Skip to comments.Yes Rush, itís true: RNC chief rejects GOP traditions (follow-up Union Leader editorial)
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 weekends 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 governments 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.
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?
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?
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.
The grassroots do run those kind of candidates, but then the small government Republican is not supported by the Party and therefore loses.
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.
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?
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... ;^)
Huh, indirectly you were hoping for a Gore Presidency.
Sheesh you guys are so transparent.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Oh, so the Republican Revolution of 1994 was a lesser Republican victory than the Election of 2002? I find that hard to believe.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.