Ed Gillespie

  • Aired:  12/08/11
  •  | Views: 11,016

Ed Gillespie has more hope for an Emerill Lagasse-moderated debate on the Food Network than for Donald Trump's Newsmax ION debate. (7:50)

>> Jon: WELCOME BACK.

MY GUEST TONIGHT, REPUBLICAN

STRATEGIST, FORMER CHAIR OF

THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL

COMMITTEE PLEASE WELCOME

BACK TO THIS PROGRAM ED ED

GILLESPIE.

SIR!

NICE TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

>> GOOD TO SEE YOU.

THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE)

>> Jon: HOW ARE YOU?

>> I'M GOOD, THANKS, HOW ARE

YOU?

>> Jon: THESE ARE BUSY TIMES

I WOULD IMAGINE.

>> THEY ARE VERY INTERESTING

TIMES IF YOU ARE A

REPUBLICAN WATCHING THE

PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY.

IT'S EXCITING.

>> Jon: YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE

COME OUT, ARE YOU PARTNERED

WITH KARL ROVE IN THIS CROSS

WARDS.

AND KARL HAS COME OUT AND HE

HAS SAID THAT THIS TRUMP

DEBATE OVER THE HOLIDAYS

SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE.

DO AGREE WITH THAT?

>> I WOULD-- THE WAY I WOULD

PUT IT IS IF I WERE A

CANDIDATE I PROBABLY WOULD

NOT ATTEND THE TRUMP DEBATE.

FIRST OF ALL DONALD TRUMP

HAS SAID HE IS CONSIDERING

RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

HIMSELF AS AN INDEPENDENT.

WHY WOULD YOU SUBJECT

YOURSELF TO BEING POSED

QUESTIONS TO BY SOMEBODY WHO

MAY RUN AGAINST YOU.

>> Jon: LET'S SAY ARE YOU

NOT A POLITICAL STRATEGIST.

LET'S SAY YOU ARE A COMEDIAN.

(LAUGHTER)

WHY WOULD YOU TAKE THIS AWAY

FROM ME?

AND COULD YOU PLEASE MAKE

THIS HAPPEN FOR ME?

>> I AM HOPEFUL FOR THE

EMERIL MODERATED DEBATE ON

THE FOOD NETWORK.

>> Jon: TRUMP IS GOING TO

BRING YOU DOWN, BROTHER!

>> PROBABLY.

>> Jon: SOLIS ENBARACK OBAMA

IS GOING TO RUN FOR

RE-ELECTION ON THE IDEA THAT

WE HAVE HAD AN ECONOMY NOW

WITH 21 STRAIGHT MONTHS OF

GROWTH.

NOT THE KIND OF GROWTH THAT

WE WOULD ALL WANT, THAT HIS

STIMULUS WITHOUT IT, THE

ECONOMY WOULD BE EVEN WORSE

THAN IT WOULD BE.

BUT THAT THINGS ARE MOVING

IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

WHAT SAYETTE YOU TO THIS?

>> I THINK THAT WHEN ARE YOU

AT 8.6% UNEMPLOYMENT WHICH

GRANTED IS BETTER THAN 9.1%

UNEMPLOYMENT, BUT STILL TOO

HIGH, AND THE FACT IS THE

GROWTH IN THE JOBS THAT WERE

PROMISED FROM THE STIMULUS

HAVEN'T SHOWN UP.

WE'VE, IN FACT, ARE SEEING

CYCLE JOB CREATION I THINK

BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S

POLICIES, TOO MUCH

REGULATION, IN OTHER WORDS,

THERE WAS A PIECE TODAY

ABOUT CARL'S, JR., THE

HAMBURGER PLACE, THEY ARE

SPENDING TWICE AS MUCH TO

MEET THE HEALTH CARE MANDATE

AS THEY SPENT BUILDING NEW

RESTAURANTS LAST YEAR.

>> Jon: WOW.

>> I TALKED TO A BANKER

TODAY IN TENNESSEE WHO SAID

THAT HE HAS MORE COMPLIANCE

OFFICERS THAN LOAN OFFICERS

WORKING AT HIS BANK RIGHT

NOW.

>> Jon: WHAT IF WE GOT A

CONSUMER PROTECTION BOARD,

THAT COULD REALLY OVERSEE

THIS KIND OF STUFF?

YOU KNOW, I THINK THEY VOTED

ON THAT TODAY IN THE SENATE,

DID THEY NOT?

WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT?

>> THE NOMINEE-- .

>> Jon: I'M SORRY, WHO DID.

>> THAT WOULD BE THE

REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE.

>> Jon: OH, OKAY.

(LAUGHTER)

>> Jon: SO THE-- SO THE

PERSON THAT WOULD MAKE MAYBE

PERHAPS COMPLIANCE EASIER

GOT SHOT DOWN.

>> WELL, I THINK THE POINT,

JON, ACTUALLY IS THAT THIS

PERSON WOULD NOT MAKE

COMPLIANCE EASIER.

THE FACT IS, WHAT THE

REPUBLICANS WANT TO GET IS

GREATER OVERSIGHT THIS IS A

BOARD OF-- OF THE CONSUMER

PROTECTION BOARD IT SHOULD

REPORT TO CONGRESS.

MOST AGENCIES DO.

AND IT SHOULDN'T BE SOMEONE

WHO IS SET UP TO YOU KNOW

REGULATE WITHOUT OVERSIGHT.

THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE

PROCESS WORKS OR SHOULD

WORK.

>> Jon: IN YOUR MIND, IF I

MAY, BANKS ARE

OVERREGULATED.

BUSINESSES ARE OVERREGULATED.

THE ONLY THING WE REALLY

NEED TO REGULATE ARE THE

PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE

REGULATING.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YOU KNOW-- .

>> Jon: IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I DO THINK THERE'S-- YOU

KNOW, THIS, THE DODD FRANK

BILL KICKED OUT OVER 300

REGULATIONS.

I DO THINK IT'S CAUSING

BANKS NOT LEND AS MUCH

BECAUSE THEY ARE VERY

CONCERNED ABOUT THE

COMPLIANCE.

AND LOOK, I DO THINK THAT

THE FOUNDERS ARE RIGHT TO

HAVE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH BE

SUBJECT TO OVERSIGHT BY THE

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

I WORKED IN THE BUSH WHITE

HOUSE.

WE WERE SUBJECT TO PLENTY OF

OVERSIGHTS ON THE

LEGISLATE-- BY THE

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

>> Jon: SIR, YOU DON'T WANT

TO GO THERE I'VE GOT SOME

EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT WERE

SIGNED THAT WOULD PERHAPS

TESTIFY TO THE OPPOSITE OF

THAT.

>> AND YOU HEARD ABOUT THEM

IN CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS.

>> Jon: THAT'S PROBABLY

TRUE.

BUT YOU KNOW, THE

INTERESTING THING TO ME IS,

I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT.

YOU KNOW, REGULATION IS A

PROBLEM.

IT GETS TOO BUREAUCRATIC.

THEY NEED TO SIMPLIFY IT.

I THINK THEY HAVE

SUNDAYSTEIN WORK ON SOME OF

THAT.

IT SURPRISES ME THAT PEOPLE

CAN'T GET TOGETHER ON THAT

BUT WHAT'S MORE SURPRISING

TO ME, IS JUST LIKE WHAT YOU

SAID, WOULDN'T IT FREE UP

BUSINESSES MORE IF WE

DECOUPLE HEALTH CARE FROM

BUSINESS?

>> YES, ABSOLUTELY IT WOULD.

>> Jon: SO YOU ARE FOR

SINGLE PAYOR.

>> NO, I'M FOR-- I'M FOR

SAYING THAT THE FACT IS

HEALTH CARE AS A-- AN

EMPLOYEE BENEFIT IS AN

ANACHRONISTIC SYSTEM IT WAS

ADVISED TO GET AROUND WAGE

CONTROLS IT WAS IMPLEMENTED

AT A TIME WHEN SOMEONE MIGHT

GO TO WORK AT GENERAL MOTORS

AND WORK THERE FOR 25 YEARS.

NOW PEOPLE MOVE, YOU MOVE 8,

9 JOBS.

>> Jon: SO HOW CAN WE DO IT,

HOW CAN WE REMOVE IT.

>> I THINK IT SHOULD BE

BASED ON THE INDIVIDUAL.

YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO RISK

POOL OUTSIDE YOUR EMPLOYER.

ONE OF THE REASONS THAT

EMPLOYERS ARE SO

IMPORTANT-- .

>> Jon: LIKE AN EXCHANGE.

>> AN EXCHANGE, YEAH, I

WOULD MAKE A PRIVATE SECTOR

EXCHANGE.

YOU COULD HAVE A STATE

OPTION.

BUT THERE SHOULD BE MORE

FREEDOM FOR PEOPLE TO CHOOSE,

MAYBE IT'S YOUR ALUMNI

ASSOCIATION.

MAYBE IT'S YOUR PROFESSIONAL

ASSOCIATION.

BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO

RISK GOING ACROSS STATELINES

IN IN MY ESTIMATION AND WE

SHOULD MOVE THE DEDUCTION

FROM THE EMPLOYER TO THE

EMPLOYEE.

I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF

REFORMS THAT YOU COULD DO

THAT WOULD BE MARKET

ORIENTED THAT WOULD HELP

MAKE HEALTH CARE MORE

AFFORDABLE.

>> Jon: DO YOU THINK-- WHAT

SHOULD WE DO FOR VETERANS

WITH THEIR HEALTH CARE.

WHAT COULD WE DO FOR THEM.

SHOULD WE PRIVATIZE THAT AS

WELL.

>> I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD

PRIVATIZE.

I THINK THE GOVERNMENT HAS A

OBLIGATION, A RIGHTFUL

OBLIGATION TO OUR VETERANS

TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE

HEALTH CARE.

THERE ARE PROPOSALS THAT

WOULD SAY-- .

>> Jon: DO YOU THINK THEY

GET DECENT HEALTH CARE.

>> I DO, YEAH.

>> Jon: SO THE GOVERNMENT

PROVIDES THEM WITH PRETTY

DECENT HEALTH CARE.

>> YEAH, I'M NOT SAYING THAT,

YOU KNOW, THE GOVERNMENT

DOESN'T HAVE A ROLE IN

HEALTH CARE IT DOES.

BUT I DON'T THINK-- I THINK

WHAT YOU ARE SEEING IS A LOT

OF PEOPLE AS A RESULT OF THE

MANDATE THAT WAS IMPOSED BY

THIS BILL, IN PARTICULAR,

I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULDN'T

HAVE HEALTH-CARE REFORM.

I'M SAYING THIS HEALTH-CARE

REFORM IS HAVING AN ADVERSE

IMPACT.

>> Jon: BUT YOU UNDERSTAND

WHAT I AM SAYING.

>> IT IS RAISING THE COST TO

EMPLOYEES.

>> Jon: THE KPLINT ABOUT

HEALTH-CARE REFORM IS YOU

GOT GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN

HEALTH CARE AND THEN YOU

FLIP THAT AND SAY WELL

VETERANS DESERVE THE BEST

HEALTH CARE AND I THINK WE

HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO

PROVIDE IT FOR THEM.

AND IT DOES MAKE YOU WONDER,

WELL, RIGHT, WHY CAN'T WE

DECOUPLE HEALTH CARE FROM

BUSINESSES, ALLOW THEM THE

FREEDOM THEN TO HIRE IN A

BETTER WAY, BUT MAYBE SET UP

A SYSTEM SIMILAR TO WHAT WE

HAVE DONE FOR VETERANS.

MAYBE NOT TO THE SAME EXTENT

THAT WE DO, BUT THAT COULD

GIVE PEOPLE MAYBE THAT

PROTECTION.

>> A COUPLE THINGS.

FIRST OF ALL, THE VETERAN'S

HEALTH-CARE BENEFIT IS A

BENEFIT THAT ACCRUED TO

SOMEONE WHO SERVED IN

GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN OUR

ARMED SERVICES.

AND SHOULD BE-- .

>> Jon: I DON'T QUESTION.

>> BUT IF ARE YOU IN THE

PRIVATE SECTOR WHY WOULD YOU

WANT TO IMPOSE ON THEM THAT

THEY HAVE TO HAVE A

GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH-CARE

SYSTEM.

WHY NOT KEEP A PRIVATE

SECTOR SYSTEM, I'M NOT

SAYING.

>> Jon: YOU CAN KEEP A

PRIVATE SECTOR SYSTEM.

I'M JUST SAYING, THE

ARGUMENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN IF

YOU GET GOVERNMENT INVOLVED

IN HEALTH CARE THEY WILL

DESTROY IT.

IT'S SOCIALISM BUT WE DO IT

FOR A VETERANS AND WE DO IT

NOT PERFECTLY, BUT I WOULD

SAY PRETTY WELL.

AND WHY NOT PROVIDE THAT FOR

CITIZENS AT A LOWER LEVEL?

AND THEN ALLOW BUSINESSES

THE FREEDOM TO THEN HIRE

WITHOUT THAT BENEFIT.

>> BY THE WAY, I WOULDN'T

OPPOSE HAVING VETERANS ALSO

HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE A

VOUCHER THAT ALLOWS THEM TO

GO TO OTHER HOSPITALS OTHER

THAN VETERAN'S HOSPITALS IF

THEY WERE CLOSER TO THEIR

HOMES.

SO I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD

HAVE TO BE INSIDE AN ENTIRE-- .

>> Jon: PRIVATIZE IT.

>> I AM NOT SAYING PREVIOUS

ATIZE THE VA HOSPITALS.

>> Jon: DO YOU HAVE FIVE

MINUTES, SIX MINUTES.

WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE

COMMERCIAL.

THE REST WILL BE UP ON THE

WEB.

THANK YOU FOR COMING BY, ED

GILLESPIE, AND THEN WE'RE

GOING

Loading...