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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-227 next last
To: B Knotts
I note how quickly the personal attacks come out when someone disagrees with the pragmatists.

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.

121 posted on 09/03/2003 9:19:57 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all things that need to be done need to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
It is, of course, Men who are most easily corrupted by the power of the Ring.
122 posted on 09/03/2003 9:22:13 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
Uh mud, if you look at the article there are no quotation marks before we.

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".

123 posted on 09/03/2003 9:23:01 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
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.

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.

124 posted on 09/03/2003 9:24:26 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: yatros from flatwater
"The ONLY solution is to unmake The Ring."

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

125 posted on 09/03/2003 9:24:27 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
I see you paid very little attention to the rest of what I said concerning the fact that we are not really implementing the Democrats agenda, just seeming to to fool the sheeple, but are instead advancing a conservative agenda. Would you care to address that?

I also recommend you read my last comment to B. Knots.
126 posted on 09/03/2003 9:26:17 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all things that need to be done need to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Jaque
Our Party "might" pass a bill prohibiting partial-birth infantacide, "pretty soon", and "if" they do, the President will "probably" sign it.

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.

127 posted on 09/03/2003 9:27:36 AM PDT by Spiff (Have you committed one random act of thoughtcrime today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Unless there is a typo, everythinng after "was his response" is paraphrasing by the paper, due to the lack of quotation marks.

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.

128 posted on 09/03/2003 9:28:19 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Dane
I hope yer right, Dane...that Gillespie has not so openly admitted to selling out the fiscal conservatives within the GOP. Has he come back and disputed the Union Leader's account? I've had sincere concerns with the Bush Administration's lack of spending constraint, but I could always write it off as a short-term strategery. The Union Leader makes it sound like Dubyuh's got no intention to slow the growth of the Federal Leviathan, no matter how many Senators we get him.

FReegards...MUD

129 posted on 09/03/2003 9:30:24 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
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.

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!

130 posted on 09/03/2003 9:30:37 AM PDT by Spiff (Have you committed one random act of thoughtcrime today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Dane; xzins
Before you two "true blue social conservatives" go spastic over your rants, you may want to check this thread.

ok - so they co-opted a conservative position - whew, I feel better

.........what this has to do with RINO Ahhhnold escapes me

131 posted on 09/03/2003 9:37:30 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
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.

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?

132 posted on 09/03/2003 9:39:22 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all things that need to be done need to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
Those who pragmatically reach for the same means, ultimately reach the same ends.
133 posted on 09/03/2003 9:41:13 AM PDT by yatros from flatwater (Down with Sauron and HIs Minions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
See my reply # 132 to B. knotts.
134 posted on 09/03/2003 9:42:04 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all things that need to be done need to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
I believe in standing on principle, within reason, and balancing pragmatic and philosophical concerns.

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.

135 posted on 09/03/2003 9:43:20 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
"...we are not really implementing the Democrats agenda, just seeming to to fool the sheeple, but are instead advancing a conservative agenda. Would you care to address that?"

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

136 posted on 09/03/2003 9:47:16 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Do you work for the RNC?

Marc Racciot...is that you?

137 posted on 09/03/2003 9:56:28 AM PDT by BureaucratusMaximus (if we're not going to act like a constitutional republic...lets be the best empire we can be...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
I do think that "sola pragmatists" tend to overdo their "win at any cost" dogma when they foist candidates like Riordan or Schwarzenegger, though.

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?

138 posted on 09/03/2003 10:02:04 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all things that need to be done need to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Re: "Where's my torch and pitchfork!!? Who's got the tar and feathers!? It's time to toss these jokers!

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.

139 posted on 09/03/2003 10:03:05 AM PDT by Uncle Jaque ("Rock of Ages; Cleft for me; Let me hide myself in Thee...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
I am beginning to suspect that Schwarzenegger cannot win. Did you see "Hardball" last night?
140 posted on 09/03/2003 10:05:46 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 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