http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=683&u=/ap/20040805/ap_on_el_se/illinois_senate_28&printer=1


I am a conservative and I still dont like it! Its legal, but every state should make this undoable. Dems better not say one word, Hillary did the same thing. If I lived in a state where it happened I would start a movement to change the eligibility law.

One should have to live in a state for at least a year before getting elected to office to represent that state.

. . .by the blatant and cynical racial calculus the GOP is exhibiting here.

No because he doesn't live there, just as Hillary didnt live in NY...one could say that running a woman, Hillary, was sexist, but I dont care about that. One should be a resident of the state you run in.

Alan Keyes.

Keyes in 2000:

"I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there, so I certainly wouldn't imitate it."

Keyes earlier this week, when asked about this point:


Asked how he felt about making a Senate run from a state he had never lived in, he responded: "As a matter of principle, I don't think it's a good idea."
"It has to be something where I would be convinced it's not only consonant with federalism as I understand it but that it's in the best interest of the state and of the nation," Keyes said.

Carpetbagging has a long history. I don't like it, and I think your 1 year residency requirement makes sense. If they have not paid state taxes, heard state and local news, how can they claim to understand the issues of the state?

one could say that running a woman, Hillary, was sexist, but I dont care about that.True, but one would be missing the point.

If they have not paid state taxes, heard state and local news, how can they claim to understand the issues of the state?
They could have a "listening tour," you dope! Haven't you been paying attention??

But do you think politicians are going to pass laws to make it harder on themselves? Ha, we can dream on.

To "outlaw" such carpetbagging it would have to be a referendum done by the people, not the politicians.

Are you part of the solution, or part of the problem?

So, do our resident socialists, czardonic and red menace and others, agree with Keyes and Hillary running?

So, do our resident socialists, czardonic and red menace and others, agree with Keyes and Hillary running?

I thought it was wrong for Hillary to run in New York, but Alan Keyes running is not only wrong it is also stupid. He is going to be nothing more than the sacrificial lamb for Obama. A whipping boy if you will (no pun intended.)

So, do our resident socialists, czardonic and red menace and others, agree with Keyes and Hillary running?
Maybe a year.

Absent that, I would say someone like Hillary or Keyes would have to do a lot of fancy convincing to get me to vote for them. I do think if you're going to have bourgeois representative government, the elected representatives should be more than passing familiar with the place they're representing. Although it can be argued that being senator is more of a national office, not nearly as provincial as House member. Not sure I buy it but it's an argument. (And oddly enough, did you know House members aren't required to live in the district they represent? All he/she has to do is live in the STATE somewhere. So someone in Cleveland can see an opportunity to capture an open seat in Cincinnati, run there and win, and NEVER have to move to Cincy. Strange but true.)

The states make the requirements for representatives above those mandated by the Constitution. I am of the belief some states have specific residency requirements, others dont.

Other than it <i>should</i> be a waste of time and money.

If NY and IL voters make these candidacies viable, <i>they</i> are the source of the problem.

The states make the requirements for representatives above those mandated by the Constitution. I am of the belief some states have specific residency requirements, others dont.
All Article 1, Section 3 says is:

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

You'll note that out of staters have till election day itself to move somewhere within the borders of the state. Apparently, the issue of residency didn't concern the Founders a whole lot, and that was at a time when "place" was a lot more important than it is now.

However can't states be MORE restrictive than the constitution? A state, city, county, etc can pass more restrictive laws than federal laws, but cannot pass laws laxer than federal laws....Hey Doug Sloan, ruling??? :)

Republicans want to pass <i>more laws</i> to prevent their <i>own party</i> from importing candidates from out of state because <i>they can't find a genuine resident Republican</i> that appeals to resident voters.

With "conservatives" like these. . .

GOP loss in this election is guaranteed. They had a pretty strong candidate in Jack Ryan, and he was 15 points behind before the sex scandal broke. What I see is the GOP struggling to offer any oponent, to preserve some kind of party dignity in the state. I don't think I see the racial calculus you're referring to.

Alex

From the article:<ul>"If he enters the race, Keyes will be stepping into the national spotlight with another Harvard-educated, polished debater -- Democratic rising star Barack Obama -- and setting up the first Senate election with two black candidates representing the major parties."</ul>Coincidence? Perhaps the GOP wanted to neutralize the "Harvard-educated, polished debater" angle. . .

From the article:<ul>"If he enters the race, Keyes will be stepping into the national spotlight with another Harvard-educated, polished debater -- Democratic rising star Barack Obama -- and setting up the first Senate election with two black candidates representing the major parties."</ul>Coincidence? Perhaps the GOP wanted to neutralize the "Harvard-educated, polished debater" angle. . .

But I don't know what you mean by "neutralize the 'Harvard-educated, polished debater' angle". I know a little bit about Keyes, and I don't think he's going to neutralize anything in this race. Do you think the GOP is expecting him to get greater leniency in attacking Obama because he is black?

You're alluding to some GOP purpose other than winning this seat. What is it?

If you listen to Keyes just on his oratory ability and ability to debate and SUBTRACT party politics from the equation, he is the best debater at the national level of politics on either side easily.

And czardonic. I am a conservative, not a republican. I believe political parties are a hinderance to our form of government. I object to any person carpetbagging, conservative or liberal.

bad debater. I don't have much respect for a debater who runs for cover under biblical literalism when challenged.

You're alluding to some GOP purpose other than winning this seat. What is it?I think that the GOP is running Keyes as a "me too" Black candidate that they can trot out to "counter" the Democratic Party's new rising star. As if being Black were all it took.

I believe political parties are a hinderance to our form of government.How so? How do you define "our form of government"?

I don't like it either. But if Hillary, and RFK before her, could do it, I don't see a reason under current laws why Keyes can't. I'd agree to a one-year residency requirement if it came up for referendum.

the left and the right have found a common ground to stand on....instituting a residency requirement for elected officials.

. . .I think that voters should be allowed to vote for a carpet-bagger if that's who they want to vote for.

I forgot in my absence from the board that czardonic is not "left" but a contrarian!


And now, having said this, if Czardonic disagrees with me, doesn't he prove my point? :)

the left and the right have found a common ground to stand on

We can't have that happen on this forum. Some of the more fervent posters-on-the-fringe around here would get apoplectic. We better hope there's an earthquake soon to shake up that common ground! ;)

On the rare occasion that I support the status quo, I am labeled a contrarian.

. . .I think that voters should be allowed to vote for a carpet-bagger if that's who they want to vote for.

Me too. If voters in Illinois are dumb enough to vote for a guy that lives in Maryland, that's fine with me. They can vote for Canadians as far as I care. If they want to vote for a talking monkey, that's okay by me. If they want to dig up Abe Lincoln and vote for him, I say bring it on. Who is more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?

. . .I think that voters should be allowed to vote for a carpet-bagger if that's who they want to vote for.

Sometimes even a dead guy is a better choice than the "regular" candidate...