Posted on 01/17/2002 8:04:06 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:50:36 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
As I tried to indicate before, this is a position where Eisenberg can do little harm. The potential problem is that he will attempt to bring more "New York/New England" money into the party and I do not want people from THOSE AREAS influencing part policy. If he were to be made head of Health and Human Services, THEN I would scream my head off. THere are more important battles to fight, my friend, than who gets the finance chair.
It works both ways, Diddle, both ways. We can't get rid of abortion without the Republicans, but if they aren't going to get rid of abortion, why should we support them. You act like we should mindlessly approve of the Republicans in the manner that some black constituencies approve of the Democrats.
When they support my positions, I will vote for them. When they don't, I won't.
patent
I'm not sure what you expect the President to do. Suspend the Constitution?
Other than the Executive Orders that he has already issued, his hands are tied until there's a Supreme Court vacancy. Even then, it's probable that he'd only be replacing a conservative.
Abortion is going to remain legal in this country for at least awhile longer, and it doesn't matter what you or I or George W Bush think about that. We have no power to change it.
if he does nothing? Instead of using the bully pulpit to "change hearts and minds", we're told good people can disagree about the murder of children.
I'd like to see Bush articulate the prolife plank to more than just the converted at a fundraiser. And his words should be backed up by actions.
Now time for my rant: F--K EISENBERG, F--K WHITMAN, F--K DIFRANCESCO, F--K LOWELL WEICKER, F--K PATAKI, F--K BLOOMBERG.
If this fund-raiser raises a lot of funds, and those funds go to support the campaigns of pro-life Republicans, then I don't care who is the fund-raiser. If the RNC manages to avoid giving funds to pro-life Republicans, then I have a real problem with that. But the RNC should not make such a move.
Shalom.
LOL! Boy, this sure makes me feel a whole lot better about Mr. Eisenberg. He's just displaying his conservative creds all over the place. You are truly clueless, Ms. Wagner.
Forgetting the abortion issue for a moment, don't moderates call themselves "fiscally conservative, but socially liberal"? We've seen plenty of proof of the latter half of that statement, with Bush's awful Education bill being the latest example of the moderate's social liberalism, but when are we going to see some fiscal conservatism from this bunch? I haven't seen much of it since the Pubbies took over in '95, a take over, BTW, that was facilitated by the conservative wing of the party.
The party platforms are in place to keep the full-mooners on the plantation, but the fact is that there is virtually no difference between the 2 parties at this time, at least in terms of legislation passed. The dirty little secret is that the Repub moderates don't have a problem with this.
Why does Planned Parenthood still receive my tax dollars?
Assuming you had only two choices, which would you go for?
- America in its present state, where folks have to struggle to impliment sensible abortion policies
- An America where abortion is outlawed, but also having a communist dictatorship where private protery, religion, and free speech are outlawed
BTW - answers such as "any place that is Godless would never outlaw abortion" are not permitted; the above is a hypothetical situation created to facilitate this "thought experiment".
Thanks.
Bush seems to be picking individuals of the same caliber and background !!!!!!
The RNC is already a cesspool of corruption, Eisenberg will just be a little extra "icing on the cake".
Beyond criticizing Mr. Eisenberg's politics, e-mail messages about his personal life have circulated among RNC members.
In 1989, Mr. Eisenberg resigned his partnership in the Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs after a former assistant filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against him.
A 1990 Wall Street Journal article said "no one denies" that Mr. Eisenberg, who was married at the time, had a seven-year affair with Kathy Abraham.
In her lawsuit, she claimed that Mr. Eisenberg suggested she have sex with other Goldman Sachs partners.
The suit was later dismissed and Miss Abraham recanted her claims after receiving a settlement from the firm.
The Republican party hasn't lifted a finger to stop abortion and has no intention to. Like Buchanan said (I'm actually Keyes guy so don't get your panties in a wad) the Republican and Democratic parties are just two different wings on the same bird of prey. They are just as corrupt, and just as socialist as the Dems.
They must go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.