RNC, at Urging of Bush, to install Eisenberg, a liberal, pro-abortion activist, as RNC Finance Chair

THE WASHINGTON TIMES/ RNC/Life FaxNotes ^

[John Farson]

How about the federalism envisaged by the Founding Fathers?
The abortion issue is the provence of the states. Roe V. Wade usurped the states' right to regulate abortion.

[Antoninus]

What are social conservatives going to do when, within the next 6 years, the GOP goes neutral on abortion?

Look for another party, or form one. Until then, I'm going to hold my fire but watch what they're doing very carefully.

We all have to let them know that if the pro-life plank goes, so do we.

[IM2Phat4U]

I think the GOP is preparing us for Vice-President Ridge. The pro-lifers need to start fighting some of these battles and winning.

[Aristophanes]

It's you who are playing Pilate -- you're telling the Republican Party, "Hey, we really want you to do something about abortion, but since you won't, don't worry about it. There's nothing we can do. We wash our hands of it. We'll go ahead and vote for you anyway, Mr. Goodcop."

Yes, the Dems will have to win some and the Republican party may have to be destroyed before they will realize we're serious. Until then, they'll keep on doing what you train them to do: Nothing.

And so what if the Dems win? What will they do? Abortion can't be any "more" legal than it already is. So what else? Increase the unconstitutional Education Bill? Install a police state? Kow-tow to bload-soaked China? All of these things are being done now by the Republicans. There's no difference whatsover, so bottom line, we have nothing to lose.

And we'll keep on losing, too, until there's a price to be paid for opposing us. Right now, there is no price to be paid -- no matter how many unconstitutional usurpations the Republicans sponsor, they'll keep getting the sheeple vote.

Well they won't get mine.

[John Farson]

The prolife plank will remain and continue to be ignored. It is a successful ploy to keep prolifers on the plantation.

[t-shirt]

Sick!

[Aristophanes]

I think the GOP is preparing us for Vice-President Ridge.

Yep, but can't you hear it now? "I don't care if Bush chooses a blood-soaked killer for Veep -- he's just a figure head and doesn't have anything to do with abortion." Same song, 89th verse from the "Rah-Rah GOP" songbook.

[t-shirt]

The prolife plank will remain and continue to be ignored. It is a successful ploy to keep prolifers on the plantation.

105 posted on 1/17/02 11:11 AM Pacific by John Farson

Exactly!

[truthandlife]

I think the GOP is preparing us for Vice-President Ridge.

Or another nightmare scenario, Powell for VP. We do need to fight the good fight within the Republican Party but Bush will lose BIG TIME if he pick a pro-abort VP or SC nominee (LOOK AT #43 for statistics to back it up.)

[expose]

Bush Administration and ASHCROFT MOVING LEFT?

[Ol' Sparky]

But, don't you know we're still winning? Look at the big win in New York with Michael Bloomberg and look at Richard Riordan's poll numbers in California. Who cares if they are as liberal as Hillary Clinton. Just keeping telling yourself we're winning and you will feel better. Ignorance is bliss.

Sadly, it ignorant conservatives that are unwittingly advancing liberalism in this nation. Socialized health care, gay marriage, etc. It's all going to be a reality because conservative morons thought it was a good idea to support Bush no matter who he appoints and the Bloombergs and Riordans of the world.

[Wait4Truth]

Excuse me. This President will be the one that bans partial-birth abortion - but FIRST, we must take back the Senate. Daschle won't even bring up the stimulus plan - do you honestly think he would allow a vote on PBA to be allowed? Quitting of this president now is ridiculous and wrong!

[m1911]

Let's see...

When Roe v. Wade was decided, there were 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats on the bench. One of each party dissented. That makes Republicans 80% supporting abortion vs. Democrats 75%. LOL.

P.S. To make it worse, there were 6 appointed by Republicans vs. 3 by Democrats. Ike appointed Brennan, who was listed as a Democrat. Still one of each dissenting, so it doesn't look any better. Of course four of those six were Nixon appointees...

[Aristophanes]

Well, if you could ever coax the quivering Republican legislators out of their hidey holes, you MIGHT be able to get a PBA ban. Of course, only if it was made completely harmless with huge "health exception" dodges.

Even then, I wouldn't be surprised to see Bush let it die on the vine. The man has no pro-life convictions, none. And it doesn't matter, since the Supremes have pre-emptively made any such legislation a non-starter without the health exception language.

We're in this for the long haul, there'll be no quick fixes. But if the Republicans don't get out and start making the case for Life, it will never happen.

[Antoninus]

I think the GOP is preparing us for Vice-President Ridge. The pro-lifers need to start fighting some of these battles and winning.

Agreed. The notion of "Vice President" Ridge is an unacceptable proposition and one that must be fought right now. We must make it clear that the following actions by the GOP will result in massive "stay-homeism" by the rank and file in future elections:

Pro-abortion Supreme Court nominees.

Pro-aborts at the top of the presidential ticket.

And this action will result in the formation of a new third party:

Removal of the pro-life plank from the platform.

This being said, I think it's good that folks like Proud2bRC are screaming about this appointment. It'll keep the leadership on its toes if they want to keep winning elections.

[montag813]

Who the hell cares if he can raise the moolah? Terry McAuliffe was hired because he is a rainmaker. We need the same on our side.

[Landru]

"I assume from your answer, you would opt for the second choice."

I'm going to assume from your answer you meant to say the court would enter a, "Not Guilty" plea.

...I shall remain, anonymous.

[Dog Gone]

That will be the big test for Mr. Bush, won't it? He's pushing it with the coddling of the pro-death, pro-gaystapo crowd. I've tolerated it so far. However, if he selects a pro-death or Souter-like unknown nominee to fill any Supreme Court vacancies that may arise, he'll lose my vote (and probably millions of others) in 2004.

Yeah, yeah, where have we heard this before? Oh, yes. It was when Bush was choosing a running mate.

That was the "big test." Then the next "big test" was when he was looking for an Attorney General.

He seemed to have passed those tests, and when it comes time for the Supreme Court, he'll pass that test, too.

None of which will earn him the votes of much of the one-issue pro-life voters here. They'll seek some fringe candidate to support, just like they always do.

BTW, I have no idea who you supported last time, so my comments may not apply to you. But they certainly apply to some on this thread.

[Wait4Truth]

quitting of = quitting on.

[Aristophanes]

Why is it that the Democrats with the absolute slimmest of margins in the Senate can move their legislation through against a sitting Republican President and a Republican House, while the Republicans need a huge majority in all three positions plus the Supreme Court?

It's because the Republicans have no balls, that's why. They're too busy being "bi" ("sexual" or "partisan", take your pick) to accomplish anything.