Skip to comments.
RNC Chair Gillepsie, Interviewed by Cavuto, Seeks to Set Record Straight on "Big Government" Charges
Fox News
Posted on 09/08/2003 1:44:45 PM PDT by 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.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New Hampshire
KEYWORDS: cavuto; edgillespie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
To: governsleastgovernsbest
Much ado about nothing.
2
posted on
09/08/2003 1:51:24 PM PDT
by
OldFriend
((Dems inhabit a parallel universe))
To: OldFriend
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.
To: governsleastgovernsbest
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.
4
posted on
09/08/2003 1:57:00 PM PDT
by
OldFriend
((Dems inhabit a parallel universe))
To: OldFriend
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.
To: governsleastgovernsbest
"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.
6
posted on
09/08/2003 2:16:44 PM PDT
by
KantianBurke
(The Federal govt should be protecting us from terrorists, not handing out goodies)
To: governsleastgovernsbest
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.
7
posted on
09/08/2003 2:28:57 PM PDT
by
caisson71
To: governsleastgovernsbest
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.
8
posted on
09/08/2003 3:14:04 PM PDT
by
alwaysconservative
(Have YOU actually heard anybody answer the Verizon guy?)
To: alwaysconservative
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.
9
posted on
09/08/2003 3:31:17 PM PDT
by
meenie
To: alwaysconservative
What exactly is "discretionary" spending?
10
posted on
09/08/2003 3:36:45 PM PDT
by
inquest
(We are NOT the world)
To: governsleastgovernsbest
Only Rush can grant Gillespie absolution for his crime.
11
posted on
09/08/2003 3:56:36 PM PDT
by
LibKill
(Will club baby seals for the heck of it.)
To: inquest
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.
12
posted on
09/08/2003 4:49:06 PM PDT
by
alwaysconservative
(Have YOU actually heard anybody answer the Verizon guy?)
To: meenie
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.
13
posted on
09/08/2003 4:54:02 PM PDT
by
alwaysconservative
(Have YOU actually heard anybody answer the Verizon guy?)
To: LibKill
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.
14
posted on
09/08/2003 5:06:49 PM PDT
by
wingnuts'nbolts
(I agree with Dick Morris. Off with their heads! Let's start with the Clintons, all three of them.)
To: wingnuts'nbolts
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.
To: meenie
It is hard to convince you about anything concerning Bush.
16
posted on
09/08/2003 5:12:53 PM PDT
by
cksharks
To: alwaysconservative
Interesting data, then. Certainly adds something new to the debate.
17
posted on
09/08/2003 5:21:39 PM PDT
by
inquest
(We are NOT the world)
To: cksharks
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.
18
posted on
09/08/2003 5:35:20 PM PDT
by
meenie
To: OldFriend
"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....
19
posted on
09/08/2003 5:46:31 PM PDT
by
wgeorge2001
("The truth will set you free.")
To: governsleastgovernsbest
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.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson