Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sully777; GraniteStateConservative; Spiff
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!
155 posted on 09/03/2003 12:06:32 PM PDT by Uncle Jaque ("Rock of Ages; Cleft for me; Let me hide myself in Thee...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]


To: Uncle Jaque
Good for Ed. He didn't step down to the petulant level of Rush and the editors of the Union-Leader.
156 posted on 09/03/2003 12:09:41 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies ]

To: Dane
From Gillespie's "rebuttal"....

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.

The conservative principle would be that the Federal Government has NO role in education. The Union-Leader faithfully represented what Ed said.

180 posted on 09/03/2003 2:00:58 PM PDT by ksen (HHD;FRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies ]

To: Uncle Jaque
Hey Fed Ed:

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.

You're all talk. Prove it.

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.

That's not a cut in spending. That's rejecting additional spending that the Democrats wanted. How much additional spending did the allegedly "fiscal conservative" Republicans want? Hmmmm?

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.

Discretionary spending "only goes up 2%"!!? And he thinks that's laudible!!? How about discretionary spending going....now think about it for a moment...DOWN!!? That would show "fiscal discipline".

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.

There he goes...the "now settled federal role" in education. As if it is a done deal and that Republicans should just give up. That goes with the "now settled federal role" in Social Security, the "now settled federal role" Welfare schemes, the "now settled federal role" in Medicare, the "now settled federal role" in After-school-program, the "now settled federal role" in condom distribution programs, and the "now settled federal role" in whatever the public polls show is the "now settled federal role". The editorial and Rush Limbaugh had you pegged, RINO.

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.

I don't recall a big federal welfare spending scheme like Medicare being a proud Republican program. And here Gillespie is bragging on how the deck chairs are being rearranged on the failed "New Deal" socialist program. He is again showing that he just doesn't get it.

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.

Wrong. We're stuck in a Republican Party run by RINO boobs like Gillespie because we've nowhere else to go. And as soon as the grassroots, rank and file can throw you guys out, the better. You've corrupted the Party and sold its soul for public opinion polls and cheap, easy, low-hanging votes. Your anointed candidates have openly stated that they are not bound by the Party platform and your statements prove that the RNC leadership isn't either.

Cheerfully yours,

Spiff


191 posted on 09/03/2003 2:36:35 PM PDT by Spiff (Have you committed one random act of thoughtcrime today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson