Purchased a FORA.tv video on another website? Login here with the temporary account credentials included in your receipt.
Sign up today to receive our weekly newsletter and special announcements.
DAVE COOK: Good, good. Good morning, I'm Dave Cook of the monitor. Thanks for coming. Our guests today are Dick Armey, Chairman of FreedomWorks, and the group's President and CEO, Matt Kibbe. Mr. Armey is making his eighth visit. This is Mr. Kibbe's first visit with the Better Journalism through Bacon Group. Mr. Armey earned a bachelors degree from Jamestown College in North Dakota, a masters from the University of North Dakota, and PhD in economics from the University of Oklahoma. He was an economics professor at the University of North Texas for 13 years before deciding to run for Congress in 1984. He was elected Majority Leader 10 years later, and served in that capacity until 2003. Mr. Kibbe has been with FreedomWorks, which was previously known as Citizens for a Sound Economy, for 12 years. He has a bachelor's degree in economics from Groves City College and previously served as Director of Federal Budget Policy for the US Chamber of Commerce, Senior Economist at the National Republican Committee, and Managing Editor of an academic economics journal, published by George Mason University. So much for biography, now unto process. As always, we're on the record here. There's no embargo, there is no live blogging or Twittering or other means of filing during the breakfast. After the session is over, give into your wildest multi-media urges. As always, if you would like to ask a question, please send me a subtle, non- threatening signal and I will do my best to call on one and all. We'll start out by offering our guests the opportunity to make some brief opening comments, and then we move to questions from around the table. And with that, gentlemen, the floor is yours. Thank you (inaudible). [00:03:22] DICK ARMEY: Well, I'll just make a few cursory observations. This is obviously an exciting election cycle, my own view is there are three teams on the field, in this election cycle. Democrat team that is confused and demoralized, dispirited and not very energetic. A Republic team that is regaining a sense of confidence and identity, and the what is known more commonly as the Tea Party Team, I like to think of it in a broader sense, the Constitutional limited small government grassroots movement, that includes multiples who self-identify as Tea Party, certainly includes FreedomWorks, which is the longest standing, most effective grassroots movement on taking a conservative view on economic issues. And this is the big ball of energy on the team. It is that massive big (inaudible) protest is going to define how outcomes are. The economists will tell you all decisions are made at the margin (inaudible). I will tell you anytime you want to get with real (inaudible) insight into politics or any other subjects, ask the economists, and therefore, I am comfortable in saying that all elections are won at the margin. And this swing vote is going to be the margin of difference. It's had a big impact already in the Republican Primary process because they're out hunting for small government conservatives. They logically have hunted so far in the Republican process because there's very little hope to find such folks anymore, even the Democrat Party, people like Ralph Hall, and so forth, some of the old time people that used to be small government conservatives. That party's been driven out. [00:05:28] And of course, they will have their final impact on the elections in the general election where it will translate into Republican candidates leading Democrats candidates. What will be the projected outcome? I think just about everybody today agrees without much doubt the Republicans will control the house. The big question that remains with our folks is will it be a conservative majority or a Republican majority, and there can be a big difference. I probably, lately, the most interesting turning of events, is the movement from possible to probable that Republicans might control the Senate. And still probably not a high degree of probability, but certainly and noticeable probability. And there's no doubt again, when we take a look at the quality of the Senate candidates, that are likely to win on the Republican side, that the Republican house conference will be far more small government conservatives than what it has been. One final point, this change is unlike '94 in one very important point. '94 was an inside job from the top down. There was just a handful of entrepreneurial leaders who created the contract with America. Their good looks and charm was so compelling, of course, that others followed, andbut, unhappily, as, from our point of view, it was short-lifed, that is, they stuck to their small government guns for only a few years. [00:07:24] This is a bottom up across the country grass roots movement that is literally moving the Republican to the direction, the Republican party in office, and I expect this durability will be larger because these grassroots activists are not going to retire from the field once this battle of 2002 is won. As I travel across the country and talk to the activists in state after state after state, we already see them, particularly with their senatorial campaign plans to place for next year. The next election cycle, and of course, they are all, like all of us, interested in who will emerge as the Presidential candidates and where they might spend their energies on that race as well, but they are already very well determined, we will start the fight in this Senate race, that Senate race, and this Senate race. And we'll let the two big parties decide who they will, who they will field on the big race. DAVE COOK: Let me DICK ARMEY: I'm sorry, I'm DAVE COOK: Oh, no, no, no. That was nice and very, very useful. I'm going to ask (inaudible), too, and then we'll move to Susan Page at Lou San Ruth Marcus to start, and you can chime in Mr. Kibbe, anytime you want here. Let me ask you about taxes. AS you know, yesterday, on Face the Nation, John Boehner, said that while he would prefer extending the current tax cuts for all individual, including those defined by the Obama Administration as wealthy, he might not oppose the President's plan to extend the cuts for all but the wealthiest folks in America. Let's review on that. Did Boehner make the right move? DICK ARMEY: Well, you know, one of the first things in politics is to do what is doable. And you have right now, a Democrat President and Democrat leadership in both the House and the Senate. That's so ideologically defined. I remember one time, the tip off to me on this was Vice President Al Gore, literally pushing President Clinton back in his chair when President Clinton talked about lowering capital gains in the interest of creating jobs. And Vice President Al Gore was aghast, saying, "Mr. President, you're talking about Democrat theology here." [00:09:48] It was a big tip-off to me, because the class warfare malarkey that these guys live by has become theological to them. And it's quite possible that John Boehner basically realizes that he simply can't get to Democrats he mostly prepared to deal with the fact that a comprehensive continuation of the tax structure as we know it today after 10 years, is just because they so endowed themselves with their presumption of intellectual superiority on the class warfare baloney. DAVE COOK: Let me ask you one last thing. Amy Gardner's story today in today's Post, notes that the Republican critics of the Tea Party Express, that candidate, "Christine O'Donnell, say she would likely lose against Democrat Chris Coonz in Delaware, while Mike Castle currently out- polls Coonz by double digits, according to a September Rasmussen poll." In your view, is it better for Republicans to lose with a Tea Party baked candidate then to win with a mainstream Republican candidate? [00:10:56] DICK ARMEY: I'm going to give a quick answer and then I will go to Matt. No. And I don't think the Tea Party activists would give you a different answer, and I think Massachusetts and New Jersey proves that. But Matt, you are studying these races better than (inaudible). MATT KIBBE: Yeah, and that's obviously a judgment call as to who is the most competitive candidate in any race. I always like to point to Nevada, to the campaign that was leaking, the story that Sharon Angle wasn't competitive in the general election was in fact, Harry Reed's campaign. So, you had a weird dynamic there where if Harry Reed actually thought she was the least competitive, why was he trying to sandbag her in the primary? I think the question for Mike Castle is, if he can't win his primary, does he deserve to win the general? And we'll see what happens tomorrow, but there's always a judgment call as to who is the most competitive candidate and I think the betting of the primary and what the Tea Party activists have really asked for was an open primary where their candidate get a chance to run and compete and prove themselves or (inaudible). [00:12:13] DAVE COOK: Susan? SUSAN: The follow up on Dave's as-always excellent question. What do Tea Party, do candidates who, once they accept the nomination in contested, Republican primaries, what do they need to do then to turn around and win in the general election, in a swing state, like Florida or New Hampshire or Colorado? Do they need to change their message? Do they need towhat do they need to do to win in general? MATT KIBBE: Well, I'm glad you mentioned Florida, because with Rudy, all you've got to do is be Rudy. He's very attractive, but take a look at Governor Chris. It is the moderate Republican that says, "I'm willing to be the third party candidate and spoil the Republican's chances and allow it to go to the Democrat." Not the Tea Party candidate, the Tea Party candidate, if they are defeated, they (inaudible) goes home, (inaudible) or endorses the Republican, but the same thing up at New York 22, as you may recall. So, the fact of the matter is, right now, there's athe core energy source in politics today is fear of the Obama plan. Whatever it is, we know it's taken government to levels of control, regulation, administrations, spending that is dangerous to the economy. So, we're always favorably disposed to anybody that would be oppositional to that, which is, by the way, a bulk of voter disposition. Now, all that a candidate has to do is profoundly say, "First of all, I understand your concern there and I share it and I have something to offer as an alternative to that." DAVE COOK: If you do it, it would happen in Massachusetts, what you see is that the issues that the voters care about today, I mean, it's like the government shouldn't spend money it doesn't have, the government shouldn't take over car companies or take over our health care system, that's not the extreme right of American politics. That's the very center of American politics. And I think that these candidates need to stay true to those fiscal conservative issues, and they will bring independents and Democrats over to the Republican side. [00:14:37] MALE SPEAKER: And at the rally yesterday, Andrew Griper described the mainstream, the non- conservative media as organically evil. And he said, individually, we were very nice and people should hug you, but as an organism, we were evil. Do you agree with that? And if so, what's your theory as to how we became evil? DICK ARMEY: I think you're just going to have to (inaudible) again? I didn't get the drift about that. DAVE COOK: I don't think he heard the speech. MALE SPEAKER: Speech. DICK ARMEY: I think Andrew is a very flamboyant showman. No, we do not think the press is evil, otherwise we wouldn't be here today. I thinkI mean, we all have a different view of that. MALE SPEAKER: One of you can play devil's advocate. DICK ARMEY: But I think the more interesting point is decentralization of information that all of us are seeing right now, and this isthis is one of the life forces of the Tea Party movement. We no longer need to be networked in two political parties to tell us what to think or where to get our information from. And what's happened through bloggers and through multiple online media sources, is that folks are getting information for themselves. They are reading the healthcare bill. They are finding out what is going on at Congress, and to me, this is a very positive driving force in American politics. You have a more educated electorate, and I think that competing sources. When a blogger puts something that is factually not true online, within 10 minutes, 50 other bloggers will tear him apart, and out of that process comes truth. I think that's better than having just a few big media associates (inaudible). DAVE COOK: Ruth? [00:16:26] RUTH: I want toassuming that, as you say, or predict the Republicans will take control, at lest of the House, I am wondering if you could talk a little bit about what you think of lessons of 1994 are for governance by the Republican majority, both in terms of cooperation with a Democratic President, in terms of standing up to a Democratic President. What did you guys do right after 1994 and whatwhere did you go wrong, if at all? DICK ARMEY: Well, after 1994, thanks, largely, by the way, to John Casey, who was the Budget Chairman and the Budget Disciplinarian of our new majority, we held our ground, our fiscal conservative ground, and President Clinton had enough flexibility to work with us. President Clinton was not ideologically defined. And so quite frankly, for some period of time, the House Republicans set the legislative agenda for the whole government. And President Clinton accommodated well to it. And we, of course, believe that the House Republicans need to take that tack, with serious resolve, and again, set the agenda, but there's a grave reservation in our minds that President Obama and his staff, his executive branch, have the sort of the, ideological flexibility to work. So, if there is not a good ability to work out, I think it will come from the White House more. I want to remind you that John Boehner worked comfortably with George Miller, and George Miller is probably the most militant partisan in the house, and he's not a pleasant personality, either. So, I mean, it's very hard for me to imagine that John Boehner will not be a man that can work cooperatively with people who are willing to do so. DAVE COOK: Chuck? CHUCK: Congressman, you're an economist, but you're also an ex-member. I'm wondering if you can answer this question. Is it possible to balance the federal budget without serious severe pain across the board, tax increases, people taking less for Social Security, smaller Medicare, Medicaid? All sorts of (inaudible) programs? [00:19:15] DICK ARMEY: Well, I think it is possible, and quite frankly, I'm not sure the pain would be severe. Let's just take all government entitlement programs, and of course, the two biggies are Medicare and Social Security, and let's just say you can voluntarily subscribe or not. Quite frankly, if you let the American citizen choose, I give you the choice, you can have Social Security exactly as you know it today, without changing retirement ages or a thing, with nothing but consumer price index cost of living adjustments, no change other than that. Or you can be free to take your contribution to Social Security and put it in a private retirement account. I'm going to say within three weeks, 50 percent of your unfunded liability is voluntarily saying, "Well, take me off your list. Don't worry about me. I'll take care of myself." Now, the problem is, the liberals can't deal with that. I'll remind you of my favorite Teddy Kennedy quote: "We can't let people have that choice. They'll take it." Medicare. Why should the federal government in the first place, ever have set itself up as the insurer of first resort as opposed to the insurer of last resort? Why do they compel people like myself to be in Medicare when we don't want it, we don't need it, and we don'tand we are perfectly capable providing for ourselves? [00:20:47] BOB: Medicare: Why should the federal government in the first place ever have set itself up as the insurer of first resort as opposed to the insurer of last resort? Why do they compel people like myself to be in Medicare when we don't want it, we don't need it and we don't and we could have are perfectly capable of providing for ourselves? If there is a law on the books that prohibits healthcare insurance to sell me the same coverage they sold when I was 65. Just let it be voluntary. So there are many ways that you can approach the entitlement things and say to folks, "We could cut the cost of the entitlement program without cutting your benefits as an individual. Then you can make for real cost saving. [0:21:14] Harvard University says 1/4 of all medical procedures are unnecessary. They are intrusive. They are painful. They are frightening. You put old people and children through medical procedures that are painful and frightening. And you tell me that's humane med practice of medicine just to protect doctors from lawyers? The thing that bothers me most about that is the cruelty of it. Have these folks never been sick? You get enough procedures that are necessary, that are painful and discomfortable and frightening? Why 1/4 more that are not medically necessary? MALE SPEAKER: Can I add one thing to that? If you look at the budget history from the 90s, you had two dynamics. You had spending restraint, and you had economic growth. And a big problem today is not just that we are spending trillions of dollars we don't have but that we have a very bad economy that has stifled tax collections. [0:22:18] So you have to look at both sides of that equation. But I would start with repealing. And you talk about pain, I think Obamacare is going to be a lot of pain for a lot of people including the federal budget. And we should repeal that before it takes effect because that's trillions of dollars that we don't have. We should stop bailing out car companies and irresponsible home owners and banks. We should scrap Fannie and Freddie. These are all big-ticket items that would get us part way to where we need to be. And then show some discipline on the discretionary budget as well. And John Boehner, by the way, is proposing going back to the pre-stimulus boondoggle baseline, which would be a more honest benchmark to determine future discretionary spending. [0:23:05] MODERATOR: Lisa? LISA: So then in particular (inaudible at 0:23:10) since this is really like more both national and in particular bailout subsidies. You know, it's a certainty that these are getting from government. So these companies vehicles and national companies [everything to be] (ph) worried about given the Tea Party caucus or Tea Party (inaudible at 0:23:30) caucus. MALE SPEAKER: If they are they do have something to be worried about if their primary business model is using the federal government either to punish their competitors or fatten their bottom lines. Then you saw a lot of cheering yesterday when one of our speakers was picking on General Electric, which is a recipient of bailouts and has been first at the table to seek a preferred status in the distribution of carbon credits under capital trade. [0:24:00] Tea Party-ers don't like that kind of thing. They like free enterprise. They don't like big corporations that use government to get ahead. MODERATOR: Trisha? TRISHA: Hi. You had mentioned the difference between a conservative majority and a Republican majority. What are the primary differences that you see there? And if you look ahead to the Senate next year and candidates like Rand Paul and Joe Millerwho are conservatives in the Senateand what that will do to change the chamber and a much more complicated (inaudible at 0:24:33). BOB: A conservative majority would be a majority like we were in '95, '96, '97, maybe still in '98, where our purposes and our behavior were governed by policy objectives for the nation. The Republican majority that broke everybody's heart pursuant to that was one that had political objectives about themselves in the next election. [0:24:58] And so this is what you have to care about. And I point out the first bailout set offended this folks that you find in this movement today, who are the Republicans bailing them out of their elections with earmarks. An earmark was the bailout for the officeholder. "So you think you might have trouble getting elected? Well let me get you a bridge." You know. And it was pretty shameless. So our folks are not willing to tolerate people from either party in that kind of short-sighted self- indulgent political use of the public purse. TRISHA: And then for the Senate next yearRand Paul and Joe Miller and maybe Sharron Anglehow does that change how that office function? BOB: Well it's a Pat Toomey, Mark Rubio, a fella out in help me in Washington State. Some generosity (ph) brought me to Washington State. I made ten bucks. [0:26:06] You would have a cadre of new folks who are here. They know I am here because I was a small government a constitutional limited small-government candidate. And it and my candidacy certainly in Alaska, certainly in Utahis clearly a consequence of disaffection with the good old boy, get-along establishment behavior of my predecessor. So though I consolidate my behavior in the image of my campaign disposition so that I am going to prosper, that's also going to have a sobering effect on the other members of Congress of the Senate. Because a lot of these a lot of, you know I would be the first they wholly inaccurately I am perceived to be a leader of this movement. [0:27:13] There are a lot of senators who identify that and say, "Gee I want to be Dick Armey's new best friend because I saw what happened with Bennett in Utah. And how do I do that? Well I change my behavior." So it'll be across the entire Senate. MALE SPEAKER: If I could add to that, the next step in the growth of the Tea Party movement is finding legislative champions for the various content of the Contract from America and developing a positive set of ideas that actually become the real fiscal conservative policy. And that's not an easy thing to do. But I think what you are seeing is a whole new generation of elected officials that will actually take the rhetoric and get to the serious business of writing legislation, building coalitions, offering amendments on the House and Senate floor. And that's the next step of maturing for this movement. [0:28:10] MODERATOR: We are going to go next to (Evan), then (Amy Gardner) and (Margaret Tell), (Ken Vogel) and (Al Eisley), then to Turpol (ph) and (Neil King). EVAN: Yes. I was with you guys all day yesterday starting at 9 o'clock. I marched. I was at the prayer rally. I was on the Capitol Hill. That was not a diverse crowd yesterday by any means. Have you failed at reaching out through the general demographic through this movement? Have you failed at reaching out beyond, really, white people? MALE SPEAKER: I'm glad you brought that question up because we have a project that we are launching this week called Diversity, diversity.com. And the goal is to build a platform for a diverse group of Tea Party leaders from across the country. It's African Americans, Jews, Hispanics, others that have come to this movement. Because there is this nagging perception that we are not diverse. And I disagree with that. [0:29:12] But there is an opportunity to point to Ryan Hecker, who developed the Contract from America; to point to C. L. Bryant, who has become a Tea Party rock star across the country. And various peopleTito Munez, who spoke yesterday. He I would argue he was the most popular speaker yesterday. His line was awesome: Born in Columbia, made in the And I think that there is we do need to reach out. EVAN: Well sure. I mean onstage I think you are very successful at that. MALE SPEAKER: Right. EVAN: But I'm talking about in the actual audiencesthe crowds that show up, people that get on busses to come to your rallies. They are not it is not a diverse crowd. Why is that? BOB: Well first of all let me say, you know, actually there is greater diversity then you will find in either of the two political parties. There is evangelicals, there is independents, there is libertarians, there is Democrats, there are Republicans, there are people with a large much so it depends on your definition of diversity. [0:30:12] And I would say if you would spend any time talking to any person from what the establishment calls the minority identification, I the difficulties, the harassment, the intolerance, the abuse that they suffer comes fromfor example if you are a black American at our rallyyour own community, your own relatives, your own family. So it is extremely difficult for a black American to stand up and say, "I am a conservative," because they get beset in the most vicious ways. Not that this is a story that you all are going to want to write, but it's a true-fact story and I've heard it from every black conservative I have ever known the vicious, nasty things that they are subjected to. [0:31:04] So it's not easy to stand up and say, "I believe in individual liberty and conservatism andLord help methe Republican Party," and be a minority as you all in the establishment sort people out and stick them in their boxes. Hispanics are now subjected to the same thingI mean harassment. So the first thing you ought to do is marvel that anybody of color, as it were, dares to have the courage to show up in the company of a this grassroots movement when you realize that they may lose their congregation if they happen to be a successful pray minister from Louisiana, or other reprisals will be taken against them for breaking the mold. MALE SPEAKER: Bob, by the way this room doesn't look that diverse, either. But I'm hoping to kind of with the races. [0:32:00] MALE QUESTIONER: This isn't a Tea Party rally. You guys always say that about like, other rallies in other places that aren't diverse. But we are talking about your movement being diverse not about the media or about CODEPINK or any everybody else. I mean, you are trying to be a movement a national political movement. MALE SPEAKER: Right. MALE QUESTIONER: I mean isn't it important to have those (inaudible at 0:32:18) in the premise (ph)? MALE SPEAKER: Mr. President you are talking about Democratic theology here. But there are a lot of diversity there, a lot of tolerance by the vice president for the president for having the intellectual curiosity about something that doesn't fit their box. MALE QUESTIONER: Meaning? MALE SPEAKER: So I mean I really get a little tired of diversity talk from liberals. FEMALE QUESTIONER: How would all the (inaudible at 0:32:43) Delaware discussion over here? I mean to talk about (inaudible at 0:32:48) stayed out of that primary. And also, second question: Can you talk about any of the things that the that the nearer that we get close to the election, has the Tea Party and conservative emphasis shifted a little bit away from purely distal (ph) into a broader topicyou know, selection processthat includes the social and cultural issuesand some singles (ph) that come to mind are at one pep rallyto go in, to begin to see that see around in Delaware, for instance, issues of - a cultural conservative there. So it's really very focused. [0:33:29] MALE SPEAKER: We stayed out of that race because we are not convinced that Christine O'Donnell can win. The broader question - Glenn Beck's rally was not a Tea Party rally. Glenn Beck's rally was built and designed and carried out very much as a cultural restoration. The title was Restoring Honor. Tea Party rallies there are there is a lot of diversity of opinion on a lot of issues that don't gather around fiscal issues. But what links this community together is a belief that the government is spending too much money it doesn't have and that the government should stay out of private lives, private enterprise as defined by the Constitution. [0:34:24] Once we get out of that sphere we have all sorts of spirited arguments. MODERATOR: Margaret? MARGARET: Thanks. I have [all sorts of] (ph) questions. But when you were talking about Medicare I just want to slip in a second question. Do you take advantage of Medicare? Or have you found some way to opt out, like you only pay cash for doctors visits? I mean you have earned the right BOB: When I signed up for my Social Security, I was told I'm glad you asked. When I signed up for my Social Security MALE SPEAKER: This is going to take awhile (Bob). MARGARET: Let's move on to the other question. BOB: I was told that I could not sign up for Social Security unless I signed up for Medicare. I say, "I don't want Medicare." "If you don't take Medicare, you don't get your Social Security." [0:35:04] Where in the law do you find that? It's not in the law. What regulation is it? It's not a regulation. By what authority, then, do you deny me my Social Security if I don't sign up for Medicare? It's in a policy memoa policy memo that has been enforced since 1993. You want to talk about the audacity of control? A policy memo enforced against all the people of this nation will be enforced against you. MARGARET: I don't have a problem taking Medicare. BOB: Yes. MARGARET: I don't know if it's still around. But I wonder BOB: All right. But what if you were permanent what if you happened to be a Christian Scientist and had never had been to a doctor, would never go to a doctor in your life and had never insurance? And you were told that you I am amazed that people aren't offended by this. I am told that I will be denied my life savings because I don't sign up for a program that they are in trillions of dollars in arrears on. [0:36:01] You would think they would have hugged me and said, "Bless you my child" BOB: "for letting us off the hook." When my daughter came to me and said, "Dad you don't have to pay my tuition this month this semester. I've got it covered." I said, "Honey, I love you." BOB: I'm off the hook. But they said, "No. If you dare to say no to us, we take away your life savings." You tell me that that's freedom. Anyway, I go on. I digress. And I upset people. But here's the point. That is in violation of the Constitution. It's in violation of the federal lawtheir own law. And it is a heavy-handed coercion. There are many, many people in America todaypeople of means, these overprivileged rich peoplethat need to be taxed more in the cause of justice that would be perfectly happy take care of their own healthcare and their own old age but do not feel they ought to be subject to reprisals for doing so. MARGARET: So do when you go to the doctor do you just pay cash? Can you do that? Or do you give them your Medicare card? [0:37:06] BOB: Well I'm find I can find doctors that will not require me to do Medicare. But if the doctor says, "You have to go in the hospital, " if I don't pay for that hospital with Medicare that hospital loses its right to have Medicare patients for two years. That means that hospital gets shut down. MARGARET: So sometimes you have to take the (inaudible at 0:37:28). BOB: Well you find that acceptable, to shut down a hospital because they had the audacity to take an old man's money instead of the government's money. That's acceptable to you guys. I mean there is a lot of diversity of opinion in this room. MARGARET: Sorry. Do you mind if I go through this? But it might be wanting to - causing BOB: Sure. Ask another question. You're on a roll. BOB: The answer to your question is, Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death." They gave me Medicare. And yes, when I had to be hospitalized a year, I suffered the indignation of letting the government pay for my hospitalization because it was either that or lay in my bed at home and die. [0:38:09] Now all right. MALE SPEAKER: Okay. Okay. MODERATOR: Second and last question MALE SPEAKER: Thank you for that. MARGARET: So the Tea Party movementat least the way we have covered ithas been primarily focused on fiscal issues and domestic issues and the size of the government. And my question is about foreign policy, which is if a number of Tea Party candidates are elected to the Senate and to the House, how will it affect foreign policy? Do is there a common thread among most Tea Party candidates that want to get out of Afghanistan fast because it's very expensive and none of our business? Et cetera, et cetera. Is there a foreign policy platform? And what do you think it is? BOB: I don't think so. Do you see that common thread there? MALE SPEAKER: I think there is a lot of diversity. MARGARET: So there wasn't necessarily be a consensus on foreign policy among the Tea Party candidates. [0:38:58] MALE SPEAKER: I would guess there would probably be a lot of different points of view among the different candidates on that. Because, again, the focus of the now remember this. There is not a candidate that is a Tea Party candidate. There is a candidate in a Republican primary to this point that attracts the attention and support and encouragement of Tea Party activists. And that is almost always the magnet issues for that are almost always the economic issues. So MODERATOR: Ken? KEN: You mentioned that Glenn Beck's rally dealt with different issues than those that have sort of been in the heart of the Tea Party movement. Certainly he is hugely popular within the movement, credited with driving turnout in your march a year ago Sunday even as he sort of distanced himself from the movement. He said he is not a leaderas speaker Armey says he is not a leader in the Tea Party movementand even expressed his doubts about some of the groups that were sort of facilitating the movement, including (inaudible at 0:40:03) now who are I think guys have sort of met with him. They are sponsoring a show. He has a lot of nice things to say about you. [0:40:08] Nonetheless, he goes and has his own rally two weeks before your rally. I think it's inarguable that his rally had a greater turnout, I mean (inaudible at 0:40:20) down turnout at your rally. Because folks, they want to, you know, come back to DC again. And so I am wondering, you know. Well first of all, what effect do you think his rally had on your rally? Second of all, where do you see his role in the movement since he clearly, you know, protests that he is not a leader of it, not even really a key player in it? MATT KIBBE: I definitely talked to some folks on August 28 that couldn't come again on September 12. I also talked to folks who said, "The economy is so bad that I simply can't afford to come to Washington this year." I also saw that there were I believe hundreds. DICK ARMEY: I believe hundreds and we're going to try to get a handle on just how many 9-12 marches that were born out of last year's march that happened this year across the country. I think all of that is a net positive and we say again and again and again that you have to let a thousand flowers bloom. And by the way, that's the only time I'll probably quote (inaudible at 00:41:19) DICK ARMEY: But, and this is what we mean by a leaderless movement. Obviously I think there's thousands of leaders and thousands of leaders with good ideas. And you almost have this competitive market process for how the Tea Party Movement is going to evolve over time. I think Glenn Beck is a huge positive to the Tea Party Movement. I think Dick Armey is a huge positive to the Tea Party Movement. When Glenn Beck holds up Frederick Hayek's Road to Serfdom on his show and thousands and thousands of people read that, I think that's a positive for society. QUESTIONER: Is he introducing that sort of more social issues, religious issues, cultural issues into the Tea Party if he is in fact a key player in the Movement? [00:42:08] DICK ARMEY: I don't think so. I think he has focused on the same economic issues we have. And certainly, the Tea Party is not anti-religion. QUESTIONER: Where do you, you know the next two allies (inaudible at 00:42:22) You know King (inaudible at 00:42:24) QUESTIONER: Mr. Armey, another two part question. As a native of North Dakota, you're obviously familiar with the old non partisan league and one of those protest movements that have risen throughout - regularly throughout our history. Yet history also shows that in a two party system, those, one or the other or both parties, absorb those protests and make them their own. And the protest movements die up and disappear. Do you see that - any reason that won't happen with the Tea Party Movement or do you see a Tea Party - possibility the Tea Party could become a viable third party? [00:42:58] DICK ARMEY: No. I look at the evolution of the non partisan league and its relationship to the Democratic Party in North Dakota or the Farm Labor Party and its relationship to the Democratic Party in Minnesota or the '60s Peace Movement and its relationship to the Democratic Party at large. I see the progressives; I call them left wingers, big state folks that they've taken over the Democrat Party. They've transformed the Democrat Party into the party of big government, government control and I think what's happening - we see happening now is the small government; constitutional limited small government folks who have sort of risen up across the country and have been identified as the Tea Party activists are transforming the Republican Party so that we would then basically have, as Goldwater said, a real choice and not (inaudible at 00:44:03). And so quite frankly, I think the differences between the two parties will be more sharply drawn by way of the activists that have put themselves in the positions to define the agenda of both parties. [00:44:21] QUESTIONER: Second question, you and Newt Gingrich have had your differences over the years. How do you access his role in this election and his attitude towards the party? DICK ARMEY: Well actually Newt and I have really not had much differences over the years. We worked together. And I thought we worked together in a rather comfortable basis for a short period of time. I know he's out there doing things that - whatever he's doing. We're so busy doing what we do. And I, frankly, haven't had much occasion to take notice of what he's doing. MODERATOR: Amanda. AMANDA: Mr. Armey, following up with Newt Gingrich, he and some other conservatives like (inaudible at 00:44:57) have mentioned a possible government (inaudible at 00:45:00) if Republicans take, in fact, control of Congress. I was just wondering what you think about this? And if there are any lessons you learned from '95? [00:45:06] DICK ARMEY: Oh, I think that at this point to even start making projections of that nature is not - it's just speculation. And the fact of the matter is that you - the first thing you have to ask a question if in fact (inaudible at 00:45:25) of elections turn out, will there be a lame dick session? If there's a lame duck session, what was the Democrats try to accomplish in that (inaudible at 00:45:34)? There will be then the reforming of the government and the big (inaudible at 00:45:38) that was raised before will they be able to find a workable relationship between a new Republican majority and the White House? So there are many things that I think have to - we have to see develop before we speculate about a particular incident that might you know? I think there's a tendency to draw too many parallels between the '94 and '95 experience and what we think might happen here. [00:46:05] MODERATOR: Neil. NEIL: Yeah. Speaking of (inaudible at 00:46:08) assuming that it would be a conservative majority to take over the House (inaudible at 00:46:14) obviously it's going to be a lot more conservative than the current Republican Party in the House. What do you think their agenda should be when they actually sit in power in the House? What might be doable that would be significant going into the next election in 2012? DICK ARMEY: Well first of all, of course, they will be more responsive to the overall general central focus and will of the American people than either of the two parties have been for quite some time. So, controlling spending, reducing it if you can, certainly some way to rationalize healthcare legislation by way of, if you can not achieve a repeal at least maybe get some of the good things like tort reform and interstate purchases in there so that you can effect some real cost savings. [00:47:03] There are many innovations that you could do. There is going to be policy initiatives taken by all of these entrepreneurial folks (inaudible at 00:47:14). But, again, there's a realistic understanding that President Obama must sign whatever is best and not override vetoes. So I think the first best thing is stop the bleeding and get an angle on (inaudible at 00:47:34). My own view is that I hope they would try to recover a certain amount of parliamentary discipline. And when I look at what has happened legislatively in the last 10 years, eight years or so; I see a lot of it to be part of a - this is kind of an inside but a breakdown in the parliamentary process. They don't even use their own procedures. [00:47:59] They just they see a political opportunity or a panic and they get something on the bill the next day on the floor. And there's not enough process, not enough procedure, to make sure it's a rationally sane legislative effort. So, I'd would to see a more work - a higher quality of workmanship and discipline in the process which I would expect from this new majority. MODERATOR: Paul. PAUL: (inaudible at 00:48:28) been such a focus on the economy being kind of bad that the Tea Party, of course, has (inaudible at 00:48:34) a lot of folks that are worried about too much spending like you said. Mitch Danielson (inaudible at 00:48:38) seem to kind of endorse the truce (ph) on social issues going into the presidential election. Do you think such a thing can hold? DICK ARMEY: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. PAUL: Do you think there would be a truce on social issues? [00:48:51] DICK ARMEY: A truce? No. I mean these are issues of the heart. People are not going to turn their hearts and minds away from things that they have so heartfelt. But the fact of the matter is there's sort of a question of first things first priorities. If we lose this nation, if it falls into insolvency then all these other issues pretty well fall by the wayside too, don't they? So I think there's setting the priority but make no mistake about it, I, for example - only little example, since President Obama has been elected, there's been an extraordinary high levels of funding for international abortions through what's called the Mexico City Language (ph). That fight hasn't been had for a few years. Now that fight will be had with this majority. And, that's, of course, is probably more a life issue than it is a fiscal issue but it is a bit of both. But, again, no, these issues are too important to be left behind. And they won't be left behind. [00:50:06] MODERATOR: Donte. DONTE: (inaudible at 00:50:08) when you look at the different Tea Party organizations, they (inaudible at 00:50:13) there's quite a bit of diversity (inaudible at 00:50:17) type of thing but when you look at where they stand on issues, they're very different at a lower level. I mean so how do you - how can you hold that together as a - how much of a movement really is this Tea Party (inaudible at 00:50:31) What do you do on issues - like what do you do on issues like are you going to take - is there going to be a Tea Party position on abortion or whatnot (inaudible at 00:50:39)? DICK ARMEY: No, I don't think there is. I mean this is why we call this movement beautiful chaos. And there is a lot of diversative (ph) opinion on a lot of these other issues. But again, the issues that we all agree on are the issues that matter most to the nation today. And it's getting our government under control. It's getting our budget balances. It's getting the economy going again. [00:51:03] DONTE: But I mean (inaudible at 00:51:04) these are issues of the heart (inaudible at 00:51:07) conservatively. DICK ARMEY: Well - DONTE: And I - are they really going to lie down and just say well we'll get to that later? DICK ARMEY: But remember there are contesting national associations around these issues. There is a national right to life. And then there's national family planning or whoever it all (inaudible at 00:51:26) that. And the new majority as the existing majority will have to work out their position on these issues in response to that contesting that's going out there. So, the fact that the small government grass roots organization - movement that you call Tea Party doesn't focus on this doesn't mean there aren't associations and organizations out there that are very much alive and active and focused on them. MODERATOR: Gayle. [00:51:57] GAYLE: Mr. Armey, I wondered if you could give us a book review of the new Young Guns book which doesn't mention (inaudible at 00:52:06). Does that suggest to you there likely a leadership struggle in the works? And how do you compare a young gun to a Tea Party activist? DICK ARMEY: I haven't read the book yet. And, I don't know. One of the things that I caution a lot of folks about is I think by - it's constitutional. The Congress has to select its own leadership. It has to define its own room. So when the new majority is formed; it is the prerogative and the duty of the newly elected members or all the members of the Republican Caucus, Democrat Caucus and eventually then the whole body to elect their leadership. That's quite frankly is their job. And while we might want to assert our advice, they're free to ignore it - our advice on that. It's an inside business. [00:53:04] Now I don't know exactly what's going on there. I haven't talked to them. I think it might be an interesting book. It was my hope that if I picked up this book, I would find it focused on policy matters. If the Republican Party doesn't get itself focused on policy matters then it'll be never again anything but another shadow of a Democrat Party that is constantly preoccupied with its own politics. MODERATOR: Maria. MARIA: (inaudible at 00:53:32) I'd like to talk to you about Texas politics. Because after all; all politics is local. Since you still live in Texas and could you talk about the Tea Party impact on the Texas political landscape? And if you'd also talk about the governor's race because it seems like the Tea Party is very interested in destabilizing the status quo. Yet in the case of Rick Perry, we seem to be on our way to having a permanent governor. So, could you just talk about Texas and how you see things shaping up? [00:54:02] DICK ARMEY: Well, Texas politics is interesting to me in that historically the contest was always in the Democrat Party. And I think the great race between - in - was it '68 for the Senate between Yarvo and Lloyd Benson was the last time a conservative Democrat won a statewide race in Texas. So more and more; it has become a race between a liberal Democrat in the fashion of say a Lloyd Doggett and a rational sane conservative Republican. The governor has won the affection of the Tea Party Movement in his state. And that, of course, carried through the primary. Now, of course, for the small government conservative activists, it's become pretty much a no brainer. It's either our governor or if you'll pardon the vernacular, a loony, lefty Democrat. [00:55:03] DICK ARMEY: Because and it's become kind of the Democrat Party has been so overtaken that quite frankly folks hardly bother now to stop (inaudible at 00:55:16) and say let me give you - let me take the time to do an in depth examination of the Democrat candidate. They say no, the odds are about 9 percent I'm going to find a loony elective. That's the only people that survive in that party in this state anymore. So, I think it's really come down really to the classic do we want big government controls in the State of Texas or do we want small government responsible - restraint? And that's the contest. MARIA: Could you talk about (inaudible at 00:55:48)? You know Chet Edwards is now putting himself out as - I don't think he's actually used the word conservative but he keeps - he started voting against a lot of things including the Obama healthcare plan. So what do you think about that? [00:56:03] DICK ARMEY: Yeah, Chet's trying to live in a world that was sort of a world that broke up in one way in '68. And he's trying to be what Ralph Hall was able to be for a while. And finally, Ralph had to give up. Charlie Stenholm tried to survive it. It's the old Texas yellow dog. Chet's trying to stand on that ground. And that ground; that's a very difficult ground which to stand. And, I always said a blue dog is a counterfeit conservative looking for work. And I think Chet's kind of stuck on that deal. And I feel bad for him because I'm - my guess is most of the abuse he feels in this life he's feeling from his own party not from our party. MODERATOR: Shawn Miller. SHAWN MILLER: (inaudible at 00:56:45) talk about whether or not you think that the movement - the Tea Party activists will focus on getting legislation passed after the midterms or whether or not, they'll shift their focus to the 2012 Republican primary - presidential primary? DICK ARMEY: You want to take that? I'll take it. [00:57:01] MATT KIBBE: You take it first. DICK ARMEY: Well this whole activist movement is about policy. And it's born largely out of their being upset that politicians seem to be too preoccupied with politics. Now, they do have and as you travel from state to state, you will find the activists in this state or that state having identified what are the races that are going to be our priority races in the next election cycle. But there's no doubt about it, their ability or willingness to evaluate did we get good candidates elected this time and are they doing a good job with America will be a policy evaluation not a political evaluation. SHAWN MILLER: But it seems like the energy of the movement is really, it's building because there's these victories in primaries. I mean do you think they're be able to keep that going if the focus shifts to the sausage making of legislation? [00:58:04] DICK ARMEY: Yeah. Well of course, I mean certainly you feel good. Look, if you've got a Mark Rubio as the Republican Party candidate instead of a Charlie (inaudible at 00:58:12), you feel good about that. You say freedom is winning. You can see a victory in Florida. When you see a young, bright, constitutional lawyer, a man who seems to have a real heart for the Constitution especially and a bright awareness of it, you say hey, the cause of freedom as we know it is making progress with that victory. So those victories are reinforcing that the nation at large is sharing our commitment that we must preserve the following principals of this nation that has served it so well for 200 years. So we - MODERATOR: We've got about a minute and a half. Donna then last question. DONNA: My question's actually for Matt. Matt, you mentioned that the next step for growth is developing a set of ideas that can be shared across the leaderless movement. And you mentioned a Web site, a diversity, is that more by (inaudible at 00:59:01) but - [00:59:02] MATT KIBBE: Well, yeah, it is. DONNA: The question is what exactly are your plans for the next steps? And how you see it going? MATT KIBBE: Well the focus of the 9-12 speakers yesterday was the various plans (ph) of the Contract for America. And each of those deal with budget and taxes, environmental policy, all the economic policies that have (inaudible at 00:59:22) the move in healthcare. And I think what you're going to see is that Tea Party Leaders are going to be looking for legislative champions in this new Congress that are going to pick up those ideas. And we were talking about this earlier. The question of how do you stop Obama care now is a complicated one. You do - you have to repeal it but you have to do it in a various - there's a whole thing - set of things you have to do. [00:59:47] You got to go after the individual mandates. You got to go after the funding before it kicks in. And it becomes a set of ideas that aren't just on signs anymore. We're talking about legislative language. And we're talking about legislative coalitions that are inside Congress and outside in the Tea Party Movement. That's how you actually move things. Now if the president decides to veto those things then you have a real clash of visions for the 2012 election. [01:00:17] MODERATOR: We want to thank both of you and Mrs. Armey for being here with us today. We appreciate it very much. Thank you.