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

Skip to comments.

Yes Rush, itís true: RNC chief rejects GOP traditions (follow-up Union Leader editorial)
Manchester Union Leader ^ | 9-3-03 | Editorial oard, Manchester Union Leader

Posted on 09/03/2003 4:08:24 AM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Politics/Elections; US: New Hampshire
KEYWORDS: biggovernment; edgillespie; gop
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-227 next last
To: Landru; Mudboy Slim
Picked up my trusty Webster's Seventh New Collegiate (bought the first day of my freshman year at college, and still serving as my right-hand-man in matters of 'wordity' these many eons later :) just now to try to see, definition-wise, where we Republicans have gone wrong.

Take a gander and decide for yourself:

politician – n – 1: one versed in the art or science of government; 2a: one engaged in party politics as a profession b: one primarily interested in political offices from selfish or other narrow, usually short-term, interests.

The democrats deleted 1 from their lexicon decades ago (actually, they never really embraced it completely). 2a is a step down from 1 (and certainly not what was intended as the definition of a leader by our founders, who tried very hard to discourage the concept of the career politician, because they were visionary men who knew that 2a would inevitably lead to 2b, given the nature of the beast). And the beast hasn’t disappointed them. Trouble is, not only the irascible democrats, but the last-bastion republicans, have now embraced 2b as the modern definition of an American politician.

And the selfish or other narrow usually short-term interest part is largely what is destroying this republic. Those interests involve the agendas of socialists/elitists, feminists, radical environmentalists, atheists, proponents of one-world government, entitlement mentalities, and innumerable other individual-liberty-destroying philosophies. And the desire to be elected (or re-elected), and the requisite pandering to those special interests which is now necessary to accomplish that feat, has placed our republic’s sovereignty, security, and national interests -- and its citizens’ individual liberties -- way (way, way) down on the list of priorities of nearly all modern American politicians (of which almost all are exclusively of the 2b type).

Is merely another redefinition, and, a clear signal to the right wing constituency to either change to fit them; or, be without political representation .... Landru

I can’t speak for you, Dan, but my political representation is locked within the fragile mind of a dear man suffering from the ravages of Alzheimers out in the People’s Republic of California. And once that rare and wonderful man is no longer living, even the glimmer of a leader who represents rational, common sense, conservative, moral, honest, liberty-and-sovereignty-defending, character-based governance -- stubbornly dedicated to the foundational underpinnings of this republic -- will have been extinguished (maybe forever).

~ joanie

151 posted on 09/03/2003 10:47:33 AM PDT by joanie-f (All that we know and love depends on sunlight, soil, and the fact that it rains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

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

What an absurd and thoroughly illogical process of thought! If I'm not mistaken, McCain is a republican that ALMOST won the primaries if it wasn't for Bush 43 pandering to the conservatives. Think about it. Bush pandered to the conservatives AND WON! Then Bush left them after the election, just like Daddy 41.

The conservative backlash clashing with socialist infiltration occurs whether they have an R or a D after their name.
152 posted on 09/03/2003 10:49:11 AM PDT by sully777 (What was the underlying message in the movie NETWORK?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tauzero
Accountability to the fedgov is not a conservative, small-government victory.

It is a step in the right direction, better than we had before, and probably all we could expect to get under the circumstances.

153 posted on 09/03/2003 11:08:17 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all things that need to be done need to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Dane; xzins; Corin Stormhands; Wrigley
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.

This is classic. Should anyone dare question the direction of The Party they get impugned and quesioned. The Union-Leader has been one of The Party's best friends, but since they dare question the status-quo they are tossed aside.

Whatever happened to "Let's get Bush elected and then we'll keep his feet to the fire?" I don't see any fire, and I don't see any feet being kept there.

154 posted on 09/03/2003 12:05:39 PM PDT by ksen (HHD;FRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sully777; GraniteStateConservative; Spiff
Hold the phone!!!!;

This just in from RNC HQ in response to our inquiry:

"In response to recent editorials in The Union Leader newspaper in Manchester, NH (which were then discussed on Rush Limbaugh's show), Chairman Gillespie sent the editors the following letter today.

The Union Leader

Attn: Andrew Cline, Editorial Page Editor
P.O. Box 9555
Manchester, NH 03108-9555

Sent via facsimile: (603) 668-0382

September 3, 2003

Dear Editors,

Thank you for your hospitality and I look forward to sitting down again with you in the future but would like to clarify a few things in the interim.

The party of George W. Bush is very much the party of Ronald Reagan--the party of lower taxes, less regulation, strong national security and, yes, fiscal responsibility.

Since President Bush came into office Republicans have rejected $1.9 trillion in additional budget spending proposed by Democrats while passing $350 billion in tax relief just this year. That’s just a fact, as I noted in our discussion.

Fiscal discipline requires leadership and this year President Bush proposed and the Republican leadership in Congress worked to pass a budget that limits spending growth to 4%, the same amount as family income. This accounts for important increases in spending required to continue our fight in the war on terrorism. In fact, non-defense discretionary spending only goes up 2%, a point I should have made but did not.

As I also pointed out, I worked with Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey in their effort to eliminate the federal Department of Education but these efforts were defeated. And so I noted that the issue is settled but I also noted that this administration has applied conservative principles to the now settled federal role in education, a point you neglected to mention.

As I also pointed out regarding Medicare, our choices are to maintain a health program for seniors where government makes decisions and delivers the care or a market oriented approach where patients make choices and private providers deliver the care, and that we could pass our modernization program over the objections of Ted Kennedy if necessary.

Not Reaganesque? I joined the Republican Party because of Ronald Reagan. I believe that conservatives and millions of other Americans are Republicans because they support our positive agenda and share our beliefs, not because they have nowhere else to go.


Cheerfully yours,

Ed Gillespie"

So there we have it, Sports Fans!
155 posted on 09/03/2003 12:06:32 PM PDT by Uncle Jaque ("Rock of Ages; Cleft for me; Let me hide myself in Thee...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Jaque
Good for Ed. He didn't step down to the petulant level of Rush and the editors of the Union-Leader.
156 posted on 09/03/2003 12:09:41 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

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

I love that pic...


157 posted on 09/03/2003 12:20:05 PM PDT by ksen (HHD;FRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
sounds like a nice little hit piece that some are all too willing to believe.

Yeah, the Union-Leader is just another liberal rag.... < /sarcasm >

158 posted on 09/03/2003 12:25:05 PM PDT by ksen (HHD;FRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Yeah, the Union-Leader is just another liberal rag.... < /sarcasm >

Huh, where is it stated that only liberal rags only engage in slimy tactics.

The Union-Leader could of have printed the unedited interview instead of writing inflammatory editorials, following the 60 Minutes tradition.

BTW, did you see reply #155.

159 posted on 09/03/2003 12:31:20 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
You are dealing with 40+ years of social rearing by the demos who have grown up at least 2 generations of a population that expects the government to provide for them in some way. You have to slowly take them off that behavior.

Well, the Republicans have been in power for 10 years now so is a 25% rollback too much to ask?

160 posted on 09/03/2003 12:31:50 PM PDT by ksen (HHD;FRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Well, the Republicans have been in power for 10 years now so is a 25% rollback too much to ask?

Huh, I guess Rome was "built in 10 years also", but what the hey it seems that you would rather have Gore.

No tax cuts, Kyoto going full blast, etc. etc.

Do you ever get tired of posting knee jerk rants?

161 posted on 09/03/2003 12:35:03 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Dane
The Union-Leader could of have printed the unedited interview instead of writing inflammatory editorials, following the 60 Minutes tradition.

You're right, and maybe they will. Have you emailed them to ask them?

BTW, did you see reply #155.

I just did and you could make the same complaint to Mr. Gillespie, why doesn't he print the interview instead of just his interpretation of what was said?

162 posted on 09/03/2003 12:44:25 PM PDT by ksen (HHD;FRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Do you ever get tired of posting knee jerk rants?

No until you get tired of posting knee jerk reactions against those who were our allies but have dared speak a word against the current direction of the Republican party.

163 posted on 09/03/2003 12:48:47 PM PDT by ksen (HHD;FRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
The grassroots need to run small government pubbies who mean it and win office.

The grassroots do run those kind of candidates, but then the small government Republican is not supported by the Party and therefore loses.

164 posted on 09/03/2003 12:53:40 PM PDT by ksen (HHD;FRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I can understand your sentiments, but the reality of politics is that no pure party is going to dominate nationally.

Our greatest weapons anyway are not the vote but prayer and witnessing, getting the unsaved saved.

What saved England from the French Revolution was the revival by the Methodists.

165 posted on 09/03/2003 12:58:54 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ksen
I just did and you could make the same complaint to Mr. Gillespie, why doesn't he print the interview instead of just his interpretation of what was said?

Uh ksen, the Union-Leader is the newspaper and it is they who are afraid to print the whole interview.

They went the NYT route of writing editorials. Shouldn't I expect newspapers such as the NYT and the Union-Leader to publish what was actually said and not their interpertations by the editorial board?

166 posted on 09/03/2003 12:59:54 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K; Dane
...and electing a democrap who believes in a BIGGER growth for the govt would be an even worse idea, and this own editorial is an argument against itself...by admitting that demograps want LARGER growth....

If Gore were President, and I thank God he is not, I would be willing to bet Dane's next paycheck that the government would not have grown this much because then the Republicans would have been fighting against it.

But since one of our own is doing it......

Fancy meeting you over here... ;^)

167 posted on 09/03/2003 1:03:47 PM PDT by ksen (HHD;FRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ksen
If Gore were President, and I thank God he is not, I would be willing to bet Dane's next paycheck that the government would not have grown this much because then the Republicans would have been fighting against it

Huh, indirectly you were hoping for a Gore Presidency.

Sheesh you guys are so transparent.

168 posted on 09/03/2003 1:07:40 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot; B Knotts
Your other option is to attempt to damage Bush so much with other conservatives that he will not win this year.

The President is doing enough damaging on his own, he doesn't need B Knotts' help.

If you are successful, you will simply turn the country back over to the Clinton gang. Will that advance conservatism?

Under whose reign of terror did we see the Republicans make the most electoral gains?

169 posted on 09/03/2003 1:26:53 PM PDT by ksen (HHD;FRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: ksen; Mind-numbed Robot; B Knotts
Under whose reign of terror did we see the Republicans make the most electoral gains?

Uh ksen, sorry to let the election results of last November intrude into your rants.

But the mid-term results of last November(2002) were the first time in a century when a Presidency headed by a Republican actually gained seats in a mid term election in both houses of Congress.

170 posted on 09/03/2003 1:32:53 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Uh ksen, the Union-Leader is the newspaper and it is they who are afraid to print the whole interview.

Oh please, NOW who's using slimy, NYT/60 Minutes tactics? How on earth do you know the Union-Leader is afraid to print the whole interview?

Like I asked before, did you email them and ask them to print the whole thing? Did you ask them for a copy of it? What's stopping Mr. Gillespie from printing it?

171 posted on 09/03/2003 1:33:54 PM PDT by ksen (HHD;FRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: ksen
How on earth do you know the Union-Leader is afraid to print the whole interview?

Oh I don't know, maybe, BECAUSE THEY(Union-Leader) HAVEN'T, and decided to write inflammatory editorials.

BTW, your reply to my reply #170 should be, oh how should I say it, very interesting.

172 posted on 09/03/2003 1:38:44 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Dane
They went the NYT route of writing editorials. Shouldn't I expect newspapers such as the NYT and the Union-Leader to publish what was actually said and not their interpertations by the editorial board?

In the writing of editorials it is exactly the opinion of the board and their interpretation of events that is looked for. You comparison fails.

Editorializing is perfectly fine in editorials. Sheesh!

To add to the Union Leader's argument, the facts of the recent GOP's actions and the non-denial by Gillespie indicate that the UL is right on in their statement.

SD

173 posted on 09/03/2003 1:40:52 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Dane
But the mid-term results of last November(2002) were the first time in a century when a Presidency headed by a Republican actually gained seats in a mid term election in both houses of Congress.

Oh, so the Republican Revolution of 1994 was a lesser Republican victory than the Election of 2002? I find that hard to believe.

174 posted on 09/03/2003 1:42:30 PM PDT by ksen (HHD;FRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Oh I don't know, maybe, BECAUSE THEY(Union-Leader) HAVEN'T, and decided to write inflammatory editorials.

You could have just answered "No" to my question about if you had emailed the Union Leader yet or not.

I think I've read that arguments from silence are not typically the strongest.

175 posted on 09/03/2003 1:47:06 PM PDT by ksen (HHD;FRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Oh, so the Republican Revolution of 1994 was a lesser Republican victory than the Election of 2002? I find that hard to believe

Uh no where did I say that?

All I was saying is bucking a 100 year trend in mid term elections(when a Pubbie administration in power actually gians congressional seats) is pretty damn good.

But you already knew that and wish to wish November 2002 away, IMO.

176 posted on 09/03/2003 1:48:35 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: ksen
You could have just answered "No" to my question about if you had emailed the Union Leader yet or not

Huh, I guess to you, asking the editorial board of the Union-Leader to print the unedited transcript of the interview first is too much to ask.

Heck, I ask the same thing from the NYT. And rail against the NYT for not doing that

So I guess you are telling me not to rail against the Union-Leader for following NYT journalistic tactics.

177 posted on 09/03/2003 1:52:17 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Dane
The Union Leader has the exact opposite history to that of the New York Times. For well over a generation, that I know of, the Union Leader has stood as one of the very few papers in America, that still honored and defended the American tradition.

If you want to criticize anyone, over this piece, it should not be the reporter--the messenger--but the corrupted fellow, being interviewed. That the news is sad, is truly sad. But if it is the news, it needs to be printed.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

178 posted on 09/03/2003 1:55:32 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
The Union Leader has the exact opposite history to that of the New York Times. For well over a generation, that I know of, the Union Leader has stood as one of the very few papers in America, that still honored and defended the American tradition.

If you want to criticize anyone, over this piece, it should not be the reporter--the messenger--but the corrupted fellow, being interviewed. That the news is sad, is truly sad. But if it is the news, it needs to be printed

Uh Ohioan, how can I make a judgment in the first place.

The Union-Leader decided to write an editorial about the interview rather than print the uneditied transcript.

I ask the same of the NYT.

179 posted on 09/03/2003 1:59:01 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Dane
From Gillespie's "rebuttal"....

As I also pointed out, I worked with Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey in their effort to eliminate the federal Department of Education but these efforts were defeated. And so I noted that the issue is settled but I also noted that this administration has applied conservative principles to the now settled federal role in education, a point you neglected to mention.

The conservative principle would be that the Federal Government has NO role in education. The Union-Leader faithfully represented what Ed said.

180 posted on 09/03/2003 2:00:58 PM PDT by ksen (HHD;FRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: ksen
The conservative principle would be that the Federal Government has NO role in education. The Union-Leader faithfully represented what Ed said

So you are saying that in the future that the Fed Gov. cannot madate vouchers, with your above rhetoric.

181 posted on 09/03/2003 2:03:38 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Huh, I guess to you, asking the editorial board of the Union-Leader to print the unedited transcript of the interview first is too much to ask.

It obviously is too much to ask since you haven't asked them. You've been moaning about it over here instead of taking the five minutes to fire off an email.

182 posted on 09/03/2003 2:04:04 PM PDT by ksen (HHD;FRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Why doesn't Gillespie and the RNC move to either dispell or confirm this?

The evidence bears out what this editorial suggests, that the doors to the treasury are flung wide. It's up to Gillespie, after one news cycle, to set the record straight.
183 posted on 09/03/2003 2:04:07 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs
Why doesn't Gillespie and the RNC move to either dispell or confirm this?

See reply #155 of this thread.

184 posted on 09/03/2003 2:05:38 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Dane
So you are saying that in the future that the Fed Gov. cannot madate vouchers, with your above rhetoric.

The Federal Government has no business mandating ANYTHING in education, even things I like. It is a state/local issue.

BTW, I just spent 30 seconds and emailed the Union Leader to ask if they are going to be printing the interview or making it available. I'll let you know if they respond.

185 posted on 09/03/2003 2:12:17 PM PDT by ksen (HHD;FRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: ksen
The Federal Government has no business mandating ANYTHING in education, even things I like. It is a state/local issue

And you would also be slamming Bush if his education dept. came out in support of vouchers in the future, I surmise.

186 posted on 09/03/2003 2:19:05 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Dane; ksen
And you would also be slamming Bush if his education dept. came out in support of vouchers in the future, I surmise.

What part of his statement was hard to understand?

A large, overwheening federal gov't inserting itself into every facet of our lives and bribing us with our own tax dollars to behave in approved ways is not more comforting if a Republican is at the helm.

SD

187 posted on 09/03/2003 2:22:22 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
A large, overwheening federal gov't inserting itself into every facet of our lives and bribing us with our own tax dollars to behave in approved ways is not more comforting if a Republican is at the helm

Huh, I guess you would prefer Al Gore, Hillary, or Howard Dean.

188 posted on 09/03/2003 2:29:54 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I personally could not vote for Arnold. I will not knowingly vote for anyone who supports abortion. Gun control is another issue. I'll bet he has armed bodyguards with him and his family at all times. If I had that, maybe I wouldn't need to carry a gun...
189 posted on 09/03/2003 2:30:47 PM PDT by irishtenor (I AM in shape, round is a shape, ya know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
BTW, Dave if you hate it so much in America, why don't you move to a much more soothing place for your type of political rhetoric.

JMO, but you would fit in perfect in anarchistic Somalia.

190 posted on 09/03/2003 2:33:43 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Jaque
Hey Fed Ed:

The party of George W. Bush is very much the party of Ronald Reagan--the party of lower taxes, less regulation, strong national security and, yes, fiscal responsibility.

You're all talk. Prove it.

Since President Bush came into office Republicans have rejected $1.9 trillion in additional budget spending proposed by Democrats while passing $350 billion in tax relief just this year. That's just a fact, as I noted in our discussion.

That's not a cut in spending. That's rejecting additional spending that the Democrats wanted. How much additional spending did the allegedly "fiscal conservative" Republicans want? Hmmmm?

Fiscal discipline requires leadership and this year President Bush proposed and the Republican leadership in Congress worked to pass a budget that limits spending growth to 4%, the same amount as family income. This accounts for important increases in spending required to continue our fight in the war on terrorism. In fact, non-defense discretionary spending only goes up 2%, a point I should have made but did not.

Discretionary spending "only goes up 2%"!!? And he thinks that's laudible!!? How about discretionary spending going....now think about it for a moment...DOWN!!? That would show "fiscal discipline".

As I also pointed out, I worked with Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey in their effort to eliminate the federal Department of Education but these efforts were defeated. And so I noted that the issue is settled but I also noted that this administration has applied conservative principles to the now settled federal role in education, a point you neglected to mention.

There he goes...the "now settled federal role" in education. As if it is a done deal and that Republicans should just give up. That goes with the "now settled federal role" in Social Security, the "now settled federal role" Welfare schemes, the "now settled federal role" in Medicare, the "now settled federal role" in After-school-program, the "now settled federal role" in condom distribution programs, and the "now settled federal role" in whatever the public polls show is the "now settled federal role". The editorial and Rush Limbaugh had you pegged, RINO.

As I also pointed out regarding Medicare, our choices are to maintain a health program for seniors where government makes decisions and delivers the care or a market oriented approach where patients make choices and private providers deliver the care, and that we could pass our modernization program over the objections of Ted Kennedy if necessary.

I don't recall a big federal welfare spending scheme like Medicare being a proud Republican program. And here Gillespie is bragging on how the deck chairs are being rearranged on the failed "New Deal" socialist program. He is again showing that he just doesn't get it.

Not Reaganesque? I joined the Republican Party because of Ronald Reagan. I believe that conservatives and millions of other Americans are Republicans because they support our positive agenda and share our beliefs, not because they have nowhere else to go.

Wrong. We're stuck in a Republican Party run by RINO boobs like Gillespie because we've nowhere else to go. And as soon as the grassroots, rank and file can throw you guys out, the better. You've corrupted the Party and sold its soul for public opinion polls and cheap, easy, low-hanging votes. Your anointed candidates have openly stated that they are not bound by the Party platform and your statements prove that the RNC leadership isn't either.

Cheerfully yours,

Spiff


191 posted on 09/03/2003 2:36:35 PM PDT by Spiff (Have you committed one random act of thoughtcrime today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Dane
BTW, Dave if you hate it so much in America, why don't you move to a much more soothing place for your type of political rhetoric.

You're truly pathetic. Some people have principles, not just a will to hold the reins.

I hope someday you come to understand that.

SD

192 posted on 09/03/2003 2:38:13 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Defining conservatism down once again. Defining fiscal discipline down once again.
193 posted on 09/03/2003 2:38:48 PM PDT by Spiff (Have you committed one random act of thoughtcrime today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
You're truly pathetic. Some people have principles, not just a will to hold the reins.

I hope someday you come to understand that

I do understand it, you can hold onto your principle reins all you want in Somalia.

Just a sugesstion, better get a miltia behind you first, since you will be fighting in a war arena, instaed of a politcal arena.

194 posted on 09/03/2003 2:42:11 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
When one looks closely at the bill proposed by the Republicans they will find that much of it actually privatizes mush that had been government run. Same with the prescription drug program.

You really must get off the crack. $400 billion in government drug handouts IS NOT PRIVATIZATION. It makes the government the buyer of over HALF the drugs in the country, which gives them all manner of clout to impose de facto price controls, which, aside from the socialist/communist ideal at work, will eventually cripple development of new drugs for people like me (in my 30s) when I'm in my 60's, and need new drugs. To try and spin a $400 billion drug handout as something that encourages privatization is a very, very, very long stretch, ESPECIALLY coming from someone who is ostensibly a Republican.

What upside-down world have I awoken to today, when supposed conservatives are extolling the virtues of a $400 billion government drug program?!

195 posted on 09/03/2003 2:54:21 PM PDT by zoyd (Hi, I'm with the government. We're going to make you like your neighbor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: zoyd
You really must get off the crack.

That is a nice way to start a discussion.

Has the bill passed? Why not? It is hung up in the committee to reconcile differences between the House and the Senate for the reason I stated. Has the $400 bil been budgeted? Why not?

Put down the bong and back slowly away from the keyboard.

196 posted on 09/03/2003 3:17:34 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all things that need to be done need to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: joanie-f; Mudboy Slim
Would I *love* to have a gander at that dictionary of yours, kid.
How old did you say it was? {g}

Kidding aside, the Repubs went "wrong" when we lost control over who writes the definitions of all those words.
Tough to argue otherwise, eh?

"And the selfish or other narrow usually short-term interest part is largely what is destroying this republic. Those interests involve the agendas of socialists/elitists, feminists, radical environmentalists, atheists, proponents of one-world government, entitlement mentalities, and innumerable other individual-liberty-destroying philosophies."

The greedy, hell bent animals at the helm of the multinationals really deserve a place of special & honorable mention, too.

"And the desire to be elected (or re-elected), and the requisite pandering to those special interests which is now necessary to accomplish that feat, has placed our republic’s sovereignty, security, and national interests -- and its citizens’ individual liberties -- way (way, way) down on the list of priorities of nearly all modern American politicians (of which almost all are exclusively of the 2b type)."

Well joanie?
Here's what I found while tracking the Liberal-Socialist mediots & their insideous behaviors.
The American media forms an overwhelming amount of public opinion; and, the fact is the American media is owned lock, stock & barrel by a few very large coporations.
Corporations who're enjoying windfall profits at this very moment, as we all know.
Those profits are naturally generated by & due largely to Chinese (or whateverinthehellother 3rd world country) slave labor manufactured products that're then exported *back* to the USA for sale.

Can'tcha see?
I'm afraid there's no time for all that "individual liberties" bilge any more than there is concern about our sovereignty.
We're *all* seeing what constitutes their "national interests," don'tcha think?

So as the American citizen takes it on the chin losing their jobs to the Chinese?
The corporate giant's networks, newspapers, & mags articulate the popular rage by promoting the "Liberal-Socialist" agenda, they collect their profits, & no one's the worse for wear.
Sweeeeeeet, eh?

Confused??
Don't be.
That dictionary of yours should have *something* to say about it to clarify things. ;^)

It took this POTUS' administration for me to come to understand the level of mutual *cooperation* the American politicians currently are enjoying!!
All the *politicing's* done under the guise of viscious infighting & other phoney trumped up arguing over social issues on behalf of the peoples supposedly served by 'em while the gravey train pulls outa town with 'em all on board in the smokin' lounge.
I mean these guys we've voted for -- all of 'em -- should damned well be nominated for Oscars, I swear.

>Is merely another redefinition, and, a clear signal to the right wing constituency to either change to fit them; or, be without political representation .... Landru
"I can’t speak for you, Dan, but my political representation is locked within the fragile mind of a dear man suffering from the ravages of Alzheimers out in the People’s Republic of California."

You're not alone in your thinking, there.
I said what I did (before) only because of the man's condition.
It's that horrible condition which has permitted 'em to twist & distort the very meaning of his ideas without him *leaping* outa his bed to bitch slapping the hell outa a few dozen of the worthless shills & punks who've connived their way to the highest levels of the once "conservative" right.

"And once that rare and wonderful man is no longer living, even the glimmer of a leader who represents rational, common sense, conservative, moral, honest, liberty-and-sovereignty-defending, character-based governance -- stubbornly dedicated to the foundational underpinnings of this republic -- will have been extinguished (maybe forever)."

No doubt about it, you're absolutely correct.
Just one thing to add to that, my friend.
These are ghouls we speak of, so they're not going to *wait* for the man's heart to stop beating.

...before they implement their schemes.

197 posted on 09/03/2003 3:26:46 PM PDT by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Nathaniel Branden, at the time a Rand confidant, wrote: "Eddie Willers ... represents the best of the average man: the honest, conscientious person of limited ability. At the end of the story, his fate is deliberately left indeterminate; we do not know whether he will live or die; if someone comes along to save him, he will survive; if not, he will perish. The meaning of his fate is that men such as Eddie can function productively and happily in a world in which the Hank Reardens and the Dagny Taggarts are left free, but men such as Eddie have no chance in a world ruled by the collectivists." (Who Is Ayn Rand? [New York: Random House, 1962], pp. 121-22.)
198 posted on 09/03/2003 6:08:26 PM PDT by eddie willers (I live in my own little world, but that's ok....they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Why, thanks for the explanation. I just wish Ayn had let the editors delete about every other paragraph. I would've been more impressed if she could make her point in 500 words or less!
199 posted on 09/03/2003 7:22:07 PM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
... is there any reason to assume that this isn't true?

I can't imagine why it wouldn't be true. It matches PERFECTLY the actions of the Republicans in power.

MM

200 posted on 09/03/2003 7:25:39 PM PDT by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-227 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