RNC Chair Gillepsie, Interviewed by Cavuto, Seeks to Set Record Straight on "Big Government" Charges

Fox News

[governsleastgovernsbest]

According to the Union-Leader, the conservative newspaper of Manchester, NH, in a recent meeting with the paper's editors RNC Chairman Gillespie "said in no uncertain terms that the days of Reaganesque Republican railings against the expansion of federal government are over. . . . No, today the Republican Party stands for giving the American people whatever the latest polls say they want."

Ever since, Gillespie has been trying to set the record straight and re-establish his image as a small-government Reagan conservative.

Gillespie's latest effort in this regard was his just-concluded interview with Neil Cavuto, host of the financially-oriented Your World show on Fox News.

Gillespie's basic message: I was misunderstood by the Union Leader. I am a true small-government conservative in the Reagan tradition. When I worked for Tom Delay, I was a big advocate of abolishing the Dept. of Education and other government programs. Unfortunately, we lost that fight, so instead we try to bring conservative principles to government programs.

He mentioned one interesting statistic: under Clinton, non-defense discretionary spending was increasing at an annual rate of 15%. Pres. Bush brought it down to 6% in his first budget, 5% in his second budget, and now to 2%.

I wasn't entirely buying Gillepsie's line that he had been misunderstood by the Union Leader, but it's certainly better that he is trying to back away from the reported comments rather than defending them.

[OldFriend]

Much ado about nothing.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Well, if Gillepsie did say what the Union-Leader claimed, and went on to defend it, I'd be very concerned. The fact that he is obviously scrambling hard to rectify the record is reassuring.

By the way, it seemed clear from Cavuto's statements that Gillepsie had requested the opportunity to appear. So obviously Gillepsie has been taking a lot of heat and is looking to reach out to conservatives to reassue them his heart is in the right place.

[OldFriend]

I continue to believe it's ridiculous and if certain conservatives are outraged.........well, tough noogies......

All this being offended about this is or that is a waste of time and effort.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

But surely if the RNC Chairman put out a very public, formal statement saying: "The Republican Party has changed. Now we stand for big government", you would be concerned.

[KantianBurke]

"Unfortunately, we lost that fight, so instead we try to bring conservative principles to government programs."

Conservatism and big govt programs are mutually exclusive. Saying "we're not spending as much if the Demorats were in power" is NOT an appropriate response.

[caisson71]

The good thing about all of this is the RNC has suffered some heat for appearing to stray from basic Republican positions. I think the Union-Leader did not report correctly. Good that they didn't, the RNC now reaffirms their position in small government.

[alwaysconservative]

He mentioned one interesting statistic: under Clinton, non-defense discretionary spending was increasing at an annual rate of 15%. Pres. Bush brought it down to 6% in his first budget, 5% in his second budget, and now to 2%.

Worth repeating for those who claim that Bush is a big spender.

[meenie]

Does the Medicare prescription drug benefit fit the 2% or is it off budget? Also the 87 billion emergency Iraq spending should be considered a part of discretionary spending. It is hard to convince me that Bush is a small time spender.

[inquest]

What exactly is "discretionary" spending?

[LibKill]

Only Rush can grant Gillespie absolution for his crime.

[alwaysconservative]

I wanted to give an accurate definition, so C-Span's Congressional Glossary says that discretionary spending is:

DISCRETIONARY SPENDING refers to spending set by annual appropriation levels made by decision of Congress. This spending is optional, and in contrast to entitlement programs for which funding is mandatory.

President Bush's budget, submitted to Congress for its approval, has reduced this optional spending level significantly. It does not include military or defense spending.

[alwaysconservative]

Gillespie specifically is referring to non-defense, or non-military optional spending as discretionary spending. I don't believe the medicare boondoggle falls under that either, because Medicare is an entitlement program, as is Social Security. The interesting thing is, I read (sorry, can't remember now where!) how partial privatization of Social Security would more than cover the increased costs of prescription drug benefits. I personally would like to see a means test inserted into the drug benefit program and think that's what the House Republicans are fighting for.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

Rush owes Gillespie an apology. Last week in an effort to prove his own theory of big government republicans taking over, Rush was skewering Gillespie with his quoted word for pushing big government, as Rush predicted. We should always believe the journalists printed quotes especially when they quote the right. What they hear and what they print are usually two different things. No matter, damage done.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

In fairness to Rush, the Union Leader is a very conservative newspaper, so this was not a case of the liberal media intentionally misquoting a conservative.

I tend to believe that the Union Leader's quote was essentially accurate, but that when Gillepsie saw the firestorm his comments created, he quickly backpedaled.

[cksharks]

It is hard to convince you about anything concerning Bush.

[inquest]

Interesting data, then. Certainly adds something new to the debate.

[meenie]

You could convince me very easily if I saw some conservative attitude toward spending. Eighty seven billion for Iraq amazes me. This is more than we ever spent in a year in Vietnam.

[wgeorge2001]

"I continue to believe it's ridiculous and if certain conservatives are outraged.........well, tough noogies......"


You must be a liberal rino, a seminar caller and writer; a man who loves big government is a foolish man, or a power mad thief . Take a hard look at how America has suffered and gone backwards in the last 40 plus years of liberalism; the school systems are collapsing and new buildings won't help as immorality is a sickness of the soul and mind; the judicial system is full of liberal terrorists that legislate from the bench, our economy always has to be fixed by conservatives after the liberals spend and tax and spend and tax and spend, America's children are turning into sex and drug crazed liberal kooks with no moral or mental foundation; the public schrewll system is run by communist liberals and money hungry teachers unions who send their children to private schools and consistently vote for money over children's educations, etc.,etc.,etc....

[Temple Owl]

When I worked for Tom Delay, I was a big advocate of abolishing the Dept. of Education and other government programs. Unfortunately, we lost that fight, so instead we try to bring conservative principles to government programs.

Don't stop now! let's get rid of the Jimmy Carter's and NEA's Department of Education. Let's go for vouchers.