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

THE WASHINGTON TIMES/ RNC/Life FaxNotes ^

[Brian Kopp DPM]

A right-left split is straining the Republican big tent as the party's national committee prepares to meet in Texas this week.

Committee sources said that party officials have been maneuvering to keep ideological tensions from erupting into a public dispute in Austin.

[Aristophanes]

You cannot sway public opinion by being embarrassed to champion Life in public. (Which is what the GOP is doing.) Bush is using the dishonest "hearts and minds" dodge as an excuse to keep from doing anything about abortion. He's a liar and a fraud and an accessory to every one of the 4,000 killings that are happening today.

We'll never stop abortion until we stop the dishonest and cowardly GOP.

[elfman2]

" Mr. Eisenberg founded the socially liberal, pro-choice Republican Leadership Council. Some staunch pro-life Republicans believe the RLC's real goal is to purge them from the party."

Looks like the other way around. Republicans deserve the nickname "The Stupid Party" if we allow ourselves to fracture over this issue. Democrats have been pounding a wedge into this spot for more than a decade.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Instead of giving Dems and the Supremes all the credit with the Roe march, pro-lifers OUGHT to gather on the anniversary of Kissinger's 1974 NSSM-200 wherein abortion was officially recognized as "vital" to the solution of US population control strategy at home and abroad.

I did not know this. Thank you for the information.

And,.. I will say it: YOU were right. I never saw President (then candidate Bush) take a "stand" on abortion. He waltzed around that one.

It kind of feels like all the different Churches who are debating rather sexually active singles and homosexuals can be Ministers in their Church. Very devisive. BUT!! There ARE Churches who recognize that they do NOT have the authority to arbitrarily change what God has ordained!!!

So, to me, selecting someone like Eisenburg to lead the party is very akin to those churches who would change Gods laws and act on the premise of being PC!!

I think President Bush is a wonderful President,..and to be honest.. I like that a President sets aside "party" to govern our Country "ONCE ELECTED". A Country of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Greens.. etc. I don't think once elected President they should be partisan. Its an odd concept. It doesn't "allow" for the leader to act freely as they should..and impedes progress IMHO

That being said.. while they are running,. they run under a certain political affiliation. Under that party's platform. If he wasn't behind that platform,.. why did he run under it? It has the appearances of bowing to political correctness. And to big money!!

I hope that Eisenburg isn't selected. I think it would be political suicide and hypocritical of Ralph Reed to introduce him..and I'm glad the rumor is he won't!! I also think this if true....will harm President Bush in his own party. I imagine he could possibly glean MORE votes overall in the upcoming election with such a selection (It sounds so so Democratic Party!! sex, abortions..LIES...) But he will have "whored" himself. IMHO

If this man did indeed have sexual relations with a co-worker while married for seven years during that marraige.. then that would be as bad as saying that it was ok for Clinton to have sex with an intern,...and then lie under oath about it.

In otherwords,.. this selection would be hypocritical of President Bush. If he starts to "appear" to only care about how much money and who can get it best.. with out any scruples.. any guiding authority like his parties "platform".. then he isn't being true to himself,..let alone the people who supported him.

I will vehemently stand against this appointment!!

My ideologies don't sway in the wind...

[Romulus]

The GOP stands ready to jettison the pro-life plank.

Not in a million years. It's far too useful.

[IM2Phat4U]

Bush has been b*tch-slapping conservatives ever since he got elected.

You are dead wrong!

It actually started well before he was elected. Remember this exchange:

"Too often," Bush said in his education reform speech at the Manhattan Institute Oct. 5, "on social issues, my party has painted an image of America slouching toward Gomorrah."

Judge Bork responded in the Wall Street Journal: Mr. Bush evidently thinks conservatives are another species altogether. He has tried to take back his words by saying he really meant that the problem is not with Republicans but with the way they are heard by the public. An unnamed adviser gave that game away by explaining, "After you hit a dog, you pet it."

"After you hit a dog, you pet it." This explains why Bush continues to b*tch-slap conservatives.

[Diddle E. Squat]

First off, Bush has repeatedly stated that he is Pro-Life. But because he doesn't write it on his forehead and throw away any chance of increasing his power(needed to get the Supreme Court appointments) he is badmouthed as a heretic.

Please explain to me your solution then. Because if you guys sit on your hands, the Democrats win. Plain and simple, that's always how it works. And if the Democrats keep winning on the national level, they will pack the Supreme Court with baby killer judges, several openings will inevitably appear soon.

So "not compromising your principles/convictions" by sitting the election out will surely result in more abortions. How is that any different than all the neighbors of Kitty Genovese who heard her screams yet refused to help? So easy to walk on the other side of the road so as not to sully your pure hands by helping the Samaritan, but how can you guys play Pontius Pilate and rationalize your inaction when the result is surely increased abortions?

[sphinx]

To hire into the national party

As far as I'm aware, Finance Chairman has never been a paid position. The top staff position is Finance Director. At the RNC currently, that person is Bev (Beverly) Shea, who has been there awhile. You will note that the story says nothing about her, which is appropriate because staff is supposed to be invisible.

The Finance Chairman, on the other hand, is not staff. He is an independent person usually chosen because (1) he is wealthy enough to deal with (often very) rich potential donors on a peer-to-peer basis and (2) he is willing to spend endless hours on the phone and flying around the country to events begging for money. It is kinda hard to find very wealthy people, usually highly successful businessmen, who are willing to do this. You need to make some allowance for this.

To the extent a Finance Chairman's views on abortion enter into it at all, it is a matter of balancing the RNC in the eyes of potential donors. We have a pro-life President (not that he's doing anything about it, but that's another story). I don't know where Racicot is on the issue, but every other RNC Chairman since Rich Bond has been at least nominally pro-life. (The committee had a knock-down, drag-out fight over this four years ago, when pro-life Jim Nicholson was elected as the acceptable compromise candidate on the sixth ballot.) Part of the Finance Chairman's job in recent years, therefore, has been to play peacemaker with wealthy, socially liberal contributors who are upset by the pro-life balance of power within the Party and at the RNC.

Please understand that I don't have a dog in this fight. I am pro-life. I don't work for the RNC. I do have enough contact with it, and know enough staff people, to have some sense of the lay of the land. I don't know Eisenberg, and I don't have another candidate to suggest. I'm just trying to balance the picture here with a few observations about organizational realities.

[hchutch]

The problem is, the Christian Right seems to lakc the patience of their adversaires.

Personally, Eisenberg is probably being hired to keep him out of the NJ Senate race. No need for a potential Jeffords there.

If he did have as much to do with DiFrancesco's efforts to sabotage Schundler as some folks say he did, we need to expose it, and then exert the grassroots pressure to have Eisenberg replaced.

[WhiteGuy]

"clintonized republicans"

Wow, well put, may I use this too?

[Oschisms]

Pardon, I didn't mean to get snippy about it, but it still boggles my mind how one could assume me to be pro-death when I refuse to use the A word. The only thing this "procedure" could accurately be called is infanticide.

You and I disagree in that I want the pro-deathers to be banned only from those jobs that directly influence abortion policy. (Colin Powell at State is only acceptable because he's promised Bush that he'll follow his directives. As all Cabinet members should.)

From this position you assume I'm pro-death. This is my way or the highway stuff. It simply won't work in a two party system, and it's doubtful it'll work in trying to move the country to the right so that Roe v. Wade can be reversed.

[Satadru]

This man has no control of over appointment of Supreme Court justices -- he is fundraiser.

This is a highly naive statement. As the guy in charge of fundraising, he will bring in huge cash from people in exchange for what? Conservatives already donate to the GOP. Why do you need this guy? To bring in big money from people who dont donate to the GOP. Now who are those people, and why will they donate? Even you know the answer to this question.

[Dog Gone]

What nobody has been able to articulate here is how a single abortion would be prevented by putting an ardent pro-life person in the Finance Chair position.

Anyone care to try?

[IM2Phat4U]

Not in a million years. It's far too useful.

And as Bobdole made clear, no one even reads the platform. It is just something for GOP leaders to point to when pro-lifers ask why they should vote Republican.

[truthandlife]

How many of the 70% of people (a low-end figure) who oppose partial-birth abortion turn around and VOTE out Senators who have voted against efforts to ban it and who tie up judges who would rule such a ban constitutional? ...people just don't VOTE that way.

I am sorry but you would be surprised how many people vote that way. I am one of them. And if they don't vote against them they JUST DON'T VOTE (LOOK AT #43 for an explanation.)

[cake_crumb]

"He's in no position to influence infanticide policy. Who cares?"

You took the words right outta my mouth. Actually, you said it better. Unfortunately, the outraged far-right and a giggling left-wing will probably spin this issue into a DISASTER for the Republican party.

[RussianBear716]

I stand by my original post .... take off your one issue blinders. Take in the whole picture!

Without money to get Republicans elected, we don't have a chance in Hades of getting the Supreme Court justices on the court who will do the job! Women's group, gay and lesbian groups, environmental groups, and liberal Hollywood groups all raise millions they pour into the liberal, Democratic coffers. You think that Democratic Senators are going to put strict constructionist judges on the Supreme Court, without which our hopes for overturning Roe VS Wade will NEVER HAPPEN!

But if you want to 'cut off your nose to spite your face' and extend the number years it will take overturn Roe vs Wade, thereby resulting in the death of more babies, well feel free. Don't expect me to sign on with your stupidity though. Have a nice day and God bless.

[cake_crumb]

"Appointed conservative judges, strict-constructionist judges, pro-life judges. These appointees are working their way up the judicial system, several now in place to be tapped for the Supreme Court."

IF the Democrat controlled Senate ever gets around to CONFIRMATION HEARINGS, that is.

[hchutch]

Well, the problem again is this:
The other side doesn't give up when its been beaten back. Yet, I see signs that if things are not 100%, or if there is a reverse, a fair portion of the Christian Conservatives (about 20%, if Rove's figures are right) stay home,. and give the election to the Democrat.

You have some chance with the Republicans, none with the Dems. Now, I think Eisenberg is being put in the Finance Chair position to keep him from running in New Jersey, which is good for our side since he cannot sabotage Treffinger or Gregg if they win.

But flat-out, we gotta be willing to take a long view. I'd tell a good joke about an old bull and a young bull that could make the point, but it'd be pulled due to the rules governing profanity here. What good is a pro-life President if a Democratic Senate is sitting on his judicial nominees? We sure aren't going to get a ban on partial-birth abortion with Daschle running the Senate.

[WhiteGuy]

Which one's which?

[Satadru]

You are right! Words like "you have to change people's minds" is synonymous to "It is a hard issue, and I cant do anything about that, because I dont want my poll numbers to fall." It is funny how Bush said that he will be a leader, and then say he cannot lead on probably the biggest moral issue of our time. That is pure double-talk.