Yes Rush, it’s true: RNC chief rejects GOP traditions (follow-up Union Leader editorial)

Manchester Union Leader ^ | 9-3-03 | Editorial oard, Manchester Union Leader

[GraniteStateConservative]

RUSH LIMBAUGH read from one of our editorials yesterday, and a lot of people have asked if what he said was true. It is.

The editorial was titled GOP, MIA and it was printed in last weekend’s New Hampshire Sunday News. Because of all the interest, we have reposted it on the Web site.

We wanted to take this opportunity to assure Rush and everyone else that the editorial was and is 100 percent true. Over the course of an hour-long meeting with Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, we took great care to give him every opportunity to explain himself fully so that nothing could be misunderstood. The result was a surprisingly frank admission that the Republican Party defines “fiscal responsibility” as increasing the federal budget at “a slower rate of growth” than the Democrats (his words).

We asked him three times to explain why President Bush and the Republican Congress have increased discretionary non-defense spending at such an alarming rate, and why the party has embraced the expansion of the federal government’s roles in education, agriculture and Great Society-era entitlement programs.

“Those questions have been decided,” was his response. The public wants an expanded federal role in those areas, and the Republican Party at the highest levels has decided to give the public what it wants.

We were fully aware that publishing those comments — all made on the record — would mean we would never be invited to any $1,000-a-plate Republican dinners in Washington. But the rank-and-file Republicans, the men and women who vote GOP because they believe in federalism and limited government, deserved to know what we knew. Now they do. And they can use the information as they see fit.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Can you change "oard" to "Board" in the source section? Thanks.

[KantianBurke]

[Dane]

LOL! Now they have quotes such as “fiscal responsibility” and "“a slower rate of growth” , but their interpretation of the quotes.

The Union-Leader is taking a tactic from the New York Times, with their "printing all the news fit to tint".

[Archangelsk]

But the rank-and-file Republicans, the men and women who vote GOP because they believe in federalism and limited government, deserved to know what we knew. Now they do. And they can use the information as they see fit.

And destroy party unity? Perish the thought.

[Dane]

Also I wonder why the Union-Leader is afraid to publish the whole interview.

Just the straight transcript of the interview.

[xzins]

This is the same logic as in California. Don't vote for Schwarzeneggar because of what he represents --- overlook that! -- vote for him because he has an "R" beside his name.

I'm not an "R" because I like r's.

I'm an "R" because of what their principles are supposed to be.

It is time for an OFFICIAL religious conservative caucus within the Republican Party. They should advance their own candidates and endorse candidates. Based on the positions of various candidates in any given race, they might find themselves endorsing a Constitution Party or a Libertarian Party candidate.

In California they'd almost certainly be endorsing McClintock OVER Arnie.

[Rodney King]

I haven't been following this... is there any reason to assume that this isn't true?

[Dane]

Huh, wouldn't you also like to see the full transcript of Gillepie's interview instead of the Union-Leader's interpertation.

Scared that you may find out that you are screaming "the sky is falling" over nothing?

[headsonpikes]

"These questions have been decided." (years ago)

And the socialists won the day!(and the month,year,and decade)

You know it, D. Those slick lawyers have done us in.

[Wrigley]

Its well past the time for that. And can't you just hear the cries of many of you can't mix religion with politics.

[Wrigley]

No, more scared to find out that what he said IS what he said.

[Dane]

The first Union-Leader editorial had no quotes. This second one has 2 or 3 "quotes" of phrases not sentences, plus their interpretation of the quotes.

JMO, I would like to see the entire transcript of the interview. The Union-Leader no doubt has it, why won't they let their readers decide for themselves?

[WhiteGuy]

At least the GOP is willing to admit it now.

The actions of the majority party have defined the leftward movement since 2000.

The coup is now complete.

[Dane]

Oh BTW, these Union-Leader editorials also have the smell of a classic 60 Minutes hit piece.

I would like to see the entire interview, thank you.

[xzins]

Sure. Please post it or link to it. If you post it, more will likely see it.

Nonetheless, it is time for a religious conservative caucus within the Repub Party.

[Rodney King]

Fair enough. I would think that on an issue as critical as this that they would be more careful to document what they wrote.

[Dane]

Sure. Please post it or link to it. If you post it, more will likely see it

I cna't. The Union-Leader hasn't released it. Seems they would rather go the route of the inflammatory editorial.

[ImpBill]

Gillispie is already backtracking. This issue will become one of those "he said, she said" things by the looks of it. But the discerning conservatives only need to look at the record of the GOP since 1998 to see the direction of the party. And as the editorial board of the Union Leader so aptly put, "...they can use the information as they see fit."

[WhiteGuy]

Nonetheless, it is time for a religious conservative caucus within the Repub Party.


I respect your point of view...................

I'm afraid this caucus would be as ineffective as a religious conservative caucus within the Democrat Party.

[Dane]

Gillispie is already backtracking.

How is he "backtracking". It seems that the Union-Leader is the one who got caught practicing New York Times journalism, with their first editorial with no quotes, this second editorial with phrases in quotes.

How come the Union-Leader is afraid to publish the whole interview?

[Apple Pan Dowdy]

Here's the original editorial that was refered to:

GOP, MIA: Taking the road most traveled
This editorial originally appeared Sunday, Aug. 31.
HAD THERE been any doubts about the direction the Republican Party is headed, they vanished last week when Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie visited New Hampshire.

During a cheerful and pleasant meeting (that’s the kind of guy Gillespie is) at The Union Leader offices, the party’s new chairman, energetic and full of vigor, said in no uncertain terms that the days of Reaganesque Republican railings against the expansion of federal government are over.

No longer does the Republican Party stand for shrinking the federal government, for scaling back its encroachment into the lives of Americans, or for carrying the banner of federalism into the political battles of the day.

No, today the Republican Party stands for giving the American people whatever the latest polls say they want. The people want the federal government to tell states how to run local schools? Then that’s what the Republican Party wants, too. The people want expanded entitlement programs and a federal government that attends to their every desire, no matter how frivolous? Then that’s what the Republican Party wants, too.

The party’s unofficial but clear message to conservatives is: Where else are you going to go? To the Democrats? To the Libertarians? They don’t think so.

This is scarey stuff! Nothing in here is a direct quote... but rather seems to be the editorilists interpretation of what was said. I do think a response from the GOP is in order before we panic.... or at least an unedited transcript from the interview so we can see for ourselves what was really said.

[steve50]

Kristol has said the same thing in print. The republican party we grew up in no longer exists. Hasn't for a long time.

[Renfield]

IT IS TIME TO TAKE BACK THE PARTY. THIS MEANS WAR.

[Dane]

Kristol has said the same thing in print. The republican party we grew up in no longer exists. Hasn't for a long time

Now this is going from the sublime to the absurd, when the malcontents start using Kristol, who is a McCain backer.

[Jerry_M]

I don't remember anyone ever asking this Republican if a "slower rate of growth of the Federal government" is what I want.

"Slower rate of growth"?

How about a wholescale roll-back, way back, that is what I want.

[xzins]

"move 'em back...move 'em back....WAYYYYY BAAACK!"

Good Christian Cheer at the start of football season.

[steve50]

The new republicans like powerful central goverment, as long as it uses the power to beat the other side over the head.

I gave up on em after CFR. Only way to fix the party is to leave it.

[xzins]

Thinkers know that ALL politics is religious.

Relig. conservatives have supported the Repubs for years and have NOTHING to show for it.

Abortion: no progress. In fact, regression.

Judges: not only is there no progress, there is no willingness to fight for constructionist judges, AND there is a "no religious need apply" line on the application forms.

Culture: continued state hostility to things religious.

Education: no advancement at fed level (any level?) for tax relief to parents sending their kids to private religious education.

Morality: continued state approved enforcement and funding of a homosexual culture on the rest of the nation.

I could go on.

The "Log Cabins" have their caucus. It's time for the religious conservatives to group together.

"The Valley Forge Republicans"

[Revelation 911]

amen

[Dane]

How about a wholescale roll-back, way back, that is what I want

Oh you mean like Ronald Reagan did(he didn't, government grew) also do you want a tax hike like Reagan signed in 82?

I know, I know you are going to say that the Pubbies didn't have the House when Reagan was President. If you knew your history, it was the boll weevil democrats in the House who gave Reagan the tax cuts. In the 82 midterms the Pubbies lost 26 seats in the House, thus negating the boll weevil democrats.

In 2003, we have a an evenly divided Senate and a House with a small Pubbie majority.

JMO, but it would do you good to look back in history, rather than knee jerkingly rant.

[xzins]

It is not past time because of the size of the religious base that has thrown their support toward the republicans over the last few decades.

In many ways, they ARE the Republican Party.

[raybbr]

From the Limbaugh letter online:

After I finished broadcasting today, Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie called the EIB Network. He wanted to talk to me about this Manchester Union Leader report alleging that he'd rejected smaller government in a meeting with the paper's editorial board. During the show I'd said that this story had "taken the wind out of my sails," and needless to say this caused rumblings of displeasure out there. I was unable to take Ed's call, but I asked that his message be relayed to me because I wanted to share it with you here on the site tonight.
The message I received from the person who spoke to Gillespie's assistant Jim Dyke stated that Ed met with the Editorial Board, and because Ed would not commit to "shutting down the Department of Education" or "absolutely rejecting a drug benefit," the Editorial page editors took it as an abandonment of Reaganesque smaller government. Gillespie also took my point that there weren’t any quotes and appreciates that I left it open to interpretation. Jim said Ed is still committed to smaller government as he was a principal mover/shaker on Contract with America, etc.
I gave Gillespie the benefit of the doubt throughout Tuesday's show - and I want all of you to do the same. Please do not call the RNC and harass them over this. (I have always urged people not to do that in circumstances like this.) I will be talking to Ed in the next few days and will report on that conversation here on the website so as to keep you all up to speed. I dedicated a lot of Tuesday's program to this story, because it reported Gillespie saying "in no uncertain terms that the days of Reaganesque Republican railings against the expansion of federal government are over. No longer does the Republican Party stand for shrinking the federal government, for scaling back its encroachment into the lives of Americans, or for carrying the banner of federalism into the political battles of the day."

I don't believe Gillespie said what the Union Leader claims. However, where is the proof that this administration or any republican run government is reducing the size and scope of government?

[Dane]

Before you two "true blue social conservatives" go spastic over your rants, you may want to check this thread.

Republican majority may hasten ban on 'partial-birth' abortions

[I still care]

I would like to see original quotes. I'm not saying it isn't true (and if it is, Gillespie should be thrown out), but we need to see quotes. The Union Leader has it's own agenda.

[xzins]

Let's see, we've had the majority for over a year, and they're talking about "hastening" the ban on partial-birth abortions?

Seriously, Dane. If Ed Gillespie is any kind of operator at all, he recorded his own session with the Union Leader(?). Do you think he'll post it to his website?

Religious Conservative Caucus within the Repub. Party.....makes sense.

Have you seen the picture of Washington Praying at Valley Forge?

[wgeorge2001]

“Those questions have been decided,” was his response. The public wants an expanded federal role in those areas, and the Republican Party at the highest levels has decided to give the public what it wants. "


The joke of the new world order conservative (spend a lot like a democrat,i.e.,do little as possible,talk like you will really do the things you promise) steals America's future and freedoms (and that for the sake of re-election), has now spread to the Pubbie's.
I recognized that something was wrong with the once conservative party when all the people who ran it were nothing but liberals .
Does anyone know of a new conservative party that will stand on the conservative platform (that the pubbie's have abandoned in their foolishness) and defend and represent all the good things that America needs?
Or is the one world socialist order going to cause all nations to war against one another and God's anointed one, Jesus Christ our Lord.

[Dane]

Let's see, we've had the majority for over a year, and they're talking about "hastening" the ban on partial-birth abortions?

Yep the demos are filabustering it.

You see now we have a President who will actually sign a PBA ban.

When Clinton was President the demos knew he would veto it, but demos in conservative states could vote for it and say they were for a PBA ban. The demo leadership just had to make sure the veto couldn't be overridden, when Clinton was in office.

You see it is called politics and there is stategery at every turn and spastic rants may make you feel good, they do nothing to help your cause.

BTW, why is the Union-Leader not releasing the unedited transcript of the interview. You would think if they wanted to be fair and balanced they would, instaed of throwing out phrases of quotes and giving interpretations to them.

[wgeorge2001]

"The new republicans like powerful central goverment, as long as it uses the power to beat the other side over the head.
I gave up on em after CFR. Only way to fix the party is to leave it."


Absolutely correct. The pubs are taking the place of the socialist democrats as they move toward communism; we need a new conservative party in America that will represent the original conservative values and the party platform vacated by the pubs.

[Uncle Jaque]

In some recent correspondance with fellow Republicans, a few of them expressed sentiments that if this editorial actually is a genuine representation of the Republican Party's official attitude (and the jury is still out on that count, BTW), then they will leave the Party.

FWIW, here is an exerpt of my response to them.
Please let me know if you think I'm being out of line or over the top with these sentiments, as this sort of thing tends to get me a little worked up, if you know what I mean.

And I'm not always as diplomatic as I probably should be when I'm wroth.

---

"Political Siberia" (Edited):

"It seems that one of Gillespie's flunkies called Rush right after his show today to do some frantic backpeddaling - it seems that this article raised the hackles of a lot more conservatives out in flyover country than the RNC might remember even exists in America, and their little country-club golf shorts are just a-smokin'!

This has the potential for getting interesting, eh?

As you might tell from my FR posting, I really don't see any hope in a 3rd Party any time soon.

My theory is that the Socialists are doing with the Republican party exactly what they did to the Democrat Party about 25 years ago; they gradually infiltrate the organization, pile on, and take over control.

Then they use that organization to advance their global socialist agenda and sap the culture's resources untill they have ruined both the organization and the economy, then destroy it and move on to the next crucial institution in their targeted society. Sort of like how a virus operates on a cellular level.

So the only hope for American Culture, heritage, and Liberty in my humble opinion is to take our Party BACK from the usurpers and parasites.

I have no intention of quitting the Republican Party, darn it; it used to be OUR Party, and those who seek to hijack it and steer it down the commodal vortex of moral and ideological oblivion are going to have to put up with every smouldering cinder of Yankee Baptist Hellfire and brimstone I can summon to drop down the back of their shorts while they're doing it, or they will have to throw me bodilly out or carry my cold inanimate corpse out in a rubber bag!

We have nothing less than Liberty to lose, and I for one have no intention of surrendering that precious blood-won legacy to any quislings of tyranny with anything akin to quiet, peaceful resignation!
...

Do you think that the (local Republican) Committee has been marginalized by the "proper" Republicans in this (Community) because we are "too conservative"?

I can't help but wonder.

Being the least bit pro-Life can get us stationed in political Siberia quicker than anything else I know.

Cooperation with the Country-Club "Moderates" seems to be pretty unlikely, (Lord knows we've tried) so about all we can do it seems is annoy them as best we can and watch our Candidates lose.
That s(tinks)s, of course - I really wish someone could come up with a better way of doing things, don't you?

...The Democrats in this (Southern Maine Community) probably find us somewhat amusing, if they even notice our existance much at all."

Uncle Jaque
Republican Activist / Agitator
People's Republik of Maine

[xzins]

Filibuster? You must mean "threat" of filibuster.

Perhaps the Pubbies don't bring it up because they're afraid of the RinoPublicans.

[Dane]

Being the least bit pro-Life can get us stationed in political Siberia quicker than anything else I know

Did you check out reply #34.

[alnick]

Just as I suspected, the quote is quite different than what was claimed.

[wgeorge2001]

"Thinkers know that ALL politics is religious.

Relig. conservatives have supported the Repubs for years and have NOTHING to show for it.

Abortion: no progress. In fact, regression.

Judges: not only is there no progress, there is no willingness to fight for constructionist judges, AND there is a "no religious need apply" line on the application forms.

Culture: continued state hostility to things religious.

Education: no advancement at fed level (any level?) for tax relief to parents sending their kids to private religious education.

Morality: continued state approved enforcement and funding of a homosexual culture on the rest of the nation.

I could go on.

The "Log Cabins" have their caucus. It's time for the religious conservatives to group together.

"The Valley Forge Republicans."



Bravo, well said, well thought out, well obeserved; absoulutely true.


John 1

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. The same was in the beginning with God.
3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

[Pikamax]

sounds like a nice little hit piece that some are all too willing to believe. It would be nice to see a transcript instead of their interpretation of what was said.

[justshe]

Thanks for posting the statement from Rush's website.

You know.....if RUSH had WAITED....instead of 'dedicating a lot of Tuesday's program to this story'........we wouldn't be having this discussion.

IMO......Rush ran with an unsubstaniated ASSERTION made in a newspaper editorial....and created heartburn BEFORE it was even confirmed.

Shoddy work on Mr. Limbaugh's part, imo.

[billbears]

We asked him three times to explain why President Bush and the Republican Congress have increased discretionary non-defense spending at such an alarming rate, and why the party has embraced the expansion of the federal government’s roles in education, agriculture and Great Society-era entitlement programs.

“Those questions have been decided,” was his response. The public wants an expanded federal role in those areas, and the Republican Party at the highest levels has decided to give the public what it wants.

Well at least they're getting back to their roots as the 'bigger government' party

[alnick]

IMO......Rush ran with an unsubstaniated ASSERTION made in a newspaper editorial....

That's why I don't listen to Rush any longer. He does that type of thing far too often. Gotta fill up those hours, I suppose.

[MinuteGal]

I, too, want to see the actual transcript. However, if Ed was misquoted or his remarks taken out of context, why didn't he immediately issue a personal and definitive refuttal instead of having flunkies and mouthpieces floundering around issuing lame denials?

Too many Republican leaders have a penchant for screwing up one-car parades. But we all know that.

Leni

[MissAmericanPie]

I think I had rather believe my lying eyes. It doesn't matter if the article is true or not when their actions speak louder than these few words ever will.