Posted on 01/21/2002 12:39:33 PM PST by truthandlife
It's official now. A man who advocates both abortion and homosexual rights is now the chief fundraiser of the Republican Party.
All last week, conservatives within the Republican Party fought hard against the White House nomination of Lewis Eisenberg to be the Party's national finance chairman. They argued his liberal views on key social issues go against the traditional grain of the GOP. But the protests fell on deaf ears.
Associated Press reports Eisenberg's appointment was confirmed Friday at the Party's annual winter meeting in Austin -- without dissent. Eisenberg is a founder of the liberal, pro-choice Republican Leadership Council, a group whose aim, according to pro-life Republicans, to purge them from the Party by raising money for liberal Republican candidates.
Placing Eisenberg's name into nomination was Mississippi Republican Michael Retzer, who says the Party needs liberals like Eisenberg to raise money. And he says the concern of conservatives over Eisenberg's liberal leanings are misplaced because the proper role for Party liberals is to raise money to support the goals of conservatives. He calls that part of the GOP's "big tent" philosophy.
But Gary Bauer, a former GOP Presidential candidate and now chairman of the group Campaign for Working Families, does not see it that way. He calls Eisenberg's appointment "insulting," and notes the liberal Republican has donated money to several liberal Democrats, and chose to give money to Walter Mondale instead of Ronald Reagan during the 1984 Presidential campaign.
Bauer predicts that with Eisenberg being responsible for recruiting big donors to the Party, it is safe to say that his friends -- liberal, Northeastern socialites -- will not share conservative Republican values.
And the Republican party stands for what?
Anyway policy is set by the President and Eisenberg is good at fund raising.
Maybe you should read this thread.
Drudge: Bush proclaims unborn children should be 'welcomed in life and protected in law'.
Wow, you sound like the Democrats. Even though Bill Clinton was a rapist and had oral sex in the oval office and lied about it, he has been doing such a great job. We need four more years. Anyway your private life has nothing to do with the way you do your job (Sarcasm off).
Sooo... the question follows... what's the role of conservatives in the GOP these days?
And if anybody has a problem with this discussion being a repeat of last week's discussion, keep in mind that the decesion was still pending then. It's a whole new topic. What to do now?
Oh sweet, delicious irony...
If he can do a good job, then fine by me. Would I vote for him for political office - no.
The president will be really relieved to hear you say that. I'm sure he was very worried.
As for me, I never intended to manage anything. I simply came hear to say that his decision sucks.
I think the role that the Republicans want conservatives to play is just to get in line because they believe conservatives have no where else to go. That is wrong! They will stay home in '02 and '04 the Republican establishment will again blame conservatives for losing.
1. Democrats ALWAYS get the same turnout
2. The Republican vote VARIES GREATLY based on the turnout of conservative base voters
Democrats have gotten virtually identical turnouts in each of the last five presidential elections. The following chart dramatically illustrates this startling fact:
| 1980 | 1984 | 1988 | 1992 | 1996 | |
| Voting age population in millions | 157.6 | 172.8 | 180.7 | 185.6 | 194.8 |
| Democrat votes in millions | 35.5 | 37.5 | 41.8 | 44.8 | 45.6 |
| Percent of Democrat votes | 23% | 22% | 23% | 24% | 23% |
It is the Republican message -- and its effect on the conservative base -- that determines Republican success in presidential elections.
The fundamental reason for the victories of Ronald Reagan (1980 and 1984) and George H.W. Bush (1988) is that they ran on a solid conservative agenda that was easily understood, and believed, by conservative base voters.
Both President Bush (1992) and Bob Dole (1996) lost because their campaigns lacked conservative credibility, resulting in fewer Republican votes as the conservative base abandoned them by either staying home or registering a protest vote for Ross Perot.
Rove said that one reason the 2000 election was so tight was that as many as 4 million Christian conservatives did not go to the polls, reported "The Chicago Tribune." Although the Bush campaign had expected 19 million evangelical voters to vote for their man, election returns revealed only 15 million turned out to cast ballots.
Republicans must present an easily-understood, credible conservative agenda. When we do, we win; when we do not, we lose. I am sorry but Christian conservatives still have strong influence in politics whether you like it or not.
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.