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.
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