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

Skip to comments.

New GOP Finance Chairman Chosen Over Conservatives' Protests
Agape Press ^ | 1/21/02 | Fred Jackson

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.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-131 next last
To: Dan from Michigan
To an extendt the ends do justify the means. If we don't
fight to win, do you think that partial birth abortion is going
to go away?

I suppose Jim Jeffords was counted in that win column.
Sorry but you gain nothing by electing RINO's.

101 posted on 01/21/2002 4:59:41 PM PST by itsahoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: weikel
About those liberals being stupider.....isn't it funny how they always come out on top? Even with St. George's Education Bill, they got the GOP to go in the tank even further!

The liberals did what they do best....incrementally....something the GOP certainly hasn't learned how to do YET!

Without using the actual figures (I don't want to go look them up)....the FY2002 Education budget.....the Dems demand $15 million over last year, whereas the GOP only asks for $1 million more....the Dems(in that they have already DEMANDED more than they wanted), very grudingly counter with something like $12 million. The GOP, seeing they have the Dems on the run, counter with $4 million.

The Dems (still grinning like a Cheshire cat) grudingly say, seeing as how you're showing some interest in bi-partisanship, we will agree to $10 million. The GOP (sensing a big victory) says that they also see some real movement in partisanship, so they counter with $6 million.

You can see the next offer by the Liberals is $9 million and the GOP is $7 million.....now that they agree they are nearly 'eye to eye' and are really displaying the bipartisanship necessary to keep the train running, they will have a conference and will split the difference....settling on $8 million.

The Democrats are laughing all the way to the bank because they got $7 million more than the GOP had sworn was a 'generous' increase......the GOP has nothing to brag about--they've been duped again--they're going to try to convince the sheeple that they really 'saved' $7 million! Get a grip on reality....how could they save $7 million when they had to spend $8 million more than last year in order to even use that ridiculous argument?

See....the liberals incrementally moved LEFTWARD while the GOP was in charge!!!

102 posted on 01/21/2002 5:10:18 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Harrison Bergeron
Harrison,

Sorry, RINOs like DonnieD were not the reason Bret lost. I'm getting a little tired of hearing NJ Conservatives flog this dead horse.

We just watched the New Jersey and national GOP sandbag conservative republical gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler, handing the election to small time perennial democrat loser Jim McGreevy.

Wrong. The RSC and the RNC put forth the most comprehensive GOTV effort ever in NJ GOP history. I recieved more direct mail from the RNC than from Bret's campaign. Absentee ballots were sent to registered R's, there were paid phone banks (as well as volunteer phone banks at the grassroots level), and a massive ground effort that consisted of over 2000 paid walkers and over 1000 paid drivers. The message included GOP candidates for county offices, the legislature, and Bret.

Endorsements and finances were withheld until the last possible minute, by which time Schundler's momentum was crushed.

Wrong again. I seem to recall attending a fundraiser back in July with Dick Cheney. And I distinctly recall Bret's campaign telling us that fundraiser brought the campaign within a hair's width of the $$ needed for the entire campaign.

I also remember a little event down here in August that included Rudy and Bret, complete with a press conference at a local police station. Articles regarding this obvious non-endorsement by Rudy appeared in the NY Times, The Star Ledger, and The Asbury Park Press.

Rather than risk letting a real conservative take a pivotal election, today's republican party will let the democrat win. And here we have Eisenberg, one of the GOP sabateurs of the Schundler campaign, rewarded with a key slot in the RNC.

No. If Eisenberg, Witless, DonnieD and that nitwit Hazel Gluck had that power, Bob Franks would have been the nominee. You give these folks too much credit.

BTW, where was Steve Forbes? Certainly our Honorary Campaign Chair was capable of raising a mil or two, eh?

103 posted on 01/21/2002 5:34:33 PM PST by Exit 109
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
And the Republican party stands for what?

A viable opportunity to govern despite its (the Party's) flaws?

As opposed to the feckless Libertarian Party which comprises political ideologues and purists of a kind not seen since Stalin and his henchmen stoked up the gulags to make the world safe for communism.

I'm not ready to abandon the Republican Party.

104 posted on 01/21/2002 6:19:53 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Exit 109
"I seem to recall attending a fundraiser back in July with Dick Cheney."

Did they sing Kum Ba Ya? You described a republican love-in. From where I sat, it looked like the death scene from Julius Ceasar.

105 posted on 01/21/2002 7:17:46 PM PST by Harrison Bergeron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth
Yep, them RATs are so diverse that they refused to have a pro-life speaker at their convention.

You're speaking of Gov. Robert Casey, whom the Democrats refused speaking privileges at their 1996 convention.

Well, don't look now, but the Republicans refused their pro-lifers at the 2000 convention in Philly.

Tell me again what the difference is between the two parties?

106 posted on 01/21/2002 7:40:11 PM PST by Aristophanes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Harrison Bergeron
Ah, I get it now. After Bret won the Primary, it was a bad thing for the VP to attend a fundraiser honoring the nominee. /sarcasm

Actually, if that's the best you could do out of that post, then there's a bit more truth there than you'd like to admit.

As someone who gave up the better part of last year trying to help get Bret elected, I know all too well that it was far from a love fest. Nor did I describe one. All I did was counter your accusations with facts.

I'm not going to take the lazy way out and blame NJ's RINOs for Bret's loss in November. Several crucial errors were made by Bret's staff after June 26th - and those did far more to ensure his loss than anything a few Dems in GOP clothing could dream of doing.

107 posted on 01/21/2002 8:05:55 PM PST by Exit 109
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
As opposed to the feckless Libertarian Party which comprises political ideologues and purists of a kind not seen since Stalin and his henchmen stoked up the gulags to make the world safe for communism.

Actually, I think the Libertarians want to keep the world safe from Klingon and Romulan attacks ;).

Seriously, comparing Libertarians to Communists is a little harsh, don't you think? Frankly, they are more in tune with what this country should be about than are the RINOs that we supposedly have to put up with.

108 posted on 01/21/2002 8:06:24 PM PST by Major Matt Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Exit 109
I'm not going to take the lazy way out and blame NJ's RINOs for Bret's loss in November.

Why not? I've seen people like Ann Coulter and other prominent conservative Republicans state on national TV what a joke the NJ GOP is. Seems like Harrison has pretty good company.

109 posted on 01/21/2002 8:09:38 PM PST by Major Matt Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Harrison Bergeron
Hint: It started when Bret's campaign cut off communication with the grassroots movement for the months of July and August.
110 posted on 01/21/2002 8:10:00 PM PST by Exit 109
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Major Matt Mason
See my 110.

Bret started the general campaign by hanging the entire volunteer network out to dry for two months. Bad idea when your running against someone who has been campaigning for office for 4 years.

111 posted on 01/21/2002 8:13:04 PM PST by Exit 109
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Exit 109
My bad. your = you're
112 posted on 01/21/2002 8:14:00 PM PST by Exit 109
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Rowdee
The GOP I agree buys into the bipartianship stuff too much( I wish Newt were still around).
113 posted on 01/21/2002 10:28:12 PM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
And the Republican party stands for what?

A viable opportunity to govern despite its (the Party's) flaws?

Ah, Power, ruling Power. You are not happy trying to rule individual and run their lives, you want to run the country and dictate how others run their lives.

114 posted on 01/22/2002 4:14:59 AM PST by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Jesse
Nicely said. Of course, I have come to see the GOP lemmings in action here; the Dems aren't the only ones with their mind-numbed, lock-step automatons. So do not expect a major amount of concern from most of the people here.
115 posted on 01/22/2002 5:41:31 AM PST by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife, sonofliberty2, DrewsDad, Eagle Eye, goldstategop
It's official now. A man who advocates both abortion and homosexual rights is now the chief fundraiser of the Republican Party...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...Gary Bauer...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.

Yet another disgusting betrayal of the pro-life cause by the liberal Establishment Bush Republicans. By appointing a pro-abortion, pro-gay, Reagan opponent who is the leader of an organization dedicating to purging social conservatives from the Republican Party to be its chief financier, Bush and his hand-picked pro-abortion RNC chairman Racicot, will merely ensure that funds for pro-life conservative candidates and office holders dry up resulting in their defeat and removal from office. This is an amazingly bad development in sync with pro-abortion and pro-gay Rep. Tom Davis's ascension to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee Chairmanship 1998. Now, the pro-abortionist extremists in the GOP have full control over the way RNC and House of Representatives Republican campaign funds are spent and will be able to make considerable gains in furthering their objectives of purging GOP conservatives from office in the hopes that pro-abortionist liberal Republicans will take their place later. I hate to say I told you so, but I predicted that Bush would savage the pro-life cause if elected President and it now appears that I was not mistaken.
116 posted on 01/22/2002 6:41:40 AM PST by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OKCSubmariner
LIBERAL RINO ALERT BUMP!
117 posted on 01/22/2002 6:43:58 AM PST by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: sonofliberty2
"With this, monies will now be developed and tapped for anti-life programs in the GOP."

Yer rather naive if you believe these monies aren't already existing and often tapped by the GOP.

"Those who are pro-life will start losing fundraising capabilities."

Nonsense...the Pro-Life capabilities of the GOP are Alive and Well and the "New GOP Finance Chairman" can do nothing significant to negatively impact those capabilities, nor would he be inclined to.

Keep trollin', dude, maybe someone else is falling for your divisive Leftist mooolarkey.

MUD

118 posted on 01/22/2002 6:47:17 AM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

Comment #119 Removed by Moderator

Comment #120 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-131 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