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.

[Gritty]

If the Democrats are just going to Democrats, I see no sense supporting Republicans, just so they can dismantle America at a bit slower rate.

[Dane]

Do you work for the RNC?

No I don't.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I share your concerns. However, our majorities are razor thin with some real RINOs in our party to deal with, too. Because of that and the despicable actions of the Dems to attempt to maintain control as a minority, and you are not looking at a normal, humdrum, Washington political climate in which to take control.

Add to that the public and political trauma of 9/11, where a lot of money was given away that otherwise would not have been, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, which not only cost a lot but also put domestic considerations on the back burner, the greed of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, matched only by Robert Byrd of VA, and taking a hard-nosed political stand at every turn is not only unwise but near impossible. I think this administration has been politically masterful in getting done what they have. Remember, what looks like liberal wins on some issues are really conservative wins when implemented.

When you consider the filibusters, the blocking of legislation by Daschle from 01 to 03 (the election was in 02 but nothing could happen until 03), and now all the lies and distortions thrown by the Democrats during campaign season, combined with the circumstances noted above, it is a true marvel than we accomplished anything.

When everything is considered not all is as bleak as it looks. The alternative is unthinkable.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Did you see "Hardball" last night?

No. What happened?

[Tauzero]

Ouch.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

in no uncertain terms that the days of Reaganesque Republican railings against the expansion of federal government are over.

Regardless, whether this was said, paraphrased, or was an out and out lie...it is the present truth. It would actually be refreshing to find out that Gilespie actually did say this; at least conservatives would finally hear the truth from our beloved republicans, and not have to wander thru all the idle BS of wondering anymore.

[B Knotts]

They had Frank Luntz with a focus group. Suffice to say, most of them wanted Bustamante.

[Tauzero]

"Accountability! They are now being measured on their performance where they never before were and they don't like it one bit. They will have to change or lose money. So, who won that battle, the conservatives or the liberals?"

Accountability, alone, is not meaningful.

Accountability to parents is what conservatives want.

Accountability to the fedgov is not a conservative, small-government victory.

[sully777]

Point: "Kristol has said the same thing in print. The republican party we grew up in no longer exists. Hasn't for a long time

Counter-point: "Now this is going from the sublime to the absurd, when the malcontents start using Kristol, who is a McCain backer."

What an absurd and thoroughly illogical process of thought! If I'm not mistaken, McCain is a republican that ALMOST won the primaries if it wasn't for Bush 43 pandering to the conservatives. Think about it. Bush pandered to the conservatives AND WON! Then Bush left them after the election, just like Daddy 41.

The conservative backlash is occurring against liberals whether they have an R or a D after their name. Perhaps some day both McCain and Bush will be swept aside by conservatives just as the Reaganites swept out the check-pant GOP libs.

[sully777]

Point: "Kristol has said the same thing in print. The republican party we grew up in no longer exists. Hasn't for a long time

Counter-point: "Now this is going from the sublime to the absurd, when the malcontents start using Kristol, who is a McCain backer."

What an absurd and thoroughly illogical process of thought! If I'm not mistaken, McCain is a republican that ALMOST won the primaries if it wasn't for Bush 43 pandering to the conservatives. Think about it. Bush pandered to the conservatives AND WON! Then Bush left them after the election, just like Daddy 41.

The conservative backlash clashing with socialism is occurring whether they have an R or a D after their name.

[joanie-f]

Picked up my trusty Webster's Seventh New Collegiate (bought the first day of my freshman year at college, and still serving as my right-hand-man in matters of 'wordity' these many eons later :) just now to try to see, definition-wise, where we Republicans have gone wrong.

Take a gander and decide for yourself:

politician – n – 1: one versed in the art or science of government; 2a: one engaged in party politics as a profession b: one primarily interested in political offices from selfish or other narrow, usually short-term, interests.

The democrats deleted 1 from their lexicon decades ago (actually, they never really embraced it completely). 2a is a step down from 1 (and certainly not what was intended as the definition of a leader by our founders, who tried very hard to discourage the concept of the career politician, because they were visionary men who knew that 2a would inevitably lead to 2b, given the nature of the beast). And the beast hasn’t disappointed them. Trouble is, not only the irascible democrats, but the last-bastion republicans, have now embraced 2b as the modern definition of an American politician.

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. 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).

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. 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).

~ joanie

[sully777]

Dane states: "Now this going from the sublime to the absurd, when the malcontents start using Kristol, who is a McCain backer."

What an absurd and thoroughly illogical process of thought! If I'm not mistaken, McCain is a republican that ALMOST won the primaries if it wasn't for Bush 43 pandering to the conservatives. Think about it. Bush pandered to the conservatives AND WON! Then Bush left them after the election, just like Daddy 41.

The conservative backlash clashing with socialist infiltration occurs whether they have an R or a D after their name.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Accountability to the fedgov is not a conservative, small-government victory.

It is a step in the right direction, better than we had before, and probably all we could expect to get under the circumstances.

[ksen]

How is he "backtracking". It seems that the Union-Leader is the one who got caught practicing New York Times journalism, with their first editorial with no quotes, this second editorial with phrases in quotes.

This is classic. Should anyone dare question the direction of The Party they get impugned and quesioned. The Union-Leader has been one of The Party's best friends, but since they dare question the status-quo they are tossed aside.

Whatever happened to "Let's get Bush elected and then we'll keep his feet to the fire?" I don't see any fire, and I don't see any feet being kept there.

[Uncle Jaque]

Hold the phone!!!!;

This just in from RNC HQ in response to our inquiry:

"In response to recent editorials in The Union Leader newspaper in Manchester, NH (which were then discussed on Rush Limbaugh's show), Chairman Gillespie sent the editors the following letter today.

The Union Leader

Attn: Andrew Cline, Editorial Page Editor
P.O. Box 9555
Manchester, NH 03108-9555

Sent via facsimile: (603) 668-0382

September 3, 2003

Dear Editors,

Thank you for your hospitality and I look forward to sitting down again with you in the future but would like to clarify a few things in the interim.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


Cheerfully yours,

Ed Gillespie"

So there we have it, Sports Fans!

[Dane]

Good for Ed. He didn't step down to the petulant level of Rush and the editors of the Union-Leader.

[ksen]

Have you seen the picture of Washington Praying at Valley Forge?

I love that pic...

[ksen]

sounds like a nice little hit piece that some are all too willing to believe.

Yeah, the Union-Leader is just another liberal rag.... < /sarcasm >

[Dane]

Yeah, the Union-Leader is just another liberal rag.... < /sarcasm >

Huh, where is it stated that only liberal rags only engage in slimy tactics.

The Union-Leader could of have printed the unedited interview instead of writing inflammatory editorials, following the 60 Minutes tradition.

BTW, did you see reply #155.

[ksen]

You are dealing with 40+ years of social rearing by the demos who have grown up at least 2 generations of a population that expects the government to provide for them in some way. You have to slowly take them off that behavior.

Well, the Republicans have been in power for 10 years now so is a 25% rollback too much to ask?