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.
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.
How come the Union-Leader is afraid to publish the whole interview?
GOP, MIA: Taking the road most traveledThis is scarey stuff! Nothing in here is a direct quote... but rather seems to be the editorilists interpretation of what was said. I do think a response from the GOP is in order before we panic.... or at least an unedited transcript from the interview so we can see for ourselves what was really said.
This editorial originally appeared Sunday, Aug. 31.
HAD THERE been any doubts about the direction the Republican Party is headed, they vanished last week when Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie visited New Hampshire.
During a cheerful and pleasant meeting (thats the kind of guy Gillespie is) at The Union Leader offices, the partys new chairman, energetic and full of vigor, said in no uncertain terms that the days of Reaganesque Republican railings against the expansion of federal government are over.
No longer does the Republican Party stand for shrinking the federal government, for scaling back its encroachment into the lives of Americans, or for carrying the banner of federalism into the political battles of the day.
No, today the Republican Party stands for giving the American people whatever the latest polls say they want. The people want the federal government to tell states how to run local schools? Then thats what the Republican Party wants, too. The people want expanded entitlement programs and a federal government that attends to their every desire, no matter how frivolous? Then thats what the Republican Party wants, too.
The partys unofficial but clear message to conservatives is: Where else are you going to go? To the Democrats? To the Libertarians? They dont think so.
Now this is going from the sublime to the absurd, when the malcontents start using Kristol, who is a McCain backer.
"Slower rate of growth"?
How about a wholescale roll-back, way back, that is what I want.
Good Christian Cheer at the start of football season.
I gave up on em after CFR. Only way to fix the party is to leave it.
Relig. conservatives have supported the Repubs for years and have NOTHING to show for it.
Abortion: no progress. In fact, regression.
Judges: not only is there no progress, there is no willingness to fight for constructionist judges, AND there is a "no religious need apply" line on the application forms.
Culture: continued state hostility to things religious.
Education: no advancement at fed level (any level?) for tax relief to parents sending their kids to private religious education.
Morality: continued state approved enforcement and funding of a homosexual culture on the rest of the nation.
I could go on.
The "Log Cabins" have their caucus. It's time for the religious conservatives to group together.
"The Valley Forge Republicans"
Oh you mean like Ronald Reagan did(he didn't, government grew) also do you want a tax hike like Reagan signed in 82?
I know, I know you are going to say that the Pubbies didn't have the House when Reagan was President. If you knew your history, it was the boll weevil democrats in the House who gave Reagan the tax cuts. In the 82 midterms the Pubbies lost 26 seats in the House, thus negating the boll weevil democrats.
In 2003, we have a an evenly divided Senate and a House with a small Pubbie majority.
JMO, but it would do you good to look back in history, rather than knee jerkingly rant.
In many ways, they ARE the Republican Party.
After I finished broadcasting today, Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie called the EIB Network. He wanted to talk to me about this Manchester Union Leader report alleging that he'd rejected smaller government in a meeting with the paper's editorial board. During the show I'd said that this story had "taken the wind out of my sails," and needless to say this caused rumblings of displeasure out there. I was unable to take Ed's call, but I asked that his message be relayed to me because I wanted to share it with you here on the site tonight.
The message I received from the person who spoke to Gillespie's assistant Jim Dyke stated that Ed met with the Editorial Board, and because Ed would not commit to "shutting down the Department of Education" or "absolutely rejecting a drug benefit," the Editorial page editors took it as an abandonment of Reaganesque smaller government. Gillespie also took my point that there werent any quotes and appreciates that I left it open to interpretation. Jim said Ed is still committed to smaller government as he was a principal mover/shaker on Contract with America, etc.
I gave Gillespie the benefit of the doubt throughout Tuesday's show - and I want all of you to do the same. Please do not call the RNC and harass them over this. (I have always urged people not to do that in circumstances like this.) I will be talking to Ed in the next few days and will report on that conversation here on the website so as to keep you all up to speed. I dedicated a lot of Tuesday's program to this story, because it reported Gillespie saying "in no uncertain terms that the days of Reaganesque Republican railings against the expansion of federal government are over. No longer does the Republican Party stand for shrinking the federal government, for scaling back its encroachment into the lives of Americans, or for carrying the banner of federalism into the political battles of the day."
I don't believe Gillespie said what the Union Leader claims. However, where is the proof that this administration or any republican run government is reducing the size and scope of government?
Seriously, Dane. If Ed Gillespie is any kind of operator at all, he recorded his own session with the Union Leader(?). Do you think he'll post it to his website?
Religious Conservative Caucus within the Repub. Party.....makes sense.
Have you seen the picture of Washington Praying at Valley Forge?
Yep the demos are filabustering it.
You see now we have a President who will actually sign a PBA ban.
When Clinton was President the demos knew he would veto it, but demos in conservative states could vote for it and say they were for a PBA ban. The demo leadership just had to make sure the veto couldn't be overridden, when Clinton was in office.
You see it is called politics and there is stategery at every turn and spastic rants may make you feel good, they do nothing to help your cause.
BTW, why is the Union-Leader not releasing the unedited transcript of the interview. You would think if they wanted to be fair and balanced they would, instaed of throwing out phrases of quotes and giving interpretations to them.
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.