Yes Rush, it’s true: RNC chief rejects GOP traditions (follow-up Union Leader editorial)

Manchester Union Leader ^ | 9-3-03 | Editorial oard, Manchester Union Leader

[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.

[Dane]

The conservative principle would be that the Federal Government has NO role in education. The Union-Leader faithfully represented what Ed said

So you are saying that in the future that the Fed Gov. cannot madate vouchers, with your above rhetoric.

[ksen]

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.

It obviously is too much to ask since you haven't asked them. You've been moaning about it over here instead of taking the five minutes to fire off an email.

[RinaseaofDs]

Why doesn't Gillespie and the RNC move to either dispell or confirm this?

The evidence bears out what this editorial suggests, that the doors to the treasury are flung wide. It's up to Gillespie, after one news cycle, to set the record straight.

[Dane]

Why doesn't Gillespie and the RNC move to either dispell or confirm this?

See reply #155 of this thread.

[ksen]

So you are saying that in the future that the Fed Gov. cannot madate vouchers, with your above rhetoric.

The Federal Government has no business mandating ANYTHING in education, even things I like. It is a state/local issue.

BTW, I just spent 30 seconds and emailed the Union Leader to ask if they are going to be printing the interview or making it available. I'll let you know if they respond.

[Dane]

The Federal Government has no business mandating ANYTHING in education, even things I like. It is a state/local issue

And you would also be slamming Bush if his education dept. came out in support of vouchers in the future, I surmise.

[SoothingDave]

And you would also be slamming Bush if his education dept. came out in support of vouchers in the future, I surmise.

What part of his statement was hard to understand?

A large, overwheening federal gov't inserting itself into every facet of our lives and bribing us with our own tax dollars to behave in approved ways is not more comforting if a Republican is at the helm.

SD

[Dane]

A large, overwheening federal gov't inserting itself into every facet of our lives and bribing us with our own tax dollars to behave in approved ways is not more comforting if a Republican is at the helm

Huh, I guess you would prefer Al Gore, Hillary, or Howard Dean.

[irishtenor]

I personally could not vote for Arnold. I will not knowingly vote for anyone who supports abortion. Gun control is another issue. I'll bet he has armed bodyguards with him and his family at all times. If I had that, maybe I wouldn't need to carry a gun...

[Dane]

BTW, Dave if you hate it so much in America, why don't you move to a much more soothing place for your type of political rhetoric.

JMO, but you would fit in perfect in anarchistic Somalia.

[Spiff]

Hey Fed Ed:

The party of George W. Bush is very much the party of Ronald Reagan--the party of lower taxes, less regulation, strong national security and, yes, fiscal responsibility.

You're all talk. Prove it.

Since President Bush came into office Republicans have rejected $1.9 trillion in additional budget spending proposed by Democrats while passing $350 billion in tax relief just this year. That's just a fact, as I noted in our discussion.

That's not a cut in spending. That's rejecting additional spending that the Democrats wanted. How much additional spending did the allegedly "fiscal conservative" Republicans want? Hmmmm?

Fiscal discipline requires leadership and this year President Bush proposed and the Republican leadership in Congress worked to pass a budget that limits spending growth to 4%, the same amount as family income. This accounts for important increases in spending required to continue our fight in the war on terrorism. In fact, non-defense discretionary spending only goes up 2%, a point I should have made but did not.

Discretionary spending "only goes up 2%"!!? And he thinks that's laudible!!? How about discretionary spending going....now think about it for a moment...DOWN!!? That would show "fiscal discipline".

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.

There he goes...the "now settled federal role" in education. As if it is a done deal and that Republicans should just give up. That goes with the "now settled federal role" in Social Security, the "now settled federal role" Welfare schemes, the "now settled federal role" in Medicare, the "now settled federal role" in After-school-program, the "now settled federal role" in condom distribution programs, and the "now settled federal role" in whatever the public polls show is the "now settled federal role". The editorial and Rush Limbaugh had you pegged, RINO.

As I also pointed out regarding Medicare, our choices are to maintain a health program for seniors where government makes decisions and delivers the care or a market oriented approach where patients make choices and private providers deliver the care, and that we could pass our modernization program over the objections of Ted Kennedy if necessary.

I don't recall a big federal welfare spending scheme like Medicare being a proud Republican program. And here Gillespie is bragging on how the deck chairs are being rearranged on the failed "New Deal" socialist program. He is again showing that he just doesn't get it.

Not Reaganesque? I joined the Republican Party because of Ronald Reagan. I believe that conservatives and millions of other Americans are Republicans because they support our positive agenda and share our beliefs, not because they have nowhere else to go.

Wrong. We're stuck in a Republican Party run by RINO boobs like Gillespie because we've nowhere else to go. And as soon as the grassroots, rank and file can throw you guys out, the better. You've corrupted the Party and sold its soul for public opinion polls and cheap, easy, low-hanging votes. Your anointed candidates have openly stated that they are not bound by the Party platform and your statements prove that the RNC leadership isn't either.

Cheerfully yours,

Spiff

[SoothingDave]

BTW, Dave if you hate it so much in America, why don't you move to a much more soothing place for your type of political rhetoric.

You're truly pathetic. Some people have principles, not just a will to hold the reins.

I hope someday you come to understand that.

SD

[Spiff]

Defining conservatism down once again. Defining fiscal discipline down once again.

[Dane]

You're truly pathetic. Some people have principles, not just a will to hold the reins.

I hope someday you come to understand that

I do understand it, you can hold onto your principle reins all you want in Somalia.

Just a sugesstion, better get a miltia behind you first, since you will be fighting in a war arena, instaed of a politcal arena.

[zoyd]

When one looks closely at the bill proposed by the Republicans they will find that much of it actually privatizes mush that had been government run. Same with the prescription drug program.

You really must get off the crack. $400 billion in government drug handouts IS NOT PRIVATIZATION. It makes the government the buyer of over HALF the drugs in the country, which gives them all manner of clout to impose de facto price controls, which, aside from the socialist/communist ideal at work, will eventually cripple development of new drugs for people like me (in my 30s) when I'm in my 60's, and need new drugs. To try and spin a $400 billion drug handout as something that encourages privatization is a very, very, very long stretch, ESPECIALLY coming from someone who is ostensibly a Republican.

What upside-down world have I awoken to today, when supposed conservatives are extolling the virtues of a $400 billion government drug program?!

[Mind-numbed Robot]

You really must get off the crack.

That is a nice way to start a discussion.

Has the bill passed? Why not? It is hung up in the committee to reconcile differences between the House and the Senate for the reason I stated. Has the $400 bil been budgeted? Why not?

Put down the bong and back slowly away from the keyboard.

[Landru]

Would I *love* to have a gander at that dictionary of yours, kid.
How old did you say it was? {g}

Kidding aside, the Repubs went "wrong" when we lost control over who writes the definitions of all those words.
Tough to argue otherwise, eh?

"And the selfish or other narrow usually short-term interest part is largely what is destroying this republic. Those interests involve the agendas of socialists/elitists, feminists, radical environmentalists, atheists, proponents of one-world government, entitlement mentalities, and innumerable other individual-liberty-destroying philosophies."

The greedy, hell bent animals at the helm of the multinationals really deserve a place of special & honorable mention, too.

"And the desire to be elected (or re-elected), and the requisite pandering to those special interests which is now necessary to accomplish that feat, has placed our republic’s sovereignty, security, and national interests -- and its citizens’ individual liberties -- way (way, way) down on the list of priorities of nearly all modern American politicians (of which almost all are exclusively of the 2b type)."

Well joanie?
Here's what I found while tracking the Liberal-Socialist mediots & their insideous behaviors.
The American media forms an overwhelming amount of public opinion; and, the fact is the American media is owned lock, stock & barrel by a few very large coporations.
Corporations who're enjoying windfall profits at this very moment, as we all know.
Those profits are naturally generated by & due largely to Chinese (or whateverinthehellother 3rd world country) slave labor manufactured products that're then exported *back* to the USA for sale.

Can'tcha see?
I'm afraid there's no time for all that "individual liberties" bilge any more than there is concern about our sovereignty.
We're *all* seeing what constitutes their "national interests," don'tcha think?

So as the American citizen takes it on the chin losing their jobs to the Chinese?
The corporate giant's networks, newspapers, & mags articulate the popular rage by promoting the "Liberal-Socialist" agenda, they collect their profits, & no one's the worse for wear.
Sweeeeeeet, eh?

Confused??
Don't be.
That dictionary of yours should have *something* to say about it to clarify things. ;^)

It took this POTUS' administration for me to come to understand the level of mutual *cooperation* the American politicians currently are enjoying!!
All the *politicing's* done under the guise of viscious infighting & other phoney trumped up arguing over social issues on behalf of the peoples supposedly served by 'em while the gravey train pulls outa town with 'em all on board in the smokin' lounge.
I mean these guys we've voted for -- all of 'em -- should damned well be nominated for Oscars, I swear.

>Is merely another redefinition, and, a clear signal to the right wing constituency to either change to fit them; or, be without political representation .... Landru
"I can’t speak for you, Dan, but my political representation is locked within the fragile mind of a dear man suffering from the ravages of Alzheimers out in the People’s Republic of California."

You're not alone in your thinking, there.
I said what I did (before) only because of the man's condition.
It's that horrible condition which has permitted 'em to twist & distort the very meaning of his ideas without him *leaping* outa his bed to bitch slapping the hell outa a few dozen of the worthless shills & punks who've connived their way to the highest levels of the once "conservative" right.

"And once that rare and wonderful man is no longer living, even the glimmer of a leader who represents rational, common sense, conservative, moral, honest, liberty-and-sovereignty-defending, character-based governance -- stubbornly dedicated to the foundational underpinnings of this republic -- will have been extinguished (maybe forever)."

No doubt about it, you're absolutely correct.
Just one thing to add to that, my friend.
These are ghouls we speak of, so they're not going to *wait* for the man's heart to stop beating.

...before they implement their schemes.

[eddie willers]

Nathaniel Branden, at the time a Rand confidant, wrote: "Eddie Willers ... represents the best of the average man: the honest, conscientious person of limited ability. At the end of the story, his fate is deliberately left indeterminate; we do not know whether he will live or die; if someone comes along to save him, he will survive; if not, he will perish. The meaning of his fate is that men such as Eddie can function productively and happily in a world in which the Hank Reardens and the Dagny Taggarts are left free, but men such as Eddie have no chance in a world ruled by the collectivists." (Who Is Ayn Rand? [New York: Random House, 1962], pp. 121-22.)

[sam_paine]

Why, thanks for the explanation. I just wish Ayn had let the editors delete about every other paragraph. I would've been more impressed if she could make her point in 500 words or less!

[MississippiMan]

... is there any reason to assume that this isn't true?

I can't imagine why it wouldn't be true. It matches PERFECTLY the actions of the Republicans in power.

MM