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 last
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

201 posted on 09/03/2003 7:26:05 PM PDT by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | 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

202 posted on 09/03/2003 7:26:41 PM PDT by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
OOOF. Sorry for the triplicate posts.

MM
203 posted on 09/03/2003 7:37:52 PM PDT by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: xzins
My sentiments exactly, X. If I were stuck in Kalifornia, I'd be voting McClintock over RINO Arnie.
204 posted on 09/03/2003 10:42:53 PM PDT by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands
"The religious right has failed to learn that while our faith should influence our politics, our politics should not be our faith."

The bible believers of the right wing like myself (religious Christians should read the bible for their own sake and learn all the doctrines of God in Christ Jesus)have come to realize that Satan is in the democrat party and is responsible for the deaths of some 47 million innocent children(abortion) and other evil works, we will expose the evil he does against God(Crist Jesus will judge all) and the children of men.
I've also learned that liberal christiandom is destructive to the faith of Jesus Christ and disobey his word continually in their ignorance and are much like the "blind leading the blind", they choose to ignore evil as if it is none of their buisness and thereby appease and help the liberal socialists and athiests of America and the world.They would like the activists on the right wing conservative gospel preaching Christiandom to sit down and shut up, while I believe they themselves vote democrat if and when they vote, or they do harm by taking no stand and fighting in this war.
205 posted on 09/04/2003 9:44:45 AM PDT by wgeorge2001 ("The truth will set you free.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Landru
"Bush is a Big, Liberal Spender...Unfortunately"

"...despite the need to rebuild America's defenses, Reagan never let it be an excuse to give up on controlling domestic spending. It would have been a lot easier for him to buy the votes needed for national defense by loosening the domestic spending reins. But he never did and fought hard to bring domestic discretionary spending down from 4.7 percent of the gross domestic product in 1980 to 3.1 percent by 1988. That is equivalent to reducing spending by $165 billion per year in today's economy.

"By contrast, George W. Bush has raised domestic discretionary spending by 0.4 percent of GDP in just his first two years in office -- equivalent to $630 billion over the next decade if sustained. A key reason why Reagan made his effort is because he understood that the health of the U.S. economy was critical to national security and the defeat of Soviet communism. He knew that big government is a drag on the economy -- not just because of the high taxes that go with it, but because it pre-empts resources that the private sector can use more efficiently. Thus, an increase in government's share of GDP will eventually reduce growth even if taxes don't rise. In the end, Reagan won the Cold War not by defeating the Soviets militarily, but by showing them that we had economic resources they could never hope to match. They simply couldn't afford to keep up."

Dubyuh needs to borrow from the Gipper's playbook vis a vis Federal spending...MUD

206 posted on 09/04/2003 10:01:20 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
"Dubyuh needs to borrow from the Gipper's playbook vis a vis Federal spending...MUD"

You're correct *&* you're consistent.

But I *don't* think that's going to happen, my friend.
Don't quite know why it's not.

...just know it won't.

207 posted on 09/04/2003 2:54:26 PM PDT by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Landru
"I *don't* think that's going to happen..."

It ain't happenin' so far, that's undebatable...but truth be told, even Reagan got rolled by the Left with regards to spending. As I recall, Fed spending increased 2-3 times during the Gipper's eight years. But he was fighting against a predominantly DemonRAT Congress, and Dubyuh ain't.

It really is frustratin' and if Dubyuh don't change his ways, I honestly foresee a lacksidaisical RightWing effort in the upcoming '04 elections. What the heck we been fightin' so hard fer anyway, if our leaders are gonna sell us out so readily?!

Consistently yers...MUD

208 posted on 09/04/2003 4:15:14 PM PDT by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim; joanie-f; cherry_bomb88; sultan88
"It ain't happenin' so far, that's undebatable...but truth be told, even Reagan got rolled by the Left with regards to spending."

He did?
I think under RR's tenure everyone was *happy*, especially you & Mrs. Joanie.
But the fact is a lot of our money was spent, a lot of people got what they wanted, & a Pubbie could be blamed.
It all *fit* after all, y'know...spending money, Republican, "Big Business."
As sharp as the *Gipper* was I suspect he couldn't avoid falling into the *trap* of association.

"As I recall, Fed spending increased 2-3 times during the Gipper's eight years. But he was fighting against a predominantly DemonRAT Congress..."

Whoaaaa there sonny, RR was battling against the "Evil Empire."
Fightin' "Evil Empires" ain't *cheap* y'know, 'Rats or no 'Rats.

"... and Dubyuh ain't."

Our beloved shrub's battling ragheads, now.
That calls for an enirely new cabinet level position since the ragheads are so much more dangerous than the Ruskies.
Like it or not that's increased the leviathon by how much?
Really, I can't grasp numbers that're larger than X8+ very well. Numbers that big are too large for me to conceptualize if we're not talking about astral units.

"It really is frustratin' and if Dubyuh don't change his ways, I honestly foresee a lacksidaisical RightWing effort in the upcoming '04 elections."

Now you know better than that.
"Would you rather see a *Hillary* in '04?" :o)
(~well?)

"What the heck we been fightin' so hard fer anyway, if our leaders are gonna sell us out so readily?!"

Here I'm enjoyin' the hell outa your humor & ya go askin' a question like that!
Geeeehezzzzz Mud, lighten up.

"Consistently yers...MUD"

That's why we love ya, son.

...you're consistent. ;^)

209 posted on 09/04/2003 7:48:00 PM PDT by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Landru
"X8+"

Ooooh...fancy!!

210 posted on 09/04/2003 7:52:05 PM PDT by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: sully777
"I repeat myself when I'm nervous/I repeat myself when I'm nervous" -- King Crimson
211 posted on 09/05/2003 8:32:23 AM PDT by sully777 (What was the underlying message in the movie NETWORK?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Landru
"RR was battling against the "Evil Empire." Fightin' "Evil Empires" ain't *cheap* y'know, 'Rats or no 'Rats."

Protectin' US from enemies here and abroad is what the Federales should be spending my money on, so I've got no complaints about the defense spending...but Reagan allowed domestic spending to grow rapidly as well, unfortunately.

"Our beloved shrub's battling ragheads, now. That calls for an enirely new cabinet level position since the ragheads are so much more dangerous than the Ruskies. Like it or not that's increased the leviathon by how much?"

Once again, I totally support spending aimed at making our World a safer place, but non-defense discretionary spending has ballooned as well, and this new Prescription Drug entitlement is absolutely insane, imho.

"It really is frustratin' and if Dubyuh don't change his ways, I honestly foresee a lacksidaisical RightWing effort in the upcoming '04 elections."

"Now you know better than that. "Would you rather see a *Hillary* in '04?" :o) (~well?)"

I never said I was abandoning Dubyuh, just that his Milqutoast Moderation is suckin' the wind from RightWingers' sails. We fought hard to get him and the congressional Pubbies in the positions of power they now hold and don't take kindly to evidence they are abandoning the fiscal conservatism we hold dear.

FReegards...MUD

212 posted on 09/05/2003 9:35:31 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
Of course I agree with everything you said.
In fact, there're few who could've said it better, or any clearer.
Whadda ya think of that?

Now having said that I'd like to say one more thing I noticed, based solely upon the *tone* of your reply.
OK?

After all the years we've known one another?
You still can't detect when I'm being sarcastic any better now, than you could back then.

Like I said Mud, if you're nothing else.

...you're consistent. {g}

213 posted on 09/05/2003 1:57:47 PM PDT by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Landru; Michael G.
"Whadda ya think of that?"

Thanks...our local radio talkshow dude who follows Rush--Michael Graham--just said that the growth in government has been more pronounced in Dubyuh's first two years (with a Pubbie Congress) than in Clinton's first two years (with a DemonRAT Congress)...SHAME SHAME SHAME!!

Dubyuh can turn this around but he best get started if he wants to turn this around before November 2004.

FReegards...MUD

214 posted on 09/05/2003 2:08:36 PM PDT by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
"...our local radio talkshow dude who follows Rush--Michael Graham--just said that the growth in government has been more pronounced in Dubyuh's first two years (with a Pubbie Congress) than in Clinton's first two years (with a DemonRAT Congress)...SHAME SHAME SHAME!!"

Seems we've some badly misplaced concern, kiddo.
Few others -- around here, anyway -- seem to be talking about [it], let alone worried.

Don't wanna get into the paradox of it all, now; but, the fact people aren't more angry has me more than just a little concerned.
Not for them, either; but, for myself.

If we're not in synch with the "average" right winger -- which apprently is the case -- than what in the hell are we?

"Dubyuh can turn this around but he best get started if he wants to turn this around before November 2004."

Y'know I hate like hell having to say this to you because I'd never -- ever -- want to do anything that dampen one of your best qualities, ie, your enthusiasm; however, I've been thinking what you see with this guy, is what you get.

Don't even ask [me] why it should be like this, or, what the hell's happened to precipitate such a spinless tack, either.
I haven't Clue#1.

...truly a stranger in a (very) strange land.

215 posted on 09/05/2003 2:56:19 PM PDT by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
We can not go jump ship yet. But we can vote in Conservatives in primaries and get control back. Also when they call for money tell them not until they stop the spending. Call your reps. in congress and let them have it.
we have too fight before we jump.
216 posted on 09/05/2003 3:00:40 PM PDT by Brimack34
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Landru
"...what in the hell are we?"

Little "L" libertarians, apparently...but how the heck are folks like US s'posed to vote?!

MUD

217 posted on 09/05/2003 3:47:03 PM PDT by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim; joanie-f
"Little "L" libertarians, apparently..."

Really?
Is that what the hell I am?
I guess I'm the last to know, huh?
Must be so...from the mouths of babes & all that. ;^)

"...but how the heck are folks like US s'posed to vote?!"

For a loser 3rd party??
I dunno, Mud.
I guess we could cast our -- albeit futile -- vote for a loser 2nd party; or, no!!
Vote for the loser 1st party!!
Yea, that's the ticket!!

Naturally one must dismiss their "conscious" which up to now has been the only diferentialtion between normality & a sociopath.

Guess we've been mistakin' a sincere form of "patriotism" for a political party.
That is to say, where patriotism translates to *our* contribution for the overall good of the nation as opposed to our own selfish interests.
Joke's been on us, Mud.

Sounds like a whole lot more redefininin's been either going on; or, a whole lot more needs to be done.
Unbeknownst to you & I, of course.

Go watch the Bush race, I'm going to.
It's as corrupt as hell but by now we've *got* to be used to a little *corruption*, right?

...enjoy your weekend, my friend.

218 posted on 09/05/2003 5:28:24 PM PDT by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Landru
"...but how the heck are folks like US s'posed to vote?!"

"For a loser 3rd party?? I dunno, Mud. I guess we could cast our -- albeit futile -- vote for a loser 2nd party; or, no!! Vote for the loser 1st party!!"

My voting record at the National level has been Reagan84, Bush88, Bush92, Dole96, Bush00, and Bush92&Dole96 were holdmynoseferRINO picks, but still I had high hopes fer Bush00. Now, I ain't so sure...MUD

219 posted on 09/05/2003 7:25:22 PM PDT by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative

ah heck, how about a bump for old times sake?


220 posted on 03/08/2008 9:37:41 AM PST by KantianBurke (President Bush, why did you abandon Specialist Ahmed Qusai al-Taei?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke

We’re more like the Democrats now than 3 years ago.


221 posted on 03/08/2008 10:41:00 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative; Brices Crossroads
Bump for old times' sake.

What prompted me to bump this was that I was reading the final pages today of Craig Shirley's marvelous account of Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign: Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign That Changed America.

In the epilogue, Shirley blasts the modern-day GOP as having completely lost its way from the path that Reagan envisioned for it. He referenced this Manchester Union-Leader interview with Ed Gillespie discussed on this thread and quotes from Ed Crane's 2003 Cato article on the subject, "The Rise and Fall of the GOP". Here is the passage from pgs. 597 and 598 of Shirley's book:

"In 2003 George W. Bush's handpicked chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ed Gillespie, attended an editorial meeting of the Manchester Union-Leader. Afterward, the paper wrote that Gillespie 'said in no uncertain terms that the days of Reaganesque Republican railings against the expansion of the federal government are over...Today the Republican Party stands for giving the American people whatever the polls say they want...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.'

Was Gillespie right? Is it all over? Reagan populism as a force inside the Republican Party has been replaced by a belief that America needs two big-government parties. Whether the GOP ever returns to its pro-freedom, smaller-government roots is open to question."

The question is still on the table as we approach what is hopefully a watershed election in Nov., 2010.

BC, FYI. You might find that Cato article interesting. They don't have much use for Bob McConnell's campaign manager.

222 posted on 04/20/2010 4:16:28 PM PDT by Al B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Al B.

Ha! Are you trying to make us feel better about Steele?


223 posted on 04/20/2010 4:20:07 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

Nope.


224 posted on 04/20/2010 4:21:07 PM PDT by Al B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Al B.

Thanks, Al. I maintain that we had the White House for 8 years from 1981-89. Reagan, controlling only one hous of Congress, slashed it from 70 to 28% (and revenues poured in from the economic boom). After that it was 20 years of Bush Clinton. Bush 41 hiked taxes from 28 to 31%. Clinton raised them to 39.6%. Bush 43 gave back one half of the Clinton tax hike, cutting the rate to 35%, BUT ONLY TEMPORARILY (Bush 43 had control of both houses of Congress for most of his Presidency).

The Bushes (and their allies) were embarassed by Reagan as they are by Palin. They made a complete hash out of things and instead of just going away, they want to give us advice.

Palin needs to sweep them out, for good. This time choose a movement conservative, one who is reliable. No more Bushes, Romneys, Doles, etc. It has taken nearly 30 years to get over the foisting of GHW Bush onto Ronald Reagan. I am sure the Gipper would advise her, “Don’t let them sell you a bill of goods for VP this time.”

So far, Michelle Bachmann looks to me to be the only absolutely foolproof choice. There could be others, but I am leery of Pence, Ryan, Demint and most of the ones who are prominently mentioned.


225 posted on 04/20/2010 5:40:23 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads
The Bushes (and their allies) were embarassed by Reagan as they are by Palin.

Jeb Bush revealed that recently not only by his comments about the Reagan era being "over", but also in an interview he conducted with Craig Shirley for his book.

Shirley recounts that Jeb told the story of he and Reagan being at a campaign rally in North Dakota in 1980 where 8,000 rabid Reagan fans turned out to hear the Gipper. When it was Jeb's turn to talk about his father the place cleared out, leaving only about 200 to hear Bush.

The Bush family clearly has a long memory about stuff like this and what's going on with Palin and her crowds right now has got to sting.

I agree on the advice from Reagan if he were alive today. If she were to run and be nominated, the pressure from the establishment would be enormous. It would be fascinating to see what she would do. I love Bachmann, but I'm not sure two women on the ticket would be politically wise. I'd like to see someone with a strong military background. We shall see. Like you, I trust none of the other usual suspects mentioned.

The challenge to swing this party back towards the Reagan principles is a truly daunting one. Sarah Palin is the only one with a chance to pull it off.

226 posted on 04/20/2010 6:00:30 PM PDT by Al B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Al B.

Thanks for the anecdote about Jeb. I had never heard that one. I presume it was during the primary that it took place.

I think neither Nixon nor Bush ever got over the feeling that they were better than Reagan, smarter or whatever. Reagan was a genuinely good man, a humble man who didn’t hold grudges. He was also smarter than they were. He understood things that went right over their heads.

I think Palin is savvy like that. She is definitely a genuine, nice person with a fine character. That alone, even without the charisma and the skills, puts her head and shoulders above the rest.


227 posted on 04/20/2010 7:33:47 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]


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