company: Alan Keyes Lives in Bill Kristol

ArchPundit February 12, 2007 1 Comment

There’s something about Obama that makes people opposed to him explode into a burst of hot gas with the most recent example being Bill Kristol (video on C & L):

KRISTOL: We’re electing a war president in 2008. If I can go back to Obama and Lincoln for just one second, Lincoln’s “house divided” speech in 1858 was a speech saying we cannot live as a house divided on slavery. And he implicitly says we’ll have to fight a civil war if necessary on this.

Obama’s speech is a “can’t we get along” speech — sort of the opposite of Lincoln. He would have been with Stephen Douglas in 1858. Let’s paper over these differences, rise above politics and all get along. That’s not Giuliani’s mode. And I think in a war context, social conservatives want to win the war against Islamic jihadism.

Last guy to say something this dumb: Alan Keyes:

So, have to give it to Keyes, when he says something most people would find embarrassing and over the top and is called on it, he doesn’t shrink from it. This morning on CNN when called on the Slaveholder line they showed him saying it and then they showed Obama responding. Obama responded slowly, surprised it was this wacky this quickly, and actually twitched and then said the bit about Keyes needing to look to Republican Party leaders about whether such language is appropriate.

Keyes then defended the quote and in effect reiterated it saying he doesn’t have to look to his party because he (Keyes), knows his heritage. He didn’t just embrace the quote, he grabbed on it and wrestled it to the ground.

Keyes’ Company

ArchPundit January 31, 2007 2 Comments

How Obama is Like Barbaro

Similarly, those who swoon at the sight of Senator Beefcake can find in his ponderous, ambiguous statements about serious issues whatever they want to hear. The shame that was Katrina isn’t about race, except that it is. He is a devout Christian who is proud of his brother’s conversion to Islam. He is black, except when he’s thinking of himself as a “half breed.”

Liberals have a well-known propensity for adopting mascots and purporting to speak for them. If they literally can’t speak for themselves (inanimate objects like trees, animals), all the better. Now they have applied this standard to the man that I call He Who Walks on Water and what at least one commentator has called an empty suit who is no doubt delighted to watch his political fortunes rise without his having to clarify what he really thinks, and his real agenda for this country. Come to think of it, we would be better off with Mr. Ed.

So the first African-American Harvard Law Review is a mascot who can’t speak for himself. A guy who was an Instructor at University of Chicago Law School? It’s legitimate to question his experience on the national and international level. It’s legitimate to want more details from him. However, suggesting he is a token who has to be spoken for is one of the most paternalistic and stupid comments I’ve read even including Joe Biden. This is straight out of the Keyes playbook with the irony being that Keyes’ was the mascot Syverson and Rauschenberger wanted to bring in because he was an articulate black man like Obama.

Are you fucking kidding me with this shit?

But most of all, they put the horse down. How exactly is this a comparison?