[Captainpaintball]

If Ed Gillespe is lying, there is little--likely, no--reason for FreeRepublic to trust or support the Republican party.

[StockAyatollah]

Even Reagan rejected Reaganism. Ronnie was, after all, an FDR Democrat. The Republicans have only given lip service about limited government. What they deliver is something else entirely. Massive Dept of Education spending increases, expeditionary wars, and insane wars on drugs.

[jbstrick]

Ha... It's funny. Rush mentions this article on his show and they are scrambling to cover their a$$es.

[Diddle E. Squat]

I gave Gillespie the benefit of the doubt throughout Tuesday's show

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.

[rwfromkansas]

I will say it again. Ed is a good guy and if anyone reads his Team Leader reports, they would not have believed this BS report about what he supposedly said.

You all should apologize to him.

[sully777]

This is not BS. Perhaps a trial balloon for 2004, but this piece is not BS.

Reaction will guage Bush's political movements to secure the base before the 2004 election and by-pass conservative ideas after the election is secure. This is a test, and a smart political move I might add. Rush is being dupped again by Dubya.

Ask yourself this question, aside from military leadership would you call Bush conservative or liberal? IMO, he is a liberal like his dad, the one that gave us tax increases, Head Start, ADA, the Drug Csar, etc..

Anyway, you know the Reagan Revolution is a long forgotten memory to the Whitehouse and at the Capitol Building when Rush Limbaugh must remind listeners about the Carter years, cite stats on the 1980's, and quote JFK to encourage tax cuts among the Republican "conservative" leadership.

Conservativism is being redefined as we speak. History's definition of a socialist is yesterday's liberal is today's moderate is tomorrow's conservative is a future extreme right-wing nut.

[Lancey Howard]

bump

[GraniteStateConservative]

Union Leader follow-up:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/975049/posts

[nutmeg]

read later bump