Dick Armey Q&A: Republicans Must Learn To Follow Constitution

[bobbyw24]

Speculation about the future of the Republican Party has become an entertaining armchair sport: Will next year's congressional elections mark a repeat of the Democratic rout of 1994? If the economy rebounds, will that hurt the GOP's chances? And what of the Sarah Palin phenomenon?

For some answers to those questions, CBSNews.com turned to Dick Armey, one of the conservative politicians behind the "Contract With America" and the Republican takeover of Congress over a decade ago. A onetime economics professor in Texas, Armey was elected to the House of Representatives and rose to become House majority leader. Now he's head of FreedomWorks, a free-market advocacy group in Washington, D.C. that has criticized Democratic health care proposals and the cap and trade bill.

As part of our occasional series -- a previous interview was with former John McCain aide Dan Schnur -- I interviewed Armey earlier this month. Following is the transcribed interview.
Q: Who's really leading the Republican Party these days?

I think the Republican Party right now is in search of two things: a clear and united vision of policy for America, and people who will lead that vision. Clearly they've become aware now that the central issue that faces the American people and what will capture their attention is small government and conservativism on fiscal issues, in particular individual liberty, defense of personal rights and freedoms. The center ground is fiscal conservativism. That's the central stake of the big tent.

I think there are people vying and becoming emergent as who can be the most effective voice. My own view is that (Minnesota Governor Tim) Pawlenty is the person standing on the safest ground. He has no major disappointments behind him. He has the chance to create a fresh new public understanding of who he is and what he stands for. Right now you have to put him there.

(Mississippi Governor) Haley Barbour is a person with an extremely solid track record of performance who can stand on that ground comfortably. Right now I would say that there is no consensus leader of the Republican Party but there are a couple of pretty good looking attractive contenders out there.

Q: You keep using language like limiting the size of government, fiscal conservatism. You're sounding a lot like Ron Paul. Does this mean the best solution is to go in that direction?

Ron Paul has an enormous following, but the fact of the matter is that he doesn't stand on center ground exclusively and wholly. He sometimes gets out on some of the fringe areas where quite frankly, there's a lot of confusion in a lot of people when he starts talking about gold standards and breaking away with the Fed, undoing the Fed.

Now he may very well be quite comfortable with that. I've read a lot of the literature he reads and I understand that, but it is really not the consolidated center ground on which he stands. While Ron has run for office as a libertarian and as a Republican, he has only won office as a Republican standing on that comfortable middle ground -- where the American people can have a clear comprehension of the points he's making and make a commitment to him.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/14/taking_liberties/entry5976284.shtml

[Ethek]

Q: You keep using language like limiting the size of government, fiscal conservatism. You're sounding a lot like Ron Paul. Does this mean the best solution is to go in that direction?

Ron Paul has an enormous following, but the fact of the matter is that he doesn't stand on center ground exclusively and wholly. He sometimes gets out on some of the fringe areas where quite frankly, there's a lot of confusion in a lot of people when he starts talking about gold standards and breaking away with the Fed, undoing the Fed.

Now he may very well be quite comfortable with that. I've read a lot of the literature he reads and I understand that, but it is really not the consolidated center ground on which he stands. While Ron has run for office as a libertarian and as a Republican, he has only won office as a Republican standing on that comfortable middle ground -- where the American people can have a clear comprehension of the points he's making and make a commitment to him.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/14/taking_liberties/entry5976284.shtml

I wonder if Dick Armey has any comprehension on how the federal governments largest tool to operate outside the limits of the constitution is its practice of debt financing. Current policy is only possible because of the break from 'constitutional' gold backed money and the federal reserve fractional banking system which benifits the banks, special intrests and the government which use the money first and penalizes every man woman and child with a dollar in thier pocket. No... I don't think he does.

Understanding and relating how oppressive this is to those who want to help the oppressed is the only way to grow the party. Not by participating in the same practices as the Democrats, who push policies that ultimately oppress people and forces on them an ever growing list of unintended consequences wrought by government. The Republican Party needs remdial courses in liberty and propoganda.

[erowe1]

I wonder if Dick Armey has any comprehension on how the federal governments largest tool to operate outside the limits of the constitution is its practice of debt financing.

Since he's a PhD economist from the Austrian school who idolizes Mises and Hayek, I'd say it's likely that he has decent comprehension of it.

As I read it, his comments about RP's interest in monetary policy are more a criticism from a vote getting perspective not an ideological one.

[Ethek]

Since he's a PhD economist from the Austrian school who idolizes Mises and Hayek, I'd say it's likely that he has decent comprehension of it.

As I read it, his comments about RP's interest in monetary policy are more a criticism from a vote getting perspective not an ideological one.

Someone please remind Dick Armey that reinstating constitutional government can only happen if you cut the federal purse strings to unconstitutional endeavors. Like a heroin addict this country is addicted to credit. Republicans are a bunch of enablers.

If we could cut militarization's funds to local police and sheriffs (http://www.tcunation.com/profiles/blogs/county-sheriffs-have-the?xg_source=activity) I think wed have a decent shot at starting something significant.

Passing the original first amendment (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/#Q12) would be the other big step. This whole reclaim a party thing is so inside the box.

[erowe1]

Someone please remind Dick Armey that reinstating constitutional government can only happen if you cut the federal purse strings to unconstitutional endeavors.

What makes you think Armey disagrees with you on that?

[Ethek]

What makes you think Armey disagrees with you on that?

If he is compelled by the reasoning Ron is using and has a set of principles himself. He is doing very little to move the 'center' of the Republican party to where those positions are.

[nayjevin]

What makes you think Armey disagrees with you on that?

His endorsement of the unFairTax, for one. His alliance with globalist Newt for another. His reference to the gold standard, as though Ron ever says anything about it, is a political ploy to tie RP to that phrase, which is easily rebuked. Ron is for competing currencies - he probably thinks gold and silver would win out in a free market (as it has throughout history) but he just endorses competition - so that the best currency has a chance to win out. Paper dollars obviously isn't it -- and that's what ending the Fed is all about.

[erowe1]

His endorsement of the unFairTax, for one. His alliance with globalist Newt for another. His reference to the gold standard, as though Ron ever says anything about it, is a political ploy to tie RP to that phrase, which is easily rebuked. Ron is for competing currencies - he probably thinks gold and silver would win out in a free market (as it has throughout history) but he just endorses competition - so that the best currency has a chance to win out. Paper dollars obviously isn't it -- and that's what ending the Fed is all about.

I'm not a big Armey fan. But I see him as the kind of person Rothbard criticizes as a utilitarian, along the lines of Milton Friedman. Ron Paul may not be a big Fair Tax proponent himself, but he does support it with reservations. I'm not sure why you think Armey would have difficulty finding examples of Ron Paul talking about the gold standard (and even talking favorably about it), as there are plenty out there that he could have encountered. And as much as I can't stand Newt, in the brief period from 1992-94 when he was a minority leader putting his energies toward opposition of Clinton (which, as far as I know, is the only period in which you can say he and Armey were allies) was a period in which he didn't do much that I could envision Ron Paul disagreeing with either.

[nayjevin]

I'm not a big Armey fan. But I see him as the kind of person Rothbard criticizes as a utilitarian, along the lines of Milton Friedman. Ron Paul may not be a big Fair Tax proponent himself, but he does support it with reservations. I'm not sure why you think Armey would have difficulty finding examples of Ron Paul talking about the gold standard (and even talking favorably about it), as there are plenty out there that he could have encountered. And as much as I can't stand Newt, in the brief period from 1992-94 when he was a minority leader putting his energies toward opposition of Clinton (which, as far as I know, is the only period in which you can say he and Armey were allies) was a period in which he didn't do much that I could envision Ron Paul disagreeing with either.

I'm certainly wrong to imply Ron has never said anything good about the gold standard. But it is one of those pop-phrases that people already have their opinions defined about - people think it's antiquated and nuts. This is why (i believe) Ron says competing currencies.

Newt and Armey and Freedomworks are all part of the same agenda, which includes promoting the FairTax and hijacking the Tea Parties, as has been shown numerous times on this forum. http://www.muckety.com/Dick-Armey/13017.muckety

BTW, Rush Limbaugh is pretty good at being anti-Clinton and anti-Obama too - and he's also pretty good at thinking everything Republicans do is A-OK. Part of the false dichotomy divide and conquer routine.

[angelatc]

If he is compelled by the reasoning Ron is using and has a set of principles himself. He is doing very little to move the 'center' of the Republican party to where those positions are.

You're so freaking wrong about that it's sad. APparently nobody but Ron Paul will ever come close to satiating your political needs, and unfortunately ideologues don't win elections.

Paul doesn't even win elections based on his advocation of a return to a gold standard. Armey is right about that.

[angelatc]

His endorsement of the unFairTax, for one. His alliance with globalist Newt for another. His reference to the gold standard, as though Ron ever says anything about it, is a political ploy to tie RP to that phrase, which is easily rebuked. Ron is for competing currencies - he probably thinks gold and silver would win out in a free market (as it has throughout history) but he just endorses competition - so that the best currency has a chance to win out. Paper dollars obviously isn't it -- and that's what ending the Fed is all about.

Armey is pragmatic. I'd vote for him if he ran. Even Ron Paul said he would vote for the Fair Tax because it's better than what we have now.

[nayjevin]

You're so freaking wrong about that it's sad. APparently nobody but Ron Paul will ever come close to satiating your political needs, and unfortunately ideologues don't win elections.

Paul doesn't even win elections based on his advocation of a return to a gold standard. Armey is right about that.

And the point that Armey is speaking pragmatically about winning elections and gaining votes is not lost on me.

I just believe that our goal is waking people up, not winning elections. Educational campaigns. Opening eyes, that sort of thing.

Lots of people are talking about Ending the Fed now. But Ron voted against HR 1207, because of the strings attached, by political aisle-reaching and buddy-buddy lobbyist bs.

It boils down to the argument of whether political activism bears fruit. I say it only does when it opens more eyes and ears to liberty - not when the 'right guy' gets into office or the 'right law' gets written.

[erowe1]

Newt and Armey and Freedomworks are all part of the same agenda, which includes promoting the FairTax and hijacking the Tea Parties, as has been shown numerous times on this forum. http://www.muckety.com/Dick-Armey/13017.muckety


It might just be that I don't know how to use that website. But I didn't see anything in that link connecting Newt to Freedom Works or Armey.

I understand that Newt and Armey both tried to get on the Tea Party bandwagon, but as far as I know, separately and not in some kind of alliance with one another.

[nayjevin]

Armey is pragmatic. I'd vote for him if he ran. Even Ron Paul said he would vote for the Fair Tax because it's better than what we have now.

It may be a reasonable position to do so, but one has to believe that lesser of two evils is not evil to do so, imo.

[nayjevin]

It might just be that I don't know how to use that website. But I didn't see anything in that link connecting Newt to Freedom Works or Armey.

I understand that Newt and Armey both tried to get on the Tea Party bandwagon, but as far as I know, separately and not in some kind of alliance with one another.

http://i41.tinypic.com/351bwvb.jpg

Here's a thread with a good summary:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=189942

[Ethek]

You're so freaking wrong about that it's sad. APparently nobody but Ron Paul will ever come close to satiating your political needs, and unfortunately ideologues don't win elections.

Paul doesn't even win elections based on his advocation of a return to a gold standard. Armey is right about that.


And the point that Armey is speaking pragmatically about winning elections and gaining votes is not lost on me...

It boils down to the argument of whether political activism bears fruit. I say it only does when it opens more eyes and ears to liberty - not when the 'right guy' gets into office or the 'right law' gets written.


I too, am not above voting for stategic advantage.. even if it does not coincide with my core values. You have to work within the system you have until you are in a position to change it. Did you see my link to thirty-thousand in my second response? I am not just about electing to win majority of party or position. The fundamental operation is broken.

There is a populist revolution in the tea-parties. They are angry and largely undirected and unprincipled. I do not think of it as co-opted or unpure. It is what it is and I will work with it if it serves the purpose of restraining government.

Edit: Dick Armey needs principle based on the constitution otherwise every ounce of effort expended by the tea party movement will cycle back into the same left/right dicotomy. He can not cherry pick from liberty issues without a comprehensive understanding and expect a reworked party platform expousing liberty to be in any way effective at retaining supporters.

[nayjevin]

I too, am not above voting for stategic advantage.. even if it does not coincide with my core values. You have to work within the system you have until you are in a position to change it. Did you see my link to thirty-thousand in my second response? I am not just about electing to win majority of party or position. The fundamental operation is broken.

There is a populist revolution in the tea-parties. They are angry and largely undirected and unprincipled. I do not think of it as co-opted or unpure. It is what it is and I will work with it if it serves the purpose of restraining government.

Edit: Dick Armey needs principle based on the constitution otherwise every ounce of effort expended by the tea party movement will cycle back into the same left/right dicotomy. He can not cherry pick from liberty issues without a comprehensive understanding and expect a reworked party platform expousing liberty to be in any way effective at retaining supporters.

Good points.

Also, that Armey has done things I consider 'good' is not lost on me either. Quite possibly I'm too hard on the guy, quite possibly if I knew everything about him I would see him as blind rather than having bad intentions. But I do think it's short-sighted to believe that a stronger Republican Party is the answer.

A huge chunk of the population will always vomit when they hear the word Republican.

[SelfTaught]

YouTube - Family Guy:Dick Armey (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adQSUYJsRp0)

[nayjevin]

family guy video

ha.maybe Dick Armey being the leader of the republican party is no better than a plan to teabag the whitehouse. lulz

[SevenEyedJeff]

Americans would rather watch football than become sophisticated about politics. They only understand the following words: taxes, social security, medicare, medicaid, stimulus, bailouts, hope, America, terrorists, 9/11, and Sarah Palin looks good in a bathing suit while carrying a gun (the only full sentence they know.)

[stu2002]

Didn't Dr. Paul write a book promoting the Gold Standard?