Keyes vs. Obama in Illinois?

[TheAnvil 0]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127975,00.html

I don't like that at all. Part of the reason - other than her Socialist political views - I was so adamantly against Madame Clintonista's bid for the NY Senate seat was the fact that the Clintonistas had NEVER lived in NY. Such shenanigans seem completely contrary to the founding fathers' original intent of representation - the spirit of it at any rate. I guess an attorney can represent a client he/she has never met before, so why couldn't a senator represent a state in which they've never lived? Still, I find it offensive and not in the spirit of Congressional representation's intent.

Thoughts?

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[wmw999 2,589]

That is pretty lame.

And, while I probably have a different viewpoint on Hillary Clinton in some ways, I agree that one should represent people with whose issues one has a chance of being familiar (see -- I didn't end that sentence with a preposition )

They should find an eloquent (not abrasive) rising young star to run in the slot. Obama is a strong candidate, and someone whose career will be helped by exposure, even if he loses, would be a good choice.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Frenchy68 0]

Very good point. But in today's political climate, with both houses being so closely split, we should be prepared to see more and more "political parachuting" (that's how it's called in France, where it's pretty much a tradition). It's pretty much sending mercenaries to fight either winable, or at least contestable, seats. I agree that the ethical side of it is questionable at best. But strategically, once again, I'd be prepared to see more and more of it happening.
As to whether it conflicts with the founding fathers' original intent: probably does; but then again, I think it would also apply to some of the contitutional amendments we abide by today.
Nick

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[AndyMan 7]

Putting Alan Keyes up is simply an attempt to save face. They have to put someone up, so they're attempting to make it look like they're putting a strong candidate.

They're forgetting that Keyes has the social graces of Urkel.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Ron 10]

I liked Barthwell better.

She lived in Chicago, is a Dr, and a little left.

She had a much better chance than Keys.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Nightingale 0]

if someone of any party is elected by the people of that state as their chosen representative, its fine with me.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

That is pretty lame.

And, while I probably have a different viewpoint on Hillary Clinton in some ways, I agree that one should represent people with whose issues one has a chance of being familiar (see -- I didn't end that sentence with a preposition )

They should find an eloquent (not abrasive) rising young star to run in the slot. Obama is a strong candidate, and someone whose career will be helped by exposure, even if he loses, would be a good choice.

Wendy W.

I know I have NO room to talk here, but I thought this was amusing.

Quote

. . . a chance of being familiar (see -- I didn't end that sentence with a preposition )

All I could think of was, "hmmm, she didn't end it with any punctuation either."

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

"hmmm, she didn't end it with any punctuation either."

Hey -- there was punctuation there! A close parenth is definitely punctuation.

The wrong punctuation, but still

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,150]

For all the good it will do, they might as well have put up Donald Duck.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.