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.
Rather than arguing over who started the personal attacks, let us instead consider who is the pragmatist.
You are fed up with the Republican Party so you are going to vote for someone who can't have any effect whatsoever on the policies and direction of the country. Now I ask you, is that practical? I would call it misguided idealism.
On the other hand, I want to work with the best chance we have of bringing about the conservative changes we want. Who would that be? The Democrats? The Green Party? The Constitution Party? The Libertarian Party? Whatever that party was that Pat Buchanan formed? Or perhaps, the Republican Party?
I leave it to you to decide which is the most PRACTICAL approach.
All that is in quotation marks are phrases.
The Union Leader has not released the uneditied transcript.
Which they should have done in the first place and not first make an editorial with no quotes and a second one where the questions are not in quotes and only partial phrases are in quotes.
But what the hey I guess you don't care that the Union-Leader is practicing NYT/60 Minutes journalism.
Also remember that Ed Gillespie was an architech of the "Contract with America".
I am?
That's news to me.
I thought we were discussing the unfortunate reality of who is currently in control of the GOP. I would think the solution to that would be to wrest the control from the checked-pants Republicans. Again.
I think you make too many assumptions.
Yep...we need to continuously and constantly decrease federal Spending as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product, year after year after year. The pork and waste inherent in a $2 Trillion annual budget will make this decrease imperceptible to the public, but would greatly energize the economy if spread to the entreprenuerial class.
FReegards...MUD
The Republicans DID pass a PBA ban in both the House and the Senate. The House's version left enough gray area that it will take a matter of weeks until the baby butchers find a "legal" method of killing babies just seconds before the children are completely born. The Senate's version included a reaffirmation of how great Roe v. Wade is.
Oh, but don't let any actual Republicans know of that betrayal. We're all supposed to go on being fat, dumb, and happy and cheerleading anything and everything with an (R) after its name.
They are a newspaper, you'd think they this has been grammatically vetted by the editorial board and other editors, unless the froth coming out the editors mouth who wrote this smudged the quotation marks.
FReegards...MUD
So we, grassroots Republicans, should continue suffering from battered-wife syndrome and just smiling every time our abusers toss us a few table scraps and crums!!? Screw that!! Where's my torch and pitchfork!!? Who's got the tar and feathers!? It's time to toss these jokers!
ok - so they co-opted a conservative position - whew, I feel better
.........what this has to do with RINO Ahhhnold escapes me
I think you make too many assumptions.
If I misjudged you, I apologize.
However, my assumption seemed reasonable. You will have the opportunity to change the leadership of the Republican Party in 2008 unless you have unrealistic ambitions of fielding a candidate to challenge Bush in the primaries this year. Since you say you are a pragmatist, I assume you don't intend to do that.
Your other option is to attempt to damage Bush so much with other conservatives that he will not win this year. If you are successful, you will simply turn the country back over to the Clinton gang. Will that advance conservatism? Is that practical?
Bush, while a moderate, is conservative enough to support in 2004, unless some great conservative candidate comes along and overwhelms him.
I do think that "sola pragmatists" tend to overdo their "win at any cost" dogma when they foist candidates like Riordan or Schwarzenegger, though.
A twig will only bend so far before it breaks.
I've been trying to placate myself with that same wishful thinking, despite clues that I was being fooled. Dane made a good point as to my misreading what was a Gillespie quote and what was the editorial's paraphrasing, but I'd sure like a better clarification and explanation as to the growth of non-defense discretionary spending during Dubyuh's term to date. I would love to support Dubyuh as enthusiastically regarding his domestic agenda as I support his War on Terrorism, but he--and the upper GOP echelon--can't abandon all pretense of fiscal conservatism and expect to continue to receive my support.
The GOP's in control of the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress since November...have we even proposed ridding ourselves of a single Federal Program?! How about even consolidating a few duplicative programs into a single program that decreases overall spending. Tax cuts are fine and dandy, but until we come to the Party-wide realization that there are significant cost savings to be found in a $2 Trillion budget, our economy will continue to be shackled from achieving its true potential.
FReegards...MUD
Marc Racciot...is that you?
I agree with you. I think the political consultants and the pundits put far too much importance on the mushy undecided "middle". I think an unabashed conservative like McClintock would do much better than they think. In fact, in a two man race between Bustemonte and McClintock I think he would win.
However, the political reality is that this is not a normal race that ends up head to head between two candidates. This is a smorgasbord of everything.
The Dems have two slices at the apple, either no on recall or yes on Bustemonte and they win. We, on the other hand, have only one shot at a candidate with the other shot being wasted on creating a race.
Therefore, the more concentrated our effort the better chance we have of making our one shot count. Because Arnold has the name recognition, the money, and the machine behind him he has the best shot. With Arnold and Uberough (I know it is spelled wrong but that is the best I can do without going to some trouble) in the race, McClintock cannot win. That leaves us with Bustemonte or Arnold. Which do you want?
Well "HU-Ah!" Spiff; That's the Spirit, me Hearty!
It's fellows with just such an attitude back in the 1770's who we have to thank for our not currently being a Southern Provence of Canada!
I speculate that our Founding Fathers would be utterly amazed that the old Tree of Liberty had not been given it's due "watering" and "manuering" long before things ever got to where they are now.
They don't teach "Liberty" in the government schools any more, do they?
How long has it been since they did?
I seem to recall saying the Lord's Prayer and Pledging Allegience to the Flag ("...Under God...") prior to Classes back then.
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.