Posted on 09/02/2003 10:03:42 PM PDT by Pikamax
After the Show, RNC's Gillespie Rang Rush to Dispute Report He'd Rejected Reaganism
September 2, 2003
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 weren’t 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."
The Raleigh News & Observer's companion story headlined "Federal Spending on Spree," worked me up even more over the bills being charged by government in our names. Plus, when I interviewed Gillespie for the Limbaugh Letter recently, he seemed to fear that I'd launch the howitzers at him over this spending stuff. After President Bush let Ted Kennedy write the education bill and signed campaign finance reform, and after all his big government spending aimed at picking off Democrat votes (the BIG Theory), the idea of an RNC chief rejecting limited government sounded all too plausible. I just never see a time when we'll have enough seats in Congress so that we say, "Okay, we can reduce government now."
This story seemed to mean 15 years of our work flushed down the toilet, so I delivered the broadcast commentary you can hear in the audio links below. I said a few times that I fully expected a denial of this story from the RNC - and stressed that Gillespie was not quoted directly. But the feeling of dejection led to four inspired monologues on our culture which are still quite relevant. The trend in this country is to look to government as the solution to all our problems, to insulate the people from all capitalism or competition, and to surrender to the left at the very moment their ideology disintegrates. This is not the notion of government this nation was founded on - and I'm sure the Republican Party will continue to strive for that "more perfect union" Jefferson, Madison and so many others left in our charge.
Total BS.
I like Rush, but he was way out on a limb today, haranging about this for most of his show. Got all bent out of shape because a writer for the Manchester paper INTERPRETED Gillespie's remarks to be abandoning conservatism, and used that flimsy foundation to trumpet how he was oh so right about his 'Big Strategy' theory. Then he stated that there would certainly be a denial, but he(Rush) knew better. Yeah, he backpedaled some towards the end of the show, probably after realizing how much of a corner he had painted himself into. Rush is usually right on target, but today he sounded just like when he was assuring us with great certainty that Hillary would never run for the Senate.
It is one thing for him to state his opinion that there is a 'Big Strategy' and to voice his opposition(which is his job and responsibility if he thinks it hurts conservatism), but quite another to read such a negative and devisive(for conservatives) interpretation based on simply an editorialized report of a single speech that was reading between the lines. Especially considering the growing wedge between conservative idealists and pragmatists, such as in the CA election. This wasn't just expressing disappointment with a policy decision, it was accusing the Bush Administration(and Bush himself) of permanently abandoning conservatism for eternal big govt. The thought that maybe, just maybe, Bush is taking an incremental approach based on thin margins and postponing some conservative home runs until 2004 gains make them possible seems to have been completely ruled out.
Rush has been one of the great contributors to conservatism, and has enormous influence, but with that comes a large responsibility. He seems to be getting sloppy as of late.
I have yet to see much conservatism out of the pubbies in the last 12 years, I hear it coming tax cut, but I see a larger DOE, smaller military, going begging to the UN, for help when they laughed at us, more money for roads, more money for drugs, smaller military, naming the justice department building RFK building, (a real fascist there.
Attempts to cut VET Benefits (though they probably should be for none service related problems), CFR, Clinton holdovers, etc, etc.
Of course in this state we have pubbies, who feel George Ryan was the best governor the state ever had, even if he was a little bit of a sleeze bag who pardon all the murders on death row, and expanded government, or a governor in Nevada who pushes a tax increase thru for the children, or one in Mississippi who says it is your Christian duty to raise taxes to help the children.
Or maybe a senator or two in the NE who never met a federal program they didn't like as long as it put money in their pockets.
I can count on one hand the number of conservative pubbies today, but hey Gillespe is a good guy cause he supports GWB, and everybody knows he is a conservative, even though it looks like he is not walking the walk.
I know baby steps and he will turn it around after 2004, tired of pie in the sky.
It describes itself as "A Conservative News Forum". But many are "win at all costs" republicans. But if the republican party adopts the democrat platform, why vote for 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.