Shak Hill’s U.S. Senate campaign this week appears to be trending upward on a message that tries to sow doubt about Ed Gillespie’s apparent openness to an individual health insurance mandate eight years ago.
Senate Candidates Ed Gillespie and Shak Hill
In a blast email to supporters today, the Hill campaign called out Gillespie’s statements in his 2006 book, “Winning Right: Campaign Politics and Conservative Policies,” and statements made during his book tour, that show an apparent willingness to consider an individual mandate as part of GOP-led health reforms. Hill writes,
His record gives us some clues. On page 249 of his book, “Winning Right”, Ed Gillespie says we need to use the IRS to compel people to buy health insurance.
That sounds like the individual mandate, doesn’t it?
Then there’s this video of Mr. Gillespie from 2006, in his own words, again promoting compulsory health insurance:
There’s just one problem with this. While Hill understandably wants to make this a centerpiece of the debate about whether he or Gillespie should be our Senate nominee, it’s not accurate to say that Gillespie was “promoting compulsory health insurance.” Here’s the full context of what Gillespie said, which can be seen at about the 9-minute mark in this original video from C-SPAN:
You see Mitt Romney in Massachusetts has taken some steps toward individual requirements for people to carry their own insurance. I think the party is probably open to that kind of approach. Others are proposing small business health plans and greater transparency and putting the consumer in closer touch with the healthcare expenditure. I think that’s a good direction.
Gillespie then goes on to excoriate the likely Democrat nominee for president in 2008 for what he anticipated would be a government-run system. Taken together, this strikes us not as “promoting compulsory health insurance,” but instead as Ed being frank about the many alternatives to a purely government-run system that were then on the table. Gillespie’s campaign has taken issue with any characterization that he has expressed any actual personal support for an individual mandate, and maintains that Gillespie has been an opponent of Obamacare from the beginning. Gillespie’s stated position is that he believes it needs to be repealed and replaced with what the campaign describes as “market oriented reforms that work.”
Accuracy aside, Hill has been using this message, and jabs about Gillespie’s days as a George W. Bush advisor and lobbyist, to tell Republicans that a matchup between incumbent Senator Mark Warner and Gillespie would be a losing proposition for Republicans. “The Democrats will exploit Ed Gillespie’s record as much as they can. The minute the debate becomes about something other than Mark Warner’s record, we lose,” Hill has previously told The Bull Elephant. He’s been getting some traction with this approach, and earlier this week Hill announced endorsements from a number of grassroots leaders, including some names familiar to long-time GOP convention-goers:
Shak Hill’s candidacy has been endorsed by:
Nate Boyer, Chairman Bedford County Republican Committee
Gary Lowe, Chairman Greene County Republican Committee
Bob Arment, Chairman Louisa County Republican Committee
Steve Osborne, Vice Chairman Fifth Congressional District Committee
John Phelps, Former Chairman New Kent Tea Party
Keith Drake, Former Chairman Albemarle County Republican Committee
Les Williams, Chairman Campbell County Republican Committee
Mark Lloyd, Former Chairman Lynchburg Area Tea Party and Virginia State Tea
Party FederationTim Boyer, Former Fifth Congressional District Vice Chair and Chairman Campbell County Republican Committee
Aaron Evans, Former State Vice Chairman Young Republicans
Annie Celotto, Former State Director of AFP Virginia
Chuck Smith, Former Chairman Virginia Beach Republican Committee
Tricia Stall, Past State Senate Nominee First Senatorial District
Travis Witt, Member State Central Committee Fifth Congressional District and
Chairman of Virginia Tea Party Patriots Foundation *for identification purposes only*Rick Boyer, Former Chairman Campbell County Republican Committee
James Bowden, Former First District Chairman
Mike Rothfeld, Founder and Board Member National Association of Gun Rights *for identification purposes only*
There are some well-respected grassroots leaders on this list, including some who have a reputation for being able to turn out tons of delegates. And Shak will need the help, as even with this list indications are that the campaign is probably still well behind Ed Gillespie’s in terms of signing up delegates to trek to the Convention in June. Almost two weeks ago, the Gillespie campaign issued a release claiming to have recruited over 1,000 delegates, and that number is likely much higher by now. Gillespie’s team has not let up, and by all accounts continues to vigorously engage with potential delegates on a retail level.
Conventional wisdom still has Gillespie easily in the lead for the nomination. But, as we get closer to the time when the bulk of delegates will be signing up for the Convention (the signup period closes at the end of March), Shak Hill is making it clear that if Ed wants to win, he’s going to have to really work for it all the way into June.
11 comments
Let me make this clear. My endorsement has only been sought and has only been given to Ed Gillespie. I have known Ed Gillespie for many years and when he was RNC Chair; and I have worked with him while he was Chair of the RPV. Although I have spoken with Shak Hill and listened to his pitch about the effectiveness his campaign, I have endorsed Ed Gillespie as the next for U.S. Senator from Virginia. There should be no doubt about this. Chuck Smith
So why is it Ed Gillespie and his campaign stay away from meetings that they do not control, until last Saturday in Fredericksburg? I even heard that in one case that Gillespie would not start speaking until Shak Hill had left the building. We tried for over 3 months, starting in late January, to arrange for Gillespie to come to our group meeting and we were given many different excuses. Then the Gillespie campign arranged to have a time where people could come to a local restaurant in our area, but they only gave notice of the event with less than 24 hours notice and would not allow any recording devices. Only five people were able to attend that were not related to a campaign. Then I reading different instances of where Gillespie will not commit to taking a stance on different issues. I get the impression that Gillespie does not want to deal with reality and wants to be able to control everything and does not want to be held accountable for anything. So how is he going to deal with reality and things that are out of his control and be held accountable, if he should get elected to the Senate? What comes across to me is that Gillespie is remembering all the little things that tripped up others that ran for elected office that he doesn’t want to get caught doing, from over the years as a political elite consultant and insider.
Negative ads will abound no matter who we nominate. The question is, who can and will best counter those ads and dominate the conversation. After watching Ken refuse to respond to negative attacks, I needed to see how Ed would deal with these Obamacare issues. Check this out. I have much more confidence in Ed’s ability to control the narrative after watching this:
http://youtu.be/_gXbsfONY_4
Ed is the only person in this race that has a
conservative record of getting things done. Ed helped defeat Hillary Care in 1993,
co-authored the, Contract with America, that helped give the GOP a majority in the
House for the first time in 40 years, and has the endorsement of conservative
champions like, Mark Obenshain and Morton Blackwell. Mark Warner even realizes
that Ed is the only guy that can beat him and that’s why the democrats have
been attacking Ed with the same talking points that Shak Hill is using. It appears to me that Mr. Hill is more concerned with selective editing and deceptive tactics than he is about running on his own ability to be our nominee for U.S. Senate.
[…] heels of last week’s list of endorsements released by Gillespie’s opponent, Shak Hill. Hill’s list had some very impressive names on it—people who have a reputation for mobilizing tremendous grassroots activism, even more so than […]
Gillespie clearly indicated that using the tax code to force compliance with an individual mandate is something he saw no problem with. For anyone hoping at this point to become a legislator, such a philosophy is a damning indictment of the lack of principle that drives their so-called “pragmatic” policy approach. You cannot be trusted to govern unless you get the pronciples right, because policy based on flawed principles cannot be anything other than flawed.
Nobody selectively edited his book, did they? I would encourage Ed’s supporters to actually read his book. He echoes the typical GOP talking points and offers no real solutions for the great issues of the day. I think the desperation comes from a campaign that expected a coronation at the Convention and all of the sudden finds itself with a serious challenge on Gillespie’s record. I say let the delegates decide this one…
[…] health care reform from 2006 without proper context. The Bull Elephant’s Steve Albertson has the story and […]
Shak Hill’s desperate attack to mislead Virginians is just downright dishonest. These are tactics I’d expect to see used by the likes of Rachel Maddow and the rest of the liberal media. I’m confident the delegates to the state convention will see through this smear campaign and elect Ed as our nominee so we can defeat Mark Warner in November.
Amazing. You have the guy praising that which we now know as the individual mandate- irrefutable, in his own words, on video, which directly mirrors what is in his book- and you still don’t get it? He is no better than Warner on Obamacare. That you see and still do not believe is what’s desperate.
Shak’s attempts to eye gouge Gillespie reek of desperation. The “selective editing” style comes straight out of the liberal MSNBC play book. It’s disappointing, yet telling, to see Shak stoop to this level. Only a losing candidate would act in such a fashion. At the end of the day, delegates can see through it.