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.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

You guys are valiantly fighting an uphill battle. We go through this kind of thing every election cycle. Many who claim to be disenchanted conservatives gang up and storm FR threads to bash the Republican Party and/or George Bush. This particular thread seems to have some evangelicals present but, are they really or are they liberal pretenders?

Where you guys are pointing out some important considerations imposed by the real world the others are just ranting. Those who say they want the conservative Republican Party they grew up with must be awfully young. The Republican Party wasn't conservative until Ronald Reagan wrenched control from the Rockefeller Republican faction a short 20 years or so ago. Nixon was a mishmash of no particular group and GHW Bush was more of a moderate.

The reason the Republican Party became conservative at all was because most conservatives were Democrats who became aware that the Communists were infiltrating and taking over the Democrat Party so they switched parties. Goldwater helped but it was basically conservatives who had been Democrats who changed the Republican Party.

If one were to care to look at the fine print of some of these actions they consider to be treasonous to conservative principles they will see that Bush actually outsmarted the liberals. Campaign Finance Reform? Look who's bellyaching now and look at who is raking in the dough now. The Dems have been hoist on their own petard.

The education bill? Now that its effects are being felt, who is bellyaching? The teachers unions and the Democrats that's who. Why? 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?

Medicare? 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. Kennedy said that this is just a downpayment because he intends to expand it later. Although not voiced, the Republican idea is to privatize much of Medicare so that the government participation will eventually die on the vine as Newt Gingrich said.

Each side is practicing incrementalism. Who will win? Will the liberals win and get national healthcare or will the conservatives win and get the government out of the healthcare business altogether? The answer depends on who holds power now and in the future. We didn't get here overnight and it won't be changed that way.

Those who argue that the Republicans are not conservative enough so we should all vote for some obscure ideologically pure party are aiding and abetting the liberals. Is it any wonder I suspect some of them of being liberal moles pretending to be conservatives?

These whiners are either ignorant of the facts or they have an agenda of their own. Regardless, they are part of the problem and they have no workable solution, so whose side are they really on? Keep up the good work.

[B Knotts]

Thanks for the link. That page is nauseating. It might as well be the DNC.

[yatros from flatwater]

To borrow JRR Tolkien's allegory, all (and their servants) wielding the One Ring (of absolute power) become obsessed with the pursuit of power. Ultimately, all the worthy justifications put forward to endorse their reach become vaporous. The ONLY solution is to unmake The Ring.

[Landru]

"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 [today] defines 'fiscal responsibility' as increasing the federal budget at 'a slower rate of growth' than the Democrats (his words)."

~eh?

"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."

~eh?

"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, [read: *us*] deserved to know what we knew. Now they do. And they can use the information as they see fit."

~eh??

Don't know about you; but, after reading this?
The past few years make a whole lot more sense right about now.

When we last discussed a facet of this developement, I'd told you the bible & His very Word had been quite successfully redefined.
Remember?

Also spoke with you that with the advent of Arnold on the political scene in CA, attempts have been made to redefine *what* Ronald Reagan conservatism means; hence, what'll be required *if* one considers themself a conservative, now.

Bet you thought to yourself, "The bonehead's gone over the line this time, has completely flipped his wig."
Go on admit it.
It's "OK." ;^)

Thing is?
This RNC clown's now defined the GOP of today; which, as far as you & I are to be concerned?
Is merely another redefinition, and, a clear signal to the right wing constituency to either change to fit them; or, be without political representation.
An "in yo'face" chutzpah from our guys that's sure to cause all manner of deep divisions at a time when we can ill afford *anything* but unity, too.

Of course they can always hurry up & redefine unity, I suppose.

...man-oh-man there's a whole lotta redefinin' goin' on out there, y'know. :o)

[Imal]

Wow! Excellent perspective! Thanks for posting it.

[B Knotts]

Each side is practicing incrementalism.

True. Unfortunately, the ultimate goal is the same on both sides.

[B Knotts]

Exactly right. I wish more people understood that.

[Archangelsk]

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

Which would followed by the election of Bustamante.

[StriperSniper]

our president and republican congress doing is spending like drunken sailors.

Wrong, drunken sailors wake up broke, with a sore pecker, in the morning Americans are waking up broke with the other end hurting.

[B Knotts]

Which would be less damaging to the taxpayers than Schwarzenegger, who will be able to get 2/3rds majorities in the legislature to raise taxes, when he decides there is an "emergency."

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Unfortunately, the ultimate goal is the same on both sides.

Only one with a very superficial understanding of things would think that.

[jpsb]

Dane, a democrate by the way, seems to think you should believe him, instead of just looking at the legislation comming from Congress and policies comming from the White House. The GOP ain't a conservative small government party, period.

Yea, government grew under Reagan, but since the Rats controlled Congress there was little Reagan could do.

[Dane]

These whiners are either ignorant of the facts or they have an agenda of their own. Regardless, they are part of the problem and they have no workable solution, so whose side are they really on?

Your reply #81 is spot on, especially the above italicized passage.

[xzins]

If the bulk of the party endorsed a different candidate, why shouldn't ARNIE be LOYAL and throw his support to McClintock?

Who's the one who says it is only a one-way street?

All I hear is "conservatives have to give up their principles and support Arnie."

Why can't it be "Arnie supporters who give up their principles and support McClintock."

After all, "It's for the good of the Party."

[B Knotts]

Yeah, that's me...just a feeble-minded schmuck, because I disagree with the happy-face conclusions fed me by the likes of you.

I'm such a numbskull that I draw my conclusions from observing what actually happens, rather than what politicians say.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Yeah, that's me...just a feeble-minded schmuck...

I'm such a numbskull....

See, there are some things on which we agree.

[Dane]

Dane, a democrate by the way, seems to think you should believe him, instead of just looking at the legislation comming from Congress and policies comming from the White House. The GOP ain't a conservative small government party, period.

First jp, if you are going to mention me by name, I would request that you have the courage to ping me.

First of all what's a democrate. I have explained to you many times that the reason I have registered as a democrat is because in primaries, especially local ones(sheriff, etc) all the action is in the demo primary. More times than not the pubbie runs unopposed. I at least have a chance to vote for the most conservative democrat during the primary and usually vote Pubbie in the general election. Second, I have voted 100% Pubbie for the statewide and national offices. I have never voted for a demo in a statewide, House, Senate, or Presidential election.

Yea, government grew under Reagan, but since the Rats controlled Congress there was little Reagan could do

And he even lost more influence when the Pubbies lost 26 seats in the House in the 82 midterms.

[Spiff]

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.

Further proof that the RNC and the Republican establishment elite has completely lost it! Dammit! Dammit! Dammit! When will the grassroots, rank and file Republicans rise up and throw off these RINOs!? Why do we go year to year, election to election, believing that we have to vote for this RINO or that RINO because a vote for the real Republican is a vote for the Democrat!!? Why do we believe the lies, take the bait, and keep these losers in power who are bankrupting our country, destroying our Constitution, and sinking us further into socialism?

[lockeliberty]

It is time for an OFFICIAL religious conservative caucus within the Republican Party.

OK, when's the first meeting? We need to get a declaration and by-laws written and appoint some leadership. I don't want to see some lightwieght, backpeddling pussies like Falwell or Robertson as leaders.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...The ONLY solution is to unmake The Ring...

Who shall undertake that perilous quest?