Posted on 09/03/2003 4:08:24 AM PDT by 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.
I can't imagine why it wouldn't be true. It matches PERFECTLY the actions of the Republicans in power.
MM
I can't imagine why it wouldn't be true. It matches PERFECTLY the actions of the Republicans in power.
MM
"...despite the need to rebuild America's defenses, Reagan never let it be an excuse to give up on controlling domestic spending. It would have been a lot easier for him to buy the votes needed for national defense by loosening the domestic spending reins. But he never did and fought hard to bring domestic discretionary spending down from 4.7 percent of the gross domestic product in 1980 to 3.1 percent by 1988. That is equivalent to reducing spending by $165 billion per year in today's economy.
"By contrast, George W. Bush has raised domestic discretionary spending by 0.4 percent of GDP in just his first two years in office -- equivalent to $630 billion over the next decade if sustained. A key reason why Reagan made his effort is because he understood that the health of the U.S. economy was critical to national security and the defeat of Soviet communism. He knew that big government is a drag on the economy -- not just because of the high taxes that go with it, but because it pre-empts resources that the private sector can use more efficiently. Thus, an increase in government's share of GDP will eventually reduce growth even if taxes don't rise. In the end, Reagan won the Cold War not by defeating the Soviets militarily, but by showing them that we had economic resources they could never hope to match. They simply couldn't afford to keep up."
Dubyuh needs to borrow from the Gipper's playbook vis a vis Federal spending...MUD
You're correct *&* you're consistent.
But I *don't* think that's going to happen, my friend.
Don't quite know why it's not.
...just know it won't.
It ain't happenin' so far, that's undebatable...but truth be told, even Reagan got rolled by the Left with regards to spending. As I recall, Fed spending increased 2-3 times during the Gipper's eight years. But he was fighting against a predominantly DemonRAT Congress, and Dubyuh ain't.
It really is frustratin' and if Dubyuh don't change his ways, I honestly foresee a lacksidaisical RightWing effort in the upcoming '04 elections. What the heck we been fightin' so hard fer anyway, if our leaders are gonna sell us out so readily?!
Consistently yers...MUD
He did?
I think under RR's tenure everyone was *happy*, especially you & Mrs. Joanie.
But the fact is a lot of our money was spent, a lot of people got what they wanted, & a Pubbie could be blamed.
It all *fit* after all, y'know...spending money, Republican, "Big Business."
As sharp as the *Gipper* was I suspect he couldn't avoid falling into the *trap* of association.
"As I recall, Fed spending increased 2-3 times during the Gipper's eight years. But he was fighting against a predominantly DemonRAT Congress..."
Whoaaaa there sonny, RR was battling against the "Evil Empire."
Fightin' "Evil Empires" ain't *cheap* y'know, 'Rats or no 'Rats.
"... and Dubyuh ain't."
Our beloved shrub's battling ragheads, now.
That calls for an enirely new cabinet level position since the ragheads are so much more dangerous than the Ruskies.
Like it or not that's increased the leviathon by how much?
Really, I can't grasp numbers that're larger than X8+ very well. Numbers that big are too large for me to conceptualize if we're not talking about astral units.
"It really is frustratin' and if Dubyuh don't change his ways, I honestly foresee a lacksidaisical RightWing effort in the upcoming '04 elections."
Now you know better than that.
"Would you rather see a *Hillary* in '04?" :o)
(~well?)
"What the heck we been fightin' so hard fer anyway, if our leaders are gonna sell us out so readily?!"
Here I'm enjoyin' the hell outa your humor & ya go askin' a question like that!
Geeeehezzzzz Mud, lighten up.
"Consistently yers...MUD"
That's why we love ya, son.
...you're consistent. ;^)
Ooooh...fancy!!
Protectin' US from enemies here and abroad is what the Federales should be spending my money on, so I've got no complaints about the defense spending...but Reagan allowed domestic spending to grow rapidly as well, unfortunately.
"Our beloved shrub's battling ragheads, now. That calls for an enirely new cabinet level position since the ragheads are so much more dangerous than the Ruskies. Like it or not that's increased the leviathon by how much?"
Once again, I totally support spending aimed at making our World a safer place, but non-defense discretionary spending has ballooned as well, and this new Prescription Drug entitlement is absolutely insane, imho.
"It really is frustratin' and if Dubyuh don't change his ways, I honestly foresee a lacksidaisical RightWing effort in the upcoming '04 elections."
"Now you know better than that. "Would you rather see a *Hillary* in '04?" :o) (~well?)"
I never said I was abandoning Dubyuh, just that his Milqutoast Moderation is suckin' the wind from RightWingers' sails. We fought hard to get him and the congressional Pubbies in the positions of power they now hold and don't take kindly to evidence they are abandoning the fiscal conservatism we hold dear.
FReegards...MUD
Now having said that I'd like to say one more thing I noticed, based solely upon the *tone* of your reply.
OK?
After all the years we've known one another?
You still can't detect when I'm being sarcastic any better now, than you could back then.
Like I said Mud, if you're nothing else.
...you're consistent. {g}
Thanks...our local radio talkshow dude who follows Rush--Michael Graham--just said that the growth in government has been more pronounced in Dubyuh's first two years (with a Pubbie Congress) than in Clinton's first two years (with a DemonRAT Congress)...SHAME SHAME SHAME!!
Dubyuh can turn this around but he best get started if he wants to turn this around before November 2004.
FReegards...MUD
Seems we've some badly misplaced concern, kiddo.
Few others -- around here, anyway -- seem to be talking about [it], let alone worried.
Don't wanna get into the paradox of it all, now; but, the fact people aren't more angry has me more than just a little concerned.
Not for them, either; but, for myself.
If we're not in synch with the "average" right winger -- which apprently is the case -- than what in the hell are we?
"Dubyuh can turn this around but he best get started if he wants to turn this around before November 2004."
Y'know I hate like hell having to say this to you because I'd never -- ever -- want to do anything that dampen one of your best qualities, ie, your enthusiasm; however, I've been thinking what you see with this guy, is what you get.
Don't even ask [me] why it should be like this, or, what the hell's happened to precipitate such a spinless tack, either.
I haven't Clue#1.
...truly a stranger in a (very) strange land.
Little "L" libertarians, apparently...but how the heck are folks like US s'posed to vote?!
MUD
Really?
Is that what the hell I am?
I guess I'm the last to know, huh?
Must be so...from the mouths of babes & all that. ;^)
"...but how the heck are folks like US s'posed to vote?!"
For a loser 3rd party??
I dunno, Mud.
I guess we could cast our -- albeit futile -- vote for a loser 2nd party; or, no!!
Vote for the loser 1st party!!
Yea, that's the ticket!!
Naturally one must dismiss their "conscious" which up to now has been the only diferentialtion between normality & a sociopath.
Guess we've been mistakin' a sincere form of "patriotism" for a political party.
That is to say, where patriotism translates to *our* contribution for the overall good of the nation as opposed to our own selfish interests.
Joke's been on us, Mud.
Sounds like a whole lot more redefininin's been either going on; or, a whole lot more needs to be done.
Unbeknownst to you & I, of course.
Go watch the Bush race, I'm going to.
It's as corrupt as hell but by now we've *got* to be used to a little *corruption*, right?
...enjoy your weekend, my friend.
"For a loser 3rd party?? I dunno, Mud. I guess we could cast our -- albeit futile -- vote for a loser 2nd party; or, no!! Vote for the loser 1st party!!"
My voting record at the National level has been Reagan84, Bush88, Bush92, Dole96, Bush00, and Bush92&Dole96 were holdmynoseferRINO picks, but still I had high hopes fer Bush00. Now, I ain't so sure...MUD
ah heck, how about a bump for old times sake?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.