[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.

[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.

[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."

[Apple Pan Dowdy]

Here's the original editorial that was refered to:

GOP, MIA: Taking the road most traveled
This editorial originally appeared Sunday, Aug. 31.
HAD THERE been any doubts about the direction the Republican Party is headed, they vanished last week when Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie visited New Hampshire.

During a cheerful and pleasant meeting (that’s the kind of guy Gillespie is) at The Union Leader offices, the party’s new chairman, energetic and full of vigor, said 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.

No, today the Republican Party stands for giving the American people whatever the latest polls say they want. The people want the federal government to tell states how to run local schools? Then that’s what the Republican Party wants, too. The people want expanded entitlement programs and a federal government that attends to their every desire, no matter how frivolous? Then that’s what the Republican Party wants, too.

The party’s unofficial but clear message to conservatives is: Where else are you going to go? To the Democrats? To the Libertarians? They don’t think so.

This is scarey stuff! Nothing in here is a direct quote... but rather seems to be the editorilists interpretation of what was said. I do think a response from the GOP is in order before we panic.... or at least an unedited transcript from the interview so we can see for ourselves what was really said.

[Jerry_M]

I don't remember anyone ever asking this Republican if a "slower rate of growth of the Federal government" is what I want.

"Slower rate of growth"?

How about a wholescale roll-back, way back, that is what I want.

[raybbr]

From the Limbaugh letter online:

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."

I don't believe Gillespie said what the Union Leader claims. However, where is the proof that this administration or any republican run government is reducing the size and scope of government?

[wgeorge2001]

“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. "


The joke of the new world order conservative (spend a lot like a democrat,i.e.,do little as possible,talk like you will really do the things you promise) steals America's future and freedoms (and that for the sake of re-election), has now spread to the Pubbie's.
I recognized that something was wrong with the once conservative party when all the people who ran it were nothing but liberals .
Does anyone know of a new conservative party that will stand on the conservative platform (that the pubbie's have abandoned in their foolishness) and defend and represent all the good things that America needs?
Or is the one world socialist order going to cause all nations to war against one another and God's anointed one, Jesus Christ our Lord.

[alnick]

Just as I suspected, the quote is quite different than what was claimed.

[billbears]

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.

Well at least they're getting back to their roots as the 'bigger government' party

[MinuteGal]

I, too, want to see the actual transcript. However, if Ed was misquoted or his remarks taken out of context, why didn't he immediately issue a personal and definitive refuttal instead of having flunkies and mouthpieces floundering around issuing lame denials?

Too many Republican leaders have a penchant for screwing up one-car parades. But we all know that.

Leni

[whd23]

Honestly, who cares what the Republican party says, just look at what they do:

• Campaign Finance "Reform" (anti First Amendment)
• Huge expansion of Medi-fraud "entitlements"
• No Child Left Behind (read: Kissing Kennedy's Behind)
• Complete inability to stand-up for conservative judicial nominees

I submit that it is time for the RNC to prove to conservatives that they are still represented under the "big tent." It is not the job of conservatives to prove that they are deserving of representation.

[sergeantdave]

The pubs still have four or more RINOs in the senate who consistently vote with the demonrats on social issues - education, environment, free pills for granny, etc. Congress can't even pass a bill to drill on 200 acres in ANWAR, for Pete's sake, thanks to the RINOs in the senate.

The grassroots need to run small government pubbies who mean it and win office.

No one said that turning back 90 years of socialism would be easy. A good start would be throwing out the liars and cheats from the League of Women Voters from local polling places. And then auditing the demonrat voter rolls and throwing out all the dead people and dogs who vote.

[sergeantdave]

The pubs still have four or more RINOs in the senate who consistently vote with the demonrats on social issues - education, environment, free pills for granny, etc. Congress can't even pass a bill to drill on 200 acres in ANWAR, for Pete's sake, thanks to the RINOs in the senate.

The grassroots need to run small government pubbies who mean it and win office.

No one said that turning back 90 years of socialism would be easy. A good start would be throwing out the liars and cheats from the League of Women Voters from local polling places. And then auditing the demonrat voter rolls and throwing out all the dead people and dogs who vote.

[putupon]

the Republican Party defines “fiscal responsibility” as increasing the federal budget at “a slower rate of growth” than the Democrats (his words).

Even that's BS. Socialized Medications are a giant step to full socialized medicine, a greater step to HillaryCare than the 'Toon's could have ever hoped to take.

[Mr. K]

hmmmm isn't it funny how democraps will admit how THEIR OWN policy is so bad when the republicans go along with it...

OK, so we need to house-clean in the GOP- but I believe in at least stepping in the right direction- and electing a democrap who believes in a BIGGER growth for the govt would be an even worse idea, and this own editorial is an argument against itself...by admitting that demograps want LARGER growth

silly democraps...