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.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Can you change "oard" to "Board" in the source section? Thanks.

[KantianBurke]

[Dane]

LOL! Now they have quotes such as “fiscal responsibility” and "“a slower rate of growth” , but their interpretation of the quotes.

The Union-Leader is taking a tactic from the New York Times, with their "printing all the news fit to tint".

[Archangelsk]

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.

And destroy party unity? Perish the thought.

[Dane]

Also I wonder why the Union-Leader is afraid to publish the whole interview.

Just the straight transcript of the interview.

[xzins]

This is the same logic as in California. Don't vote for Schwarzeneggar because of what he represents --- overlook that! -- vote for him because he has an "R" beside his name.

I'm not an "R" because I like r's.

I'm an "R" because of what their principles are supposed to be.

It is time for an OFFICIAL religious conservative caucus within the Republican Party. They should advance their own candidates and endorse candidates. Based on the positions of various candidates in any given race, they might find themselves endorsing a Constitution Party or a Libertarian Party candidate.

In California they'd almost certainly be endorsing McClintock OVER Arnie.

[Rodney King]

I haven't been following this... is there any reason to assume that this isn't true?

[Dane]

Huh, wouldn't you also like to see the full transcript of Gillepie's interview instead of the Union-Leader's interpertation.

Scared that you may find out that you are screaming "the sky is falling" over nothing?

[headsonpikes]

"These questions have been decided." (years ago)

And the socialists won the day!(and the month,year,and decade)

You know it, D. Those slick lawyers have done us in.

[Wrigley]

Its well past the time for that. And can't you just hear the cries of many of you can't mix religion with politics.

[Wrigley]

No, more scared to find out that what he said IS what he said.

[Dane]

The first Union-Leader editorial had no quotes. This second one has 2 or 3 "quotes" of phrases not sentences, plus their interpretation of the quotes.

JMO, I would like to see the entire transcript of the interview. The Union-Leader no doubt has it, why won't they let their readers decide for themselves?

[WhiteGuy]

At least the GOP is willing to admit it now.

The actions of the majority party have defined the leftward movement since 2000.

The coup is now complete.

[Dane]

Oh BTW, these Union-Leader editorials also have the smell of a classic 60 Minutes hit piece.

I would like to see the entire interview, thank you.

[xzins]

Sure. Please post it or link to it. If you post it, more will likely see it.

Nonetheless, it is time for a religious conservative caucus within the Repub Party.

[Rodney King]

Fair enough. I would think that on an issue as critical as this that they would be more careful to document what they wrote.

[Dane]

Sure. Please post it or link to it. If you post it, more will likely see it

I cna't. The Union-Leader hasn't released it. Seems they would rather go the route of the inflammatory editorial.

[ImpBill]

Gillispie is already backtracking. This issue will become one of those "he said, she said" things by the looks of it. But the discerning conservatives only need to look at the record of the GOP since 1998 to see the direction of the party. And as the editorial board of the Union Leader so aptly put, "...they can use the information as they see fit."

[WhiteGuy]

Nonetheless, it is time for a religious conservative caucus within the Repub Party.


I respect your point of view...................

I'm afraid this caucus would be as ineffective as a religious conservative caucus within the Democrat Party.