December 18, 2003
Future Looks Great
RNC Chairman, Ed Gillespie prepared remarks for a speech to be delivered Dec. 3rd at St. Anslem College. A beginning excerpt is below; for the full text of his remarks go to the RNC site.
Let’s start with our Party, which continues to grow and bring in new voters and new victories. With the addition of Republican governors this year like Ernie Fletcher in Kentucky—the first Republican governor to be elected there in 36 years, and Mississippi, where my predecessor Haley Barbour became only the second Republican governor there in 130 years—and in California, where Arnold Schwarzenegger said Hasta la Vista to the dismal leadership of Gray Davis, nearly six-in-ten Americans live in a state with a Republican governor—including the four most populous states in the country.
And since President Bush took office, over 125 elected Democrat officials have switched parties and become Republicans!Posted by David R. Remer at December 18, 2003 10:21 PMOn the other hand, the Democratic party is shrinking, down to 32% of voters who identify themselves as Democrats, according to their own pollsters. That is the lowest percentage since the modern-day Democratic party came into being when Franklin Roosevelt forged the New Deal Coalition, and the lowest in the history of public opinion polling.
As the Democrat Party gets smaller, it becomes increasingly more liberal, elitist and angry, and as it becomes increasingly more liberal, elitist and angry, it gets smaller.
And as its presidential contenders continue to pander to the liberal special interest groups that dominate their party, they’re moving further and further outside the political mainstream.
On the critical issues of job creation, homeland security and national security, and who shares our values, they have adopted positions that may help them win their party’s nomination, but will be rejected by the broader electorate next November.
Quick question - and this may be ignorance on my part - but I never quite understood how the Democratic party is described as the party of the elitist. Is it because it tends to be more educated? It just seems counter-intuitive to me as the Republican party seems to be the party of tax cuts for the rich, kick backs for big business lobbyists, etc. If you could please shed a little light on how this adjective got attatched to the “D”, it would be very helpfull. Thanks.
Posted by: joe stewart at December 19, 2003 10:41 AMAs an ammendment to my previous post, the reason I ask is: I’m liberal & angry so I can see where you get those from, but not very elite. I work a 9 to 5 and barely scrape by like every other democratic voting individual I know. So, it’s the one I didn’t understand from your list. I’ve been hearing this description being thrown around a lot lately to describe left leaning politics, and I just don’t get it (as it’s traditionally the party of labor, etc). Again, any shed light on this would be great. Thanks.
Posted by: joe stewart at December 19, 2003 10:53 AMI’m just reading into his comments, but I think when he says that Democrats become more elitist, it’s that they try to appeal to larger donors (i.e. Hollywood) so they can increase their numbers. It seems kind of hypocritical for either side to claim the other is elitist, when all they’re really trying to do is get money from essentially the same groups.
Posted by: JT at December 19, 2003 11:40 AMDon’t be too overconfident.
First, you’re spending more than the democrats ever did, and are running a larger deficit than any so-called tax and spend democrat ever has. At least when we spend, we have the decency to ask for the money upfront. And it’s worse, because ostensibly, you’re the people who are trying to starve the beast.
Second, you have two unfinished wars going on, with no guarantees that we will be able to disengage in the near future. If either conflict flares up, we don’t have the resources without a draft to devote more troops to either campaign.
Third, Our chemical plants, ports, airports, and borders do not seem to be any more airtight than before, and you guys are not giving the cities the money to be able to deal with all the added expenses of homeland security. For now, you can claim that you guys are the party of defense and security, but how many deaf ears will those claims fall on if you fail to prevent the next major terrorist attack, or have left our society unable to deal with the damage of it?
If you’re speaking of political advantage, well, that’s always temporary. The democrats had both houses and the presidency at one point in the early nineties. Then you guys took over. You think fortunes can’t turn? Think again.
Oh, and about Schwarzennegger? Well, that nice little repeal that he did wasn’t without cost. That money was earmarked for police and firemen. You know, the Heroes? Of course we couldn’t have that, so he did a one-time budget slash. this is a quote from the CNN site:
“… a half-percent decrease in funding for the University of California and California State University systems, closing a migrant farmworker housing center, less money for the Department of Motor Vehicles and a $91 million cut to programs aimed at helping welfare recipients return to the work force.”
Although many are behind this move now, the trick is, he can’t do this again. What happens when budget time comes around next year?
What’s the federal government going to do?
Anybody care to explain this? Look at Frontline’s “The Man Who Knew”
“White House press secretary Scott McClellan said he reviewed the CBS report and did not believe Kean leveled accusations against the Bush administration.
‘There is nothing that we have seen that leads us to believe that September 11 could have been prevented,’ McClellan said.
Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, was appointed by Bush to lead the bipartisan commission.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 19, 2003 12:19 PMJoe Stewart, your question is a good one. While I cannot speak for Gillespie, it would appear from recent news stories that the elitism he refers to harkens to the fact that Democrats now rival Republicans in having secured Millionaire Plus donors. However, that is the pot calling the kettle black, isn’t it.
The other interpretation may stem from the education level, as you suggest. I read that a liberal education which is what a college education was commonly referred to, does have a liberal influence on graduates. Now the word liberal regarding education did not refer to politics, it referred to a generalized education with a liberal menu of courses across all the disciplines. A BA would result in a student having been educated at the introductory level in math, science, history, language arts, fine art, etc., and a more focused and in depth education in the area of their declared major.
A recent study reports that the less educated Americans are now Republican. A complete reversal of what used to be a Democratic stronghold. Thus the elitism the Chairman refers may also denote the shift of higher degreed individuals shifting to the Democratic Party and representing the intellectual elite.
Posted by: David R Remer at December 20, 2003 03:41 PM>>A recent study reports that the less educated Americans are now Republican. A complete reversal of what used to be a Democratic stronghold. Thus the elitism the Chairman refers may also denote the shift of higher degreed individuals shifting to the Democratic Party and representing the intellectual elite.
The key word here is “intellectual.” That refers to a large degree to the liberal-left or even neo-marxist PhD/Masters educational community that doesn’t have a clue how things really work. There are ways to educate one’s self that needn’t include the liberal-left indoctrination in so many of our colleges and universities.
The fact is that Republican voters are more financially successful and more politically informed than are Democratic voters.
For example, other than minorities, the demographic group that most strongly supports the Democratic party is HIGH-SCHOOL DROPOUTS. That’s from David Broder, if you question it.
It never ceases to amaze me what utter nonsense and outright dishonest Democratic primary voters will swallow from their candidiates.
I am a 12 year old future member of the RNC. I listen to Sean Hannity and watch Bill O’Reilly constantly. I can’t believe that the man posted above said that Democrats are more educated. That is BS. If democrats are more educated, and the Republicans are kicking back because they’re rich, than how are the Democrats more educated. Obviously it was education which got the rich man where he is today. Think about that joe stewart( the man that wrote that they’re more educated). Comment deleted for Critiquing the Messenger - Watchblog Manager
Posted by: Kevin Maxwell at March 19, 2004 08:27 PMThe goal of a higher education is not to make money. It is to enlighten. One does not lead to the other, as the enlightened one may realize that there is much more to life than collecting green paper.
Posted by: Brian Corbett at May 31, 2004 09:49 AMI dont really have a party affiliation or partisan stance, but I want to comment on Richard Clements post. “High school dropouts” might very well be very often democrat, but most of the uneducated, rascist, homophobic, gun-crazy, baby-breeding, hyper-christian, speed freak, neo-nazi, wife beating, trailer trash that I have been exposed to are vehemently and boastfully republican. And there are an awful lot of them. Just look at the south. My only point is that there are complete morons on both side of the fence, so don’t use vague statistics to demonize each other.
Posted by: Kyle Dickey at July 30, 2004 05:03 PM
