Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>
Not that you got them all. >> ALLEN: ...and before that he had been chairman
of the Republican National Committee, and it's true you had--you started on Capitol
Hill in a very unusual way. >> GILLESPIE: I was a Senate parking lot attendant.
I parked cars for the Senate staff. >> ALLEN: Honest work on Capitol Hill.
>> GILLESPIE: Yes. And then that led into an internship. I also--my first job at the
RNC was I was a phoner in the basement in one of those little cubicles. I called people
at home and bothered them for money for the Republican Party. And 18 years later, I was
chairman in the--on the top floor calling people at home and bothering them for money
for the Republican Party, so it was good experience. >> ALLEN: Were you good at it?
>> GILLESPIE: I was pretty good at it. Yeah. >> ALLEN: Like what was the typical ask in
those days? >> GILLESPIE: Well, in those days, it was,
you know, to make sure that we got more Republicans to help support President Reagan's agenda.
And so--but, you know, the nature of it doesn't really change. I will say that I over time
tapped on more zeros which was good in the ask.
>> ALLEN: So what's the typical ask for you these days?
>> GILLESPIE: It varies. There's no such thing as a typical ask these days but I'm asking
quite a bit for trying to help the Republican State Leadership Committee to elect state
house and senate candidates around the country which I think is very important to...
>> ALLEN: And also reaching on governor--attorney general...
>> GILLESPIE: Attorney general--the RGA--you know, the governors are pretty well covered.
Governor Barbour's, you know, done a fantastic job at the RGA and the folks there. The Republican
Leadership Committee has everything down ballot in the state election essentially from lieutenant
governor, attorney general, secretary of state, and state house and senate candidates, and
it's a very good year out there for--you know, for us for that, too.
>> ALLEN: Okay then, let's do a quick walk through your other hats. You're a founder
of Resurgent Republic. >> GILLESPIE: Correct, which is a set of right
organization that was modeled directly on democracy core that James Carville and Stan
Greenberg had set up on the left does of--they have done a very good job for a decade now
of gauging public perceptions and public opinion relative to the--to the policy debate going
on in Washington around the country, and I thought, you know, we need to learn take a
page from their playbook and set that up along with a number of other folks with [INDISTINCT]
a very good pollster in the party as well as a number of other pollsters on the conservative
side. >> ALLEN: So you take polls and then what
do you do with them? >> GILLESPIE: We analyze them where everything--every
question we ask, we make public. Put it on resurgentrepublic.com and make all the findings
available on the Internet and we do an analysis of what we're seeing where Resurgent Republic
is going to be the first to spot the move away from President Obama by independent voters.
That was really back in April of last year. Gallup picked it up in June but we've been
tracking those independent voters over the course for the past--since Resurgent Republic
launched last April. >> ALLEN: Okay. And then a third big hat is
your role in helping to start American Action Network, American Crossroads. Could you just
explain those and your role in them? >> GILLESPIE: Well, the--I don't want to overstate
it because other folks have done a lot more than I have in that regard. American Action
Network was started by Norm Coleman and Fred Malek and others, and they do a fantastic
job there, Rob Collins runs it. Doug Holtz-Eakin does the American Action Forum, and that's
by and largely on Center for American Progress which has been very effective again on the
Left in helping to, you know, formulate ideas and promote ideas from a--from a more liberal
side of the equation. This does it from the more conservative side of the equation. And
then the American Crossroads and American Crossroads GPS is a group that I've helped
to launch along with Karl Rove to offset much of the activity on the Left side, you know,
MoveOn.org, moving America forward, AFL-CIO and CIU to try to compete in the--in the political
arena in a way that on the right, we really haven't for--since McCain-Feingold.
>> ALLEN: Now, what gave you the idea of trying to build a network like this to duplicate
what Democrats successfully did while they were out of power?
>> GILLESPIE: What Democrats successfully did while they were out of power? They were
very good at adapting to McCain-Feingold and, you know, kind of bringing together some institutions
that, you know, helped them become more competitive over time and reinvigorated them. And I thought,
you know, with us losing control of the House, the senate, and the White House that it was
time for Conservatives and Republicans to take a look at that infrastructure that the
Left had assembled over the course of time and see if there were some things they were
doing that we ought to be doing and we're not. And some of the things we just talked
about were--are a number of those. >> ALLEN: Okay. All right. We know your hats
now. Let's take a look a little tour of the landscape. Let's start at how bullish are
you about Republican's chances on November 2nd?
>> GILLESPIE: Very, and it's hard to see, you know, with, you know, just a little over
a month to go how the dynamic can really change in any significant matter. But as I've been
traveling the country and talking to state house and state senate candidates, and really
seeing the ground game that's going on out there, the energy is really strong on the
Republican side. And, you know, I said this when I was--I volunteered as general chairman
for Bob McDonnell's campaign for Governor of Virginia, and I was saying back in, you
know, 2009, the most dangerous place to be in Virginia on election day is between a Republican
and a voting booth, and that's going to be the case this November. The most dangerous
place to be on Election Day is between a Republican and a voting booth. Our folks are very fired
up, very energized in coming in those independents that we just talked about. They're going to
be there in big numbers as well and they're going to vote to try to put a check on President
Obama and his administration and bend to make changes to the Pelosi-Reid Congress.
>> ALLEN: Okay. Now the Republicans would need 10 seats to take the Senate, what do
you think is the range of what's possible in your side?
>> GILLESPIE: I think we're at 68. And--but I also think it's an Election Day where who
knows, you know, what's going to happen at the end of the day. There's--I don't think
there's any... >> ALLEN: So you're skeptical of the idea
that Republicans would take the Senate. >> GILLESPIE: I don't envision the Republicans
taking the Senate right now but I don't rule it out. I think that this is an environment
and I don't think there's any such thing as a safe Democratic seat. I think we're seeing
that right now in West Virginia among other places, maybe even New York. I mean, I think
there's a lot going on, on the ground right now that it would not--I would not be surprised
to see Republicans in control of the Senate. >> ALLEN: Okay. So, what are your 9, 10, 11,
12, what--what are the ones that look out of reach that you could imagine coming at
range? >> GILLESPIE: Well, I mean, I don't think
that--first of all, I start with a--I'm--I believe we will hold all of our opens and
then I think we're going to pick up a number of democratic opens as well. Certainly, North
Dakota, Ohio--[INDISTINCT] that's one of our opens, I'm sorry. But when you look around
at some of the other seats that I think are in play today that maybe, you know, six months
ago people wouldn't say, "Well, we, you know, Republicans may be able to win on Election
Day, obviously, California, Wisconsin, Connecticut, West Virginia--all, you know, very much."
I'm sure I'm leaving folks out right now, but I think there's a very good chance that
we could be at eight or nine. >> ALLEN: So, we are going to start to see
Republican money moving from--to West Virginia and moving to Connecticut?
>> GILLESPIE: Well, some--I've read somewhere that the Senatorial Committee have put down
a buy in West Virginia. So, I think you're already starting to see that.
>> ALLEN: So, are you--is your organization starting to look at broadening the field?
>> GILLESPIE: Again, my--just to be clear, my organization is the Republican State Leadership
and we're broadening the field all over the place in terms of the State House and Senate
races. I think we're going to win probably we're going to net 10 legislative chambers
around the country heavily concentrated in the Great Lakes, and that's very important
to us in terms of redistricting us, you know. So, any gains that we make in the U.S. House
in this election--we haven't talked about the U.S. House; I think we're going to win
the U.S. House. We'll be able to have a pretty big impact in redistricting the way that helps
protect the gains that we make in this election in 2010.
>> ALLEN: Okay. Now, let's set the scene on redistricting. How many State Houses, how
many chambers do Republicans hold now? >> GILLESPIE: That's a trick question, Mike.
I should know that and I don't, but I know that...
>> ALLEN: But what does the net 10 do for you? Talk about what the impact of that would
be. >> GILLESPIE: Well, the net 10 would be--if
you look at somewhere we're like, again, talking about the Great Lakes, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Indiana, Michigan, maybe even Illinois, we could win the State Houses in all of those
states, the Wisconsin State Senate we could win, and in the New York State Senate. If
you look at New York, we could win, you know, six to eight U.S. House seats in New York
depending on what kind of a night it is. Pennsylvania, three or four, Ohio three or four, Indiana
three or four. So, having control of the State Houses in the redistricting process in those
states would be pretty important to keeping those.
>> ALLEN: Now, we're talking about the redistricting process and that sounds a little abstract.
What in very, like, specific mechanical terms can you do if you control State House when
you go to draw these maps? >> GILLESPIE: Well, the--there's redistricting
committees in most of the State Legislators. There are some places where there's redistricting
done by commission. Some places, the governor has a veto authority, some, they don't. But
in most states, the Congressional District Alliance as well as the State House and the
State Senate lines are drawn by the state legislators. And having the pen in your hand
by--because you have the majority being the chairman of that committee makes a big difference.
And so, in these states that we're talking about, being able to draw the district lines
in a way that is, you know, more favorable toward your party, which is done on both sides
of the aisle, can have an impact for a five election cycles for a decade.
>> ALLEN: And Ed, how much money do you expect the Republican State Leadership Committee
will spend this cycle? >> GILLESPIE: I think this--probably for this
cycle, we're probably doing it on 30 million. I think, you know, we'll probably spend somewhere
between $15 to $18 million from Labor Day through Election Day.
>> ALLEN: And what was it in the '08 cycle? >> GILLESPIE: Probably about 22, so about
a 50% increase. >> ALLEN: And is it an equivalent organization
on the democratic side? >> GILLESPIE: There's a Democratic Legislative
Campaign Committee which is responsible for their State House and Senate. RSLC also houses--we
have the Republican Training General Association, Secretary of State Association, as well as
the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee. >> ALLEN: You have quite an empire.
>> GILLESPIE: On their side, they're broken up a little bit more and they have different,
you know, we're--as I say, we have a mall here, we're, you know, [INDISTINCT] and the
RLSC and Secretary of State Association are kind of housed.
>> ALLEN: And in your spare time, you do the Catholic University Board you say?
>> GILLESPIE: I'm--I've just ducked out of a Catholic University of an American Board
of Trustees meeting where I serve on the Board Of Trustees and my alma mater and--but I wanted
to come and spend a little time with you. >> ALLEN: Okay. As we end the landscape here,
let's talk about the House. You said that you'd win the House, you would need 39 pick-ups.
What do you expect? >> GILLESPIE: I think we're looking at 45
and north of 45, depending on you know, how much things continue to build between now
and November. But I would say, you know, a minimum of a 45 seat pick-up.
>> ALLEN: Okay. North of 45, what's the ceiling? >> GILLESPIE: Hey, you know what? You get
north of 45, it's hard to say. I mean, it's a dam break at that point and...
>> ALLEN: And do you foresee a potential dam break on November 2nd and coming up to it?
>> GILLESPIE: Yeah, I think they're--I think so. I mean, you just look at the, you know,
all of a sudden, you know, seats that are coming into play that I think people weren't,
you know, necessarily counting on being in play. And like I say there is--you know, I
don't think there's any such thing as a safe Democrat today. So, you know, in any election--I
remember working for Haley Barbour in--after the '94 cycle and he would talk about Congressman
Flotsam and Congressman Jetsam who washed up in the, you know, the tidal wave, and I
suspect we'll see a few of those--of the--Wednesday after the election in November.
>> ALLEN: Okay. Now, Ed, YouTube and Podico took questions online through Google Moderator.
I have one of those questions here. This is from dukewinner123 in New York. The question
is, "The boundless expansion of online communications has caused media to generally become partisan
towards the left or the right. How has media partisanship affected midterm races this year
and what effects can we expect between now and November 2nd?"
>> GILLESPIE: Well, it's kind of interesting, you know, they're--the media--when you're
[INDISTINCT] large does go through cycles. There was a, you know, a time in our history
when, you know, the newspapers--the major dailies pick a side, and you had the Waterbury
Republican and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, and everybody knew, and then--and then it
became part of the ethos that--journalist are going to be subjective and not, you know,
pick a side. You can argue how effective they were at that one way or the other but I think
it's pretty clear now that folks are--certainly on--in the online community, you know, people
are picking a side and they're--and voters, I think, have access to obviously a lot of
information. Voters are smart; I, you know, put a lot of faith in them. They filter out,
you know, bad information. They go to places even if they know that there has, you know,
there's a certain ideological slant to it. I like--I'm sure everyone else here, I go
check out, you know, a number of websites in the course of a day and in the morning,
and they're not all ones that are reinforcing of my point of view. Many of them are--have
a different take but I like to see what, you know, what's out there and, you know, there's
credible information, there's not credible information. There's information on the left,
there's information from the right, and there's not credible information on the left and not
credible information on the right, and credible information on the left, credible information
on the right. I think it's been a positive thing in terms of the--generally, the political
process. I do think it's probably contributed to greater polarization in the political process
but, you know, that's not necessarily a bad thing either. I mean, if--there's a reason
there are two parties; people disagree and I think we can do that civilly. But in terms
of the internet and its impact, I think it's generally been hugely positive and beneficial
to voters. And they've given people, you know, greater breath of information and places to
go to get it. >> ALLEN: All right. And the 2004 Presidential
Election when President Bush was running against Senator Kerry, your side had the technological
advantage. Your focus on micro-targeting really put you ahead and later the Democrats copied
that. >> GILLESPIE: Yeah.
>> ALLEN: In 2008, they seemed to get the upper hand in technology. How did that happen?
>> GILLESPIE: It's the nature of politics. You know, things leapfrog and the other side,
you know, you have to adapt, and react, and then you move ahead, and we've seen that time
and time again in the--in the political arena. I think we're seeing it now. I mean, if you,
you know, we talked a little bit about the--some of the groups on the--on the right that we
talked about. You know, in 2008, those who supported President Obama and his election
and down-ballot from him beginning with the Obama campaign to the DNC and to the AFL-CIO
and SCIU and other, you know, [INDISTINCT] organizations, they spent $1.1 billion in
expenditures to help elect President Obama. And people who supported his point of view,
on the conservative side, there was only $634 million spent by the McCain Campaign and the
RNC and folks that supported that point of view. So a $500 million gap had, you know,
come about over three cycles after McCain-Feingold. That's now, you know, that pendulum maybe
swinging back the other way, so you have to adapt to the changed circumstances or you're
not going to, you know, be able to be competitive and be a majority party. So I believe that
we are in a position to reclaim our majority status but we need to adapt technologically
and to the process in order to do that, and, you know, the Democrats will respond accordingly.
>> ALLEN: Now, when you look outside the party structure at the money that's going into these
elections, there--clearly, there's a lot more on your side this fall than there is on the
other side. Why do you think that is? >> GILLESPIE: Well, it reflects being on the
outside. And that, you know, we saw that dynamic on the left when President Bush was in the
White House for eight years. You know, people get--the intensity tends to be on the side
of the folks who are out. When you're--when you're in, you know, there's contentment and,
you know, you actually get frustrated with your own side for not doing the things you
think they ought to be doing and we're seeing that on the left now, but on the right, it's
a lot easier to be unified as its case on the left. It's always easier to be unified
in opposition to something than trying to get something done.
>> ALLEN: Okay. We have another question that came in through Google Moderator. This is
once again from Gary Kubiak in Chicago, so he wins the prize. He asks, "What effect will
Jon Stewart's rally have on Election Day?" >> GILLESPIE: You know, I'm not sure. I don't
think a significant effect. I think that, you know, Jon Stewart's show obviously people--a
lot of people get a lot of information from it and--but I'm not sure at the end of the
day how much of an impact it's going to have on Election Day.
>> ALLEN: David Axelrod was on this stage when he said that on benefit, he believed
that it would--that the unbalance will benefit his side because it would get people excited.
Again, that's what they need for the reasons you've been talking about. He said the only--so
a draw back is that it may take people away from working turnout efforts, [INDISTINCT]
it on balance; it helps them. Do you agree with that?
>> GILLESPIE: I'm just not so sure. I can understand him thinking that. I mean, I--but
I'm not so sure it's going to have a significant effect given that the dynamics of this election
that we're looking at right now. >> ALLEN: Now--and at this point, what do
you worry about? What could go wrong for your side?
>> GILLESPIE: Well, I worry about intensity weighing although I don't see it and I think
actually as President Obama and the Democrats seemed to kind of double-down in trying to
energize core democratic voters. There's a flip side of that which is it continues to
stoke core Republican voters in response to that. So, I think they've--they'll fix that
concern on my part, themselves. >> ALLEN: So the President's going out. He's
doing some big rallies. He has one tomorrow in Wisconsin where they say he could get five
to ten thousand people. You believe that's going to help your side?
>> GILLESPIE: I do. Yeah. I--you know, the President unfortunately, and I think--you
know, I don't know at what point he changed from, you know, post-partisan to most partisan
but the, you know, he--I've never seen a President of the United States, on either side of the
aisle, engage into kind of, you know, personal attacks against people in Congress on the
other side of aisle the way President Obama has chosen to do. I don't think it's--I don't
think it's-one, I don't think it's good for the presidency; but, two, I'm not sure--I
don't think it's politically effective for them.
>> ALLEN: Okay. All right, if you--if you were him--if you were his counselor, what
would you be advising him? >> GILLESPIE: I'd say make, you know, talk
about the issues. Talk about the, you know--you know, make a case for your healthcare bill.
Make a case for your stimulus plan and try to get, you know, folks to understand that
why you think that it's better than the alternative. But, the, you know, the kind of the personal
screeds and attacks against leaders, you know, by name Republican leaders in Congress. I
think, you know, it's like nails on a chalkboard to a lot of Republicans but it also alienates
a lot of independent voters. That's not changing the tone. I mean, well they're changing the
tones, making it worse. So, I think that when he goes out there and he stumps, I'm sure
it has some short-term energizing effect for core democratic voters, but I can assure you
it has a very energizing long-term effect on conservatives and independents and drives
them for--drives independence further into Republican arms.
>> ALLEN: Now, the president himself has started talking about the House minority leader, the
Republican leader, John Boehner... >> GILLESPIE: Right.
>> ALLEN: ...who would be Speaker Boehner if Republicans get the majority. What do you
think was in their mind? What do you think is their strategy with that?
>> GILLESPIE: I don't know. I mean, you know, I think it's...
>> ALLEN: Well--well--well, what a [INDISTINCT] is if you build him up, then you can attack
him or take him down, make him the face of the Republican Party, is that working?
>> GILLESPIE: I think he ought to send--I think John Boehner ought to send the president
a box of chocolates and say, "Thank you because I've, you know, you help me buy this box of
chocolates as well as a number of other things I was, you know, ads as I was able to buy.
And, you know, thanks for elevating the minority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives
in a way that's never been done before in the history of the republic. And thanks for
coming on down to my level." So, I've--I don't--I'm at a loss. Other than that, I think when you're,
you know, when you've got a raging river coming at you, you'll try to grab for any branch
to try to pull yourself out of that, you know, being swept away. And I think--the nearest
I can tell they pivoted away from that to another strategy, so.
>> ALLEN: Now, the donors to a number of these groups--because of the tax laws under which
they're organized, do not have to be disclosed. David Axelrod said that we should you ask
you a question, which I'm going to ask you now and that is, that if these people are
so--invest in the process, like if these groups are so valuable at the process, why not disclose
who the money comes from? >> GILLESPIE: Well, first of all, again, my
organization, the Republican State Leadership Committee, we disclose our donors. It's a
527 and we have 85,000 individual donors and they're happy to be disclosed and...
>> ALLEN: But the big money on the outside including American Crossroads GPS does not
have to be...? >> GILLESPIE: There are--American Crossroads
has a 527 that does disclose, there's some c4 that does not disclose. As is the case
on the left, the Center for American Progress and their ads that they run or, you know,
their donors aren't disclosed and, you know, the bill that Chuck Schumer and Van Hollen,
you know, have introduced as I understand would exempt the AFL-CIO from disclosing,
so... >> ALLEN: But if I'm a voter...
>> GILLESPIE: Yeah. >> ALLEN: ...like don't I want to know who's
buying those ads? >> GILLESPIE: Well, let me--let me, I just--I
was just trying--just trying to point out that there are geese and there are ganders.
And you know, both sides have organizations that disclose and both sides have organizations
that don't disclose. >> ALLEN: Sure. But let's come back--let's
talk about what... >> GILLESPIE: And historically on the left,
they have had a big advantage on those non-disclosed donors, and this changed the cycles. So now,
we got a bill to try to change it back. >> ALLEN: Okay. But let's talk about both
sides? Like what... >> GILLESPIE: But, let me--so let me just
say why would a donor give and not want to be disclosed? A couple of reasons; one, if
you look at the history of donors on the right who have given to certain causes or organizations,
they've been subject to, you know, some pretty vicious attacks from the organized left. There
are people who were--gave to a referendum out in California who were--got flooded with
emails, pretty nasty in nature and had their jobs threatened. You saw what happened when
Target supported a candidate for governor in Minnesota and then all of a sudden the
organized left, went after Target. And the fact is a lot of these folks who are opposed
to more government to control of our economy and more government intervention in our economy
are already subject to a great deal of government control and government intervention and regulation
in the economy and there's fear of retribution. There is a fear that, well, if I give to this
organization and those who are in control and in power and who seek to further government
control of my, you know, of my sector, or my company or my own personal lives, they'll
come after me. Now, that's, you know, I don't think paranoia on their part. They're not
really paranoid when they're really out to get you. And the fact is that there are, unfortunately,
instances--I mean, we just saw just recently. The news report of a democratic member of
Congress calling up a company and saying, "Hey, I noticed that you weren't on my donor
form. You haven't given any money to me, but I've seen you've given some other members
of my committee and I have a lot of say over the business in your sector." That kind of
thing--I know it's shocking, but it happens. And believe me, it happens when you show up
as a conservative somewhere, you'll hear from somebody saying, "Oh, jeez, I've--I see you
don't necessarily agree with my agenda. Maybe I'm going to have to change the nature of
the way your business is regulated." >> ALLEN: Okay, but just talked about these
big, undisclosed checks. Do you wonder--do you worry that these could get out of hand?
That something could happen then in retrospect we'll say, "Okay that was corrupt?"
>> GILLESPIE: Well, I guess there's always that possibility and the media I'm sure would
do a very good job of scrutinizing both sides, on the left and the right.
>> ALLEN: You're partly responsible for it, does it worry...?
>> GILLESPIE: Like when the 500 billion--$500 million window opened up between the left
and the right and there wasn't much consternation about it at that time, but I'm sure now that
the right has evened the playing field a little bit, there will be much more interest in this
on this front and so... >> ALLEN: So, do you think that you're being
held to a standard that you think is inappropriate? >> GILLESPIE: Let me--let me posit this. Here's
a--here's a--I think it's a different standard that's applied today that was...
>> ALLEN: And what is the difference? >> GILLESPIE: That there are conservative
groups now engaged in something--liberal groups have been doing for three cycles is the difference.
And that was--I had welcomed New York Times to your interest in this, you know, in this
area. But look, there's a flip side by the way in terms of those non-disclosed donors,
which is that if you're non-disclosed and it's not just that you're protected from,
you know, being fearful of retribution possibly from those who are in control and, you know,
don't appreciate you supporting, you know, those who don't share their point of view
while they're in power. At the same time, you know, the beneficiaries of it don't have
any idea who is participating in the process either, so maybe there's a virtue that's not
often noted. >> ALLEN: All right, we have a question from
Google Moderator that came in online. This is from pgunn01 and they ask, "How many of
the issues that are big in this campaign were clear back in '08? How many of these issues
rose spontaneously? How many of these issues could you see coming?"
>> GILLESPIE: Well, the biggest that was, I think, starting to become clear in '08 is
the economy and the concern over jobs and, you know, the economic growth of the country
and the financial markets, and that's still very, you know, prevalent today. So actually,
I think to a--to large extent to all--and, you know, national security was an issue in
'08, but nearly as much as it was in '06. But clearly, from '08 going forward, the economy
has been the dominant issue set and remains the most dominant issue set going into this
November. >> ALLEN: And Arianna asked me a question
on the way in here. She wondered if we're now in a cycle where incumbents will never
last, that the anger will always be turned into whoever is there. So if we get a Republican
in, like, the Tea Party will turn on them. >> GILLESPIE: I think, you know, it's hard
to extrapolate out from one cycle, you know, down the line. Every cycle has it's own, you
know, attributes. There's clearly an anti-Washington, anti-establishment strong strain in the electorate
right now. I think that's understandable. I think that accrues to Republican benefit
in a big, big way this year. But if Republicans--if I'm right and Republicans win control of the
House, and we're not responsive to the--to what those voters are looking for in a new
Republican majority, we'll be next and there's no doubt. I think that the--and this may tie
in to the earlier question, the previous question about the impact of the new media and the
internet. You know, the cycles have accelerated. These way of elections used to, you know,
be every 40 years and every 20 years and every 10 years, and now, they're like, every four
years. And you know, there's no doubt that that's a contributing factor to it, but I
don't--I wouldn't project a straight line out from this election year and say, going
forward. I think, you know, this administration has been extraordinary in the, you know, breadth
and depth of government intervention in our economy and that's what's really fuelled this
anti-Washington sentiment out there. And so I'm--you know, if that--if the result of that
is a change in control of the House and the result of that is that President Obama then
moves to the--more to the center in the way Bill Clinton did after losing the House in
'94, that may, you know, that could change the dynamic considerably.
>> ALLEN: Now, if Republicans get the Houses, you are predicting here that they will--the
speaker will be John Boehner of Ohio. Now, we know Boehner's history has not been as
a bomb thrower and yet, he's going to have a lot of, like, very aggressive, emboldened
members in his caucus. How do you navigate that.
>> GILLESPIE: Well, he's a--he's a very skillful leader and, you know, he's someone I have
a lot of respect for and admiration for, but I don't think you have to be a bomb-thrower.
He's also a conservative. You know, this is a guy who's been in congress for over 20 years
and has never sought an earmark for his district, who's got a pretty good record when it comes
to taxes and spending and fiscal policy as well as life. And you know, pretty much--I
mean, I don't know off the top of my head but I'd say, you know, John Boehner's ACU
has to be 90 or north of it. I mean, so he's a, you know, he's a conservative and that's
what matters most is are you going to adhere to the principles and the policies that we
believe in as a party, as a leader of the House of Republicans. I believe he will and
I don't think you have to throw bombs to do that.
>> ALLEN: So, do you think he should work with the White House?
>> GILLESPIE: I think we're--if there are opportunities to work with the White House,
where, like I said, the President is willing to work in an accommodating fashion with,
hopefully, Speaker Boehner, which I--you know, it's hard to think they're going to get off
on a great foot given where the President's--what the President has been saying over the past,
you know, few weeks, but... >> ALLEN: Well, it's been mutual.
>> GILLESPIE: Did John Boehner attack the President of the United States personally?
>> ALLEN: There have plenty--there have been plenty of...
>> GILLESPIE: I missed it--I missed it if he did.
>> ALLEN: There's been plenty of tough [INDISTINCT] about President Obama from your side.
>> GILLESPIE: His policies. I mean, I think there's a--you know, I think there's a distinction
here that's important in the political arena. So all that to say if there are some areas
where there is, you know, a chance to work, for example, in free-trade agreement. I think
that there would be, you know, that's--that may be an area where a Republican House and
a narrowly divided Democratic Senate and President Obama could find some, you know, common ground
and accommodation. Maybe even on entitlement reform if the President were to try to tack
back toward the middle a little bit in response to the signal from this election, that would
be an area where I think that--I think they'd find some common ground.
>> ALLEN: So do you think your side would be willing to give some ground on entitlement
reforms, for instance, if the President were to accept some clear, long-term spending cuts,
would your side be willing to accept tax increases? >> GILLESPIE: I don't think the remaining
Republicans out there will end up saying, "Vote for me and I'll increase taxes if I
get to Washington." >> ALLEN: Well, would you--you were--you were
suggesting that in a governing mode, like, they might be able to make some sort of deal.
>> GILLESPIE: Well, what I was suggesting was if you were going to do entitlement reform,
look--and I'll leave this to the policy makers, but to me, entitlement reform means getting
control of the spending that's going on in Washington. And I'm not sure that there's
a revenue problem right now. I think there's a spending problem right now, but, you know,
that's a debate to be had for a--if there's a Republican House and a--and a Democratic
president, I'm sure. >> ALLEN: So, say that you have a Republican
House, a Democratic White House, Democratic Senate. What would House Republicans be able
to do? >> GILLESPIE: Well, again, I think there's--trade
is an area where you could get some things done and I think--look, at the end of the
day, you have to fund the government and we say this with--when President Bush--we had
a Republican White House and a Democratic Congress. I was there for, you know, negotiating
the budget with President Bush and speaker Pelosi and the Democrats on the senate side,
and, you know, we were able to get, you know, accommodation on the budget and nobody got
everything they wanted but we're able to, you know, to move forward.
>> ALLEN: How aggressive do you think House Republicans if they become majority should
be on subpoenas on investigating the White House?
>> GILLESPIE: You know, I don't think that's what people are electing Republicans to do.
I think they are electing Republicans to try to put the brakes on spending and make sure
that we get our fiscal house in order, we don't double the debt over 5 years and triple
it over 10. But there's obviously a legitimate oversight role for the Congress and it's an
important one to insure that taxpayers money is being spent properly, that things are being
done in and that, you know, that the laws are being implemented as Congress passed and
that's certainly a legitimate function of the legislative branch but I don't think that
Republicans should be too sidetracked by that, I think that the focus needs to be on policy
and spending in taxes and getting jobs going in the country again.
>> ALLEN: How much of an opportunity do you think there is for your party in 2012, how
vulnerable do you think the President's reelections is?
>> GILLESPIE: Well, I think he's very vulnerable right now but, you know, 2012 is a lifetime
away in politics and that pendulum can swing. I think a lot of it depends on how does he
react to the, you know, the change dynamic after this election. President Clinton was
able to adopt because I think voters saw him as, you know, someone who would move too far
left and he was able to come back to the center as, you know, because he was a new Democrat,
and third way. And I'd, you know, be interested to see if President Obama can do that because
he did not campaign that way and I'm not sure that's, you know, how he feels about things.
But that said, you know, pendulum swing in politics, you know, 18 months ago, a few people
would think that there would be a legitimate discussion here today about the prospect of
Speaker Boehner like we'd just had. So I think that he--right now, I would say he is very
vulnerable to defeat in 2012 but I would also say it's right now, and that could change.
>> ALLEN: Now, what potential candidates on your side look strong?
>> GILLESPIE: Well, I think we're going to have a great field. I mean, I'm excited about
it. And I--you know, this is always, you know, a tough question because you end up, you know,
making somebody mad for mentioning him or not mentioning him but obviously, you know,
we've got a lot of the governors and former governors out there...
>> ALLEN: Well, take through the--what you see the field is. What do you think is strong?
>> GILLESPIE: No, I mean--you know, I see Governor Romney, Governor Pawlenty, Governor
Palin, whether or not Governor Barbour or Governor Daniels get in, but a lot of talk
about them out of the Senate. You know, Senator Thune, maybe Senator DeMint, former Speaker
Gingrich, former Senator Santorum. I mean, there's a--you know, I think a big field is
good for Republicans and there, you know, there could be folks who get elected now who
could all of a sudden, you know, be in play in this November. We have a very interesting
field of governors getting elected. I wouldn't encourage any of them to get elected governor
of your state and then say I'm going to run for president but, you know, I think there'll
be a lot new faces and a lot of new people. >> ALLEN: Like who's--who is the dark horse
right now? Who's on that list? Who's that--who would you...?
>> GILLESPIE: Well, I mean, I think when you--when you look at--I mean, you know, some of the--I
mean, we're going to have, you know, some--in women governors that I think, you know, actually
could end up on a--on a short list. I mean, if--for vice president certainly. So I don't
know. You know, I don't want to get anybody in trouble, you know, who's running and, you
know, to get elected governor somewhere and then I'm throwing out they're name for--but
I just--all I'm saying is it's a very fluid situation on the Republicans side and I think
the party is at a point in time, we're very open to new ideas, new faces, new energy,
and I think that's good for us. That'll be helpful.
>> ALLEN: Now, one candidate on your side who's gotten a lot of attention is Christine
O'Donnell, the Republican nominee in Delaware. What do you make of her?
>> GILLESPIE: I think that she is a clear reflection of people's desire for change,
people's--in the Republican primary, you know, shaken things up. I hope she wins. I know
the poll number show that if Governor Castle, former Congressman Castle had been our nominee,
chances were better for Delaware, I don't dispute that, but I would also say that I
don't count that seed out at all and I think that Christine O'Donnell's been pretty effective
of late, and that, you know, it's--look--it's--there's--like I say, there's no such thing as a safe Democratic
seat in this election year, so. >> ALLEN: How damaging do you think those
video clips have been, of her? >> GILLESPIE: You know, I'm not sure--it's--this
environment is such where someone who's out there with a very clear resonant message that
if you send me to Washington, I'm going, you know, put the brakes on spending, I'm going
to make sure we don't raise taxes, I'm going to try and get control of this out of control
debt. I think that, you know, gets heard, you know, over and above, you know, 20-year-old
tapes about witchcraft. I really do. >> ALLEN: All right. As we say goodbye here,
David Axelrod told us about his iPad, what is your toy these days, Eddie?
>> GILLESPIE: Well, I have an iPad I have to say but I haven't--I haven't learned it
yet but I--my... >> ALLEN: You haven't learned it? What is
there to learn? >> GILLESPIE: ...goal is--how to turn it on
for one thing, so. >> ALLEN: The Google?
>> GILLESPIE: The Google. So I'm hoping to get a chance to learn that here when I [INDISTINCT].
>> ALLEN: What are--what are your devices? Like where do you--what do you use to get
news? >> GILLESPIE: I use--I go on--I just use my
laptop and my Blackberry; that's pretty much it.
>> ALLEN: And where do you go for news these days?
>> GILLESPIE: Well, certainly I go to Google and Politico.
>> ALLEN: Well, what's the [INDISTINCT]? >> GILLESPIE: You know, NRO and the Daily
Caller and on the other side, Huff Post and, you know, check out what's going on the Kos
and, you know, I'd like to see--because I like to read what's in the Daily Kos today
because I'd like to know what's going to be the New York Times tomorrow.
>> ALLEN: Ed Gillespie, thank you very much for sitting down with us. Take a break from
your board meeting. Thank you. >> It's a nice zinger there, Ed. Mike Allen,
Ed Gillespie, thank you both.