Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

RNC, at Urging of Bush, to install Eisenberg, a liberal, pro-abortion activist, as RNC Finance Chair
THE WASHINGTON TIMES/ RNC/Life FaxNotes ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortionlist; catholiclist; christianlist; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 381-382 next last
To: Aristophanes
If abortion is your only issue, consider yourself part of a very small (though noble in my eyes) minority. I am a staunch supporter of Project Rachel due to the fact that the best way to fight legalized infanticide is to provide alternatives.

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.

81 posted on 01/17/2002 9:28:11 AM PST by Clemenza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
If abortion is your only issue, consider yourself part of a very small (though noble in my eyes) minority. Very small but very powerful and enough to sway an election one way or the other (LOOK AT #43 for an explanation).
82 posted on 01/17/2002 9:32:14 AM PST by truthandlife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
>>>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.

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

83 posted on 01/17/2002 9:33:08 AM PST by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Satadru
"It is a hard issue, and I cant do anything about that, because I dont want my poll numbers to fall."

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.

84 posted on 01/17/2002 9:33:14 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
What good is a pro-life President...

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.

85 posted on 01/17/2002 9:36:21 AM PST by John Farson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
You have a point. Trolling for Soccer Moms, yuppies and the like can't work. We should write off New York and New England (with the exception of New Hampshire) and concentrate our efforts elsewhere.

Now time for my rant: F--K EISENBERG, F--K WHITMAN, F--K DIFRANCESCO, F--K LOWELL WEICKER, F--K PATAKI, F--K BLOOMBERG.

86 posted on 01/17/2002 9:37:18 AM PST by Clemenza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
For all I care, W.'s committment to the pro-life cause is determined by and demonstrated by his efforts to pass pro-life legislation and his efforts to place pro-life (or at least not anti-life) personnel in positions that will impact right-to-life laws in this country. I'm interested in his nominations for the judiciary, his nominations for people in the DOJ, his nominations for people in HHS, etc.

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.

87 posted on 01/17/2002 9:38:58 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
"We're grateful [Mr. Eisenberg] is willing to serve," said Ann Wagner, co-chairman of the RNC. "He has a long history of raising money for Republicans across the ideological spectrum, from Bob Dole and George Bush to George Pataki and Christie Todd Whitman."

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.

88 posted on 01/17/2002 9:43:50 AM PST by Major Matt Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Major Matt Mason
The Republicans have not reduced spending since Eisenhower -- and those where cuts in Defense.

Why does Planned Parenthood still receive my tax dollars?

89 posted on 01/17/2002 9:46:35 AM PST by John Farson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: ALL
(This is not a rhetorical question.)

Assuming you had only two choices, which would you go for?

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.

90 posted on 01/17/2002 9:50:05 AM PST by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
I'm not sure, but when I copied this, I believe "protery" was supposed to mean "property".
91 posted on 01/17/2002 9:52:35 AM PST by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC;Joe Montana;Landru
Maybe President Bush should ask Bill Clinton if he would like to be head of the RNC.

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.

92 posted on 01/17/2002 9:52:55 AM PST by Donald Stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
"Throw the leftist Pubs a bone just to keep them quiet while he appoints pro-lifers to prominent positions that affect the issue. Makes sense to me." EXACTLY!! And that, my friends, is why "W" is so far ahead on matters political and moral that most of the "Anti-Bushies" commenting on FR just can't comprehend.
93 posted on 01/17/2002 9:54:51 AM PST by Winfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RussianBear716
Though you don't yet see it, mindlessly voting "R" while they move further and further from Life, will result in an even longer run for Roe, and even more babies murdered. The Republican party has absolutely no incentive to speak out for, to vote for, or to otherwise be leaders for Life as long as people like you reward them no matter what.

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.

94 posted on 01/17/2002 9:58:00 AM PST by Aristophanes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
How about a third option. A country that defends LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Defending the innocent unborn baby by not taking its life. Just like we have laws against people who murder people outside of the womb, prosecuting people who murder innocent human life inside the womb.
95 posted on 01/17/2002 9:58:08 AM PST by truthandlife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
More boob bait for bubbas, Senator?
96 posted on 01/17/2002 9:59:14 AM PST by Aristophanes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Oschisms
You would rather pro-death Republicans be appointed to the Supreme Court? He's in no position to influence infanticide policy. Who cares?

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.
97 posted on 01/17/2002 9:59:28 AM PST by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
All things considered, Bush could be just keeping his friends close and his enemies even closer. I'm going to wait until he makes an overtly pro-choice policy move before condeming him outright.

Perhaps we should start ramping up the Partial Birth Abortion ban drumbeat again. We should be able to get ol' Dubya to sign it, no?
98 posted on 01/17/2002 10:03:12 AM PST by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Bzzzt. Please choose from the above two choices. In fairness, I should reveal my choice. It would be the former.
99 posted on 01/17/2002 10:03:35 AM PST by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Aristophanes
I assume from your answer, you would opt for the second choice. Thanks for playing!
100 posted on 01/17/2002 10:05:12 AM PST by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 381-382 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson