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 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 221-227 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 221-227 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