Hi!
I haven't yet seen a clarification from you regarding whether or not
you're willing to accept what I have as an answer to this question. As
per my prior clarifications, it was virtually impossible in the time
frame given for me to find the 60 quotes that you wanted. I've been
able to find *most* of what you're looking for, but not all of it.
I've put in about 25 hours of research here, and have 16 pages of data
for you. I suspect that what I have will still be of interest to you,
but if I don't post something as a response to this question in the
next few hours, the question will expire, and all of that work will be
for naught. Therefore, I'm going to make the following offer:
Since I've been unable to match all the requirements in your original
question, I don't feel confident posting all my research as an answer.
Without clarification from you that what I've been able to accomplish
is acceptable, my work could be rejected on a technicality. Because of
this, I'm going to post here about 3 out of the 16 pages of work so
that you can get a good idea about what I have, and decide whether or
not you want me to post the remaining 13 pages as a clarification.
What I have for you is about 34 different quotes from about 30
separate web pages and from 12 prominent Republicans. The topics
covered are balanced budgets, the armed forces, the judiciary,
abortion, taxes, gay rights, and nation building. Most of these quotes
are in pairs, though in some cases, I've included more quotes to
better make the point and flesh out the argument.
So, the choice is this:
1) If you like what you see in the 3 pages I'm posting here, clarify
that you'll accept what I have as an answer, and I'll post the the
remaining 13 pages as soon as possible.
2) If what I have does not suit your needs, post a clarification that
you no longer desire this information. If you do this, I will ask
Google to remove my answer and you won't have to pay for it.
Note: I may be out of town this weekend, so if you respond over the
weekend, it may take me until Monday to post the remainder of the
answer.
Here are the 3 sample pages. I hope that this is of use to you:
================================
Bill Frist, Senator (TN), Senate Majority Leader
TOPIC: Balanced budget & deficit
[ http://frist.senate.gov/press-item.cfm?id=185331 ]
"Statement On Balanced Budget Amendment Vote
Tuesday, March 4, 1997
Press Release Of Senator Bill Frist, M.D.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Balanced Budget Amendment’s narrow defeat in
the Senate today is truly a loss for the American people. It would
have ensured fiscal responsibility and guaranteed a balanced budget
well after 2002. Hardworking Americans would have reaped the benefits
in lower interest rates and more money in their pockets -- about $125
more per family per month.
We had a choice today -- to tie the hands of Washington spenders or to
tie the hands of American families. The President and many Senate
Democrats chose to tie the hands of American families. I supported the
Balanced Budget Amendment and will continue to fight for it in the
future."
[ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june03/frist_5-27.html ]
(interview transcript, May 27, 2003)
"JIM LEHRER: How does raising the deficit make the deficit go away?
SEN. BILL FRIST: Well, not raising the deficit - having a jobs and
growth package that actually does that; it makes the overall pie of
the economy bigger; it grows the GDP, the Gross Domestic Product; and
it does that by doing two things: by giving everybody who's listening
to me right now in the next sixty days, next sixty to eighty days,
more money to spend, more money in their pocket, more money to invest
in their families, to pay for schools, to pay for books, to pay for
clothes, to buy food, and at the same time through this jobs and
growth package, which, yes, does cost some money now; there's no
question about it, does cost some money now, but creates jobs by
investing in small businesses, by giving the appropriation what's
called bonus depreciation, and appropriate deductions so that
businesses can go out and hire more people and produce more products.
By giving individuals more money to spend and also creating more jobs
in the economy, we will be able to grow that economy, which over time
will make that deficit disappear."
================================
Tom DeLay, House Representative (Texas), House Majority Leader
TOPIC: Balanced budget & deficit
[ http://slate.msn.com/id/2082388/ ]
"'By the year 2002, we can have a federal government with a balanced
budget or we can continue down the present path towards total fiscal
catastrophe.'—Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, 1995"
[ http://www.house.gov/genetaylor/floor03-13-03.htm ]
"The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) had some interesting statistics.
This is from a speech that he gave on the House floor in 1995:
'In 1980, each child born that year immediately inherited a debt of
$4,000. That is government debt. By 1985, because no balanced budget
had been adopted, the children that year had inherited a $7,600 debt.
By 1990, our children were burdened with almost $12,800 in debt.'
This is again from Majority Leader DELAY's floor speech from 1995:
'Each year every child born in America this year will begin life
with a debt of more than $16,700. Is it any wonder that young families
have trouble saving money for a down payment on a house? Is it any
wonder that the Federal Government's consumption of more than
one-quarter of all our economic activity is driven in interest rates
and stifling economic growth?'"
[ http://www.floydreport.com/view_article.php?lid=543 ]
(article written June 10, 2003)
"'I don't think the growing deficit is going to be damaging to the
economy, because in relation to the gross domestic product it's
relatively small,' said House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom
DeLay, a Texas Republican."
================================
Susan Collins, Senator (Maine)
TOPIC: Gay & Lesbian rights
[ http://home.earthlink.net/~dkennedy56/phoenix_990917maine.html ]
(opinion piece from 1999)
"But though Snowe voted for the federal Employment Non-Discrimination
Act (ENDA), a basic protection for lesbian and gay workers, Collins
leans toward opposing it, saying, 'I think that the gay-rights issue
is better addressed at the state level. I think there would be a lot
of resentment at having Washington impose this law.'"
[ http://www.hrc.org/publications/eu/2002/v02n09.asp#2 ]
(article from April 30, 2002)
"'I have reached the decision to support ENDA because, in the final
analysis, I simply do not believe it is fair to allow discrimination
in the workplace against men and women solely because of their sexual
orientation,' Collins said in her statement. The senator also offered
two amendments that were accepted by voice vote that bring ENDA more
in line with provisions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
================================
Please let me know if you'd like to see the rest,
/ephraim |
