I have stated numerous times that there is no way Romney can win my vote. His positions past and present, anathema to the Constitution, individual rights, and the principles of liberty, are too fundamental for me to overlook. That remains the case. But as the philosopher James Bond once said, never say never. And so today, I have come to the conclusion that there is at least one way in which Romney could secure my vote, and it would be by giving this speech, or something comparable to it.
My fellow Americans, the contest to discover who will win the GOP nomination and face Barack Obama in the general election is well underway, but does not show any sign of ending soon. The field has been narrowed to four candidates. Each one has stated their intent to remain in this contest until the GOP convention, and each one has legitimate reasons for doing so. But whereas you, I, and the other GOP candidates may disagree on some things, I believe we can agree that the money and time we are spending on fighting each other would be better spent fighting Obama and his policies of big government, crony capitalism, bailouts for the rich, endless wars, violations of civil liberties, and special rights for privileged groups rather than equal rights for all individuals.
Some of you may be scratching your heads right now and asking “Wait Mitt, didn’t you support TARP and other bailouts? Haven’t you been in support of the wars we’re fighting? Didn’t you support Obama’s recent signing of NDAA?” It would be fair of you to ask those questions. But allow me to explain.
When I first got involved in politics, I did it because I had ideas about what the country should look like and how it could be better. I wanted to make America stronger, better, and I thought “If only I could be in charge, I could fix things.” I’ve been in charge of or have played a leading role in many companies, the 2002 Winter Olympics, and other organizations and events and each time I’ve been able to execute successfully and make great things happen. I thought if I could do the same in government, I could make this country and the world a better place.
As Governor of Massachusetts I did my best. I helped create a healthcare system that would have covered more people at a lower overall cost. The state messed it up after I left, but we don’t need to go into details. The point is I saw a way I could use the state government to make things better for people, and I did my best to do that.
But having tasted success at the state level, I wanted to bring improvement to the country, and I thought I had a good chance at making it happen. Things didn’t go my way in 2008, but they didn’t go the right way for Reagan the first time he ran either, so I bided my time for the 2012 elections. As it happens, I couldn’t have asked for better circumstances, at least in terms of the timing for me to get elected.
The country has been a disaster since Obama got elected. We don’t need to go into those details either, you all know what I’m talking about. The point here is that we have a very unpopular President, a bad economy, and with my background and name recognition I should have had this nomination locked up. But things haven’t gone my way. I’ve won some states, but not enough to clinch the nomination. It’s obvious from the way GOP voters have gone this way and that from one candidate to another that while I’m popular with a lot of you, there are a lot of you who have doubts about me. I’ve been accused of flip-flopping on issues and not being a true conservative. I view this merely as a sign that I’ve been open-minded enough to have learned, progressed, and changed my mind on some things over the years, but I can see how some might see it as pandering, and yet others might see an opportunity for political gain. The truth is that I have changed my mind over the years. You can call it flip-flopping, but I would prefer to call it an education.
It’s hard for someone in my position to admit they’re still learning. When you reach the point of running for the office of President of the United States you want to project confidence, even omniscience, and you worry that any sign that you don’t already have all the answers will lead voters to doubt your abilities. But with as much as there is to learn in this world it would be foolish of me to think I have all the answers. And it would be insulting if I expected you to believe I was anything close to omniscient. I may sometimes come across as a know-it-all, but just talk to my wife and she’ll give you the real story.
One thing I have wanted to learn and understand is why I haven’t locked up the nomination already. I knew why I lost in 2008, but I thought it would be easier this time around. But in many states so far, even some of those I’ve won, I haven’t gotten as many votes as I did in ’08. At the same time Ron Paul, who has gotten less votes than me so far, has been getting two and three times as many votes as he did in ’08. I’m a numbers guy, and I like solving problems. This is a big one.
I already knew that Ron Paul’s followers are the most passionate out there. But I wanted to understand why. So I started studying Ron Paul’s positions and policy statements. I started reading his books, as well as those he has recommended in the past. You might recall the reading assignment he gave Rudy Giuliani back in 2008. I went and read those books recently. I’ve also been reading scores of articles from libertarian thinkers, studying the lives of the Founders, and have read and re-read the Constitution more times than I can count during the past month. I’ve thought long and hard about what I’ve been learning, and I’ve prayed quite a bit too, and I’ve come to a difficult conclusion–I’ve decided to end my campaign for the Presidency of the United States, effective immediately. This is not a suspension of my campaign–I’m not going to re-enter in a month or two. I’m done. Of course you’ll want to know why.
I see now that I’ve been wrong–fundamentally wrong. For years, decades even, I’ve believed that the way to fix the country was to elect good people who would do good things. That sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? But it’s completely wrong. I now see that the way to fix the country is to elect people who will not pass good laws, but who will strip away the majority of the laws we have today and let the people govern themselves. The problem our nation faces is not that we have bad laws, nor that we have a lack of good laws, but that we have too many laws. I’ve also seen the wisdom of the Founders in restricting the federal government so that neither good nor bad people could move quickly. This was intentional. They recognized that if the system is set up to allow good people to do good things quickly, the same system can be used to allow bad people to do bad things quickly. The Founders put their faith in the American people, not their leaders. But we’ve come a long way, and our laws and government have become corrupted such that it’s no longer we the people who run this country, the country is run by a largely corrupt group of power-hungry men and women who are taking advantage of the rest of us. Unfortunately, I did not see this until recently. But I now see why Thomas Jefferson wrote “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
Extending the blessings of freedom to all people means sometimes people will do things you don’t like to see or even know about. I used to think it was ok for government to step in and force people to do good things. Now I see that unless one person is physically hurting another or stealing or damaging their property, the government should play no role.
There is no other candidate who understands this but Ron Paul. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum do not understand it–I now see they’re in the same boat I was. They see themselves as the solution to the country’s problems. Ron Paul doesn’t see himself as the solution, he sees you, the people, as the solution, and by cutting back government power he wants to give you the freedom, and the power, to make your own decisions and fix the problems this country has. I now see that Ron Paul’s followers are more passionate about the man’s message than the man himself.
And so along with canceling my campaign, I wholeheartedly endorse Ron Paul as our next President of the United States and urge all my supporters, not to blindly throw their support behind Ron Paul, but to study the Constitution, study the Founders, read the books Ron Paul has written as well as those he recommends, and then make your own decision. I think you’ll come to the same conclusion I did, and which Ronald Reagan did before me. As Reagan said, “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
You might be wondering what I’ll be doing now. Well, I’ve got a lot to learn, and I plan on doing a lot of studying. With that I’d like to turn the time over to Ron Paul.
Ron Paul:
If anyone is having a heart attack right now I apologize I can’t help you, I’m not that kind of doctor.
I would like to speak to those of you who have supported Mitt Romney during this campaign. I know some of you think I’m a nut-case. I admit I’m not the best messenger for the message of freedom. My suits don’t fit, I’m old (although I’ll reissue my challenge to Mitt and any other candidate to a 15-mile bike race), my hair doesn’t look that great, and I’m not that polished of a speaker. In addition, the message of freedom doesn’t fit too well in short sound-bites. That’s why if you’ve ever had a personal encounter with any of my followers they want you to read all sorts of books and articles and watch videos that are an hour or two long. It takes a lot of time and effort to understand why freedom is the best policy, and that makes it hard for it to take hold until things get bad enough that people are willing to take time out of their busy days and read these books and articles and watch these videos and get educated about liberty.
Well, I can tell you I was as shocked as you are when Mitt first contacted me. That was a month ago. He called me up and said “I’ve got some questions for you, but you have to promise me you won’t tell another soul that we’ve had this conversation.” I said I’d agree as long as he wasn’t planning anything diabolical, and he then asked me a simple question “What books do you wish I would read?” At first it was as though someone were talking to me in a foreign language because I couldn’t believe my ears, but then I said “Well, if you need some heavy reading to help you get to sleep I’ve got plenty of that.” He laughed and so did I and then I gave him some books to read. I mentioned For a New Liberty and What Has Government Done to Our Money by Murray Rothbard for starters, as well as Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. I also told him he should read a new book I endorsed by a member of his church, Latter-day Liberty by Connor Boyack.
I didn’t hear from him for two weeks. Then he called back and he had not only read all those books, but several others, and we talked for a few hours on the phone and it was obvious he was going through a bit of a conversion process, which I understand can be strange for someone born into the LDS Church. But it was really a happy moment for me, not because Mitt is the most serious opponent I have in this race, but I had the same joy I get every time I meet someone who has had the lightbulb go on over their head and I can see in them that they understand liberty for the first time.
He told me he was going to drop out of the race and I said “Are you sure about that? You’re not making a hasty decision you’ll regret?” He said “No, this is something that has been working on me for awhile, but it finally reached a tipping point. I could keep on running, but to be true to myself I would have to mirror all your positions, which you’ve had for 30 years. Now that I understand the cause of liberty, I see that I’m not the guy to move it forward right now. I’ve got a lot of learning to do.” He told me he’d be having this press conference, and to please keep it confidential until this moment, which I have. I didn’t even tell my wife what we were coming to this for, although I think she sensed something was up.
Now, if Mitt hasn’t killed off all his supporters, and mine also, by cardiac arrest, I’ve got an announcement that is going to kill off whoever is left of mine. I’ve asked Mitt Romney to be my running mate, and he has accepted.
I know, I know what all my supporters are saying, but hear me out. What I want you to know first is that this was my own idea–Mitt never suggested or hinted at it at all. It also wasn’t something I came up with overnight–it took a few nights, that’s all I had. But I think my supporters will understand that once someone is converted to the message of liberty, you can see it. It’s very hard to fake, I’m not even sure it can be faked. And during the hours I spoke with Mitt I could see that his conversion was real. That isn’t to say he knows everything about libertarianism or Rothbard or Mises or the Austrian school of economics, but he’s on the right track and I’m convinced he’s going to stay on it.
And then I thought, you know, a person can get a lot of reading done in four years…and although I plan on being just as healthy as I am today, I am an older man, and quite honestly, who better to lead this country than a Mitt Romney who has spent four or eight years studying liberty? And of course I’ll be keeping a close eye on him…
I also see this as a great way to spread our message. Imagine the power of a Paul-Romney ticket, with Romney as fully on board as any of us when it comes to liberty. Is there any doubt the two of us will be able to beat Obama in November?
I also want to say that Romney turned me down the first time I suggested this. He thought I would have a better chance of winning without him on the ticket than with him, and he said he needed to do more studying in order to be ready for the Presidency, which is what the VP should be, a man who is immediately ready to be President. But we talked it over and he came around.
So again, to both my supporters as well as those of Romney’s, I hope we can put any hard feelings to rest and come together. We are on the same team and we all want what’s best for the country and our families even if we sometimes disagree on how to get there. But let’s agree that there is more that unites us than divides us, and let’s wrap up this contest for the GOP contest and get on to fighting the real fight and spread the message of liberty all the way to the White House!
There you have it folks. If that press conference were to happen, I would gladly throw my vote behind Romney. One can dream.
Today, Rush (and apparently others) suggested that Paul hasn’t been criticizing Romney and Mitt has not been attacking Paul because Romney made a deal with Paul to select Rand Paul as his V.P. Could it be?
Oh, I enjoyed your article Josh. It’ll do.
Great Article. I shared it on facebook and via email to a few family & friends.
My brother wrote the following response to this article after i shared it with him. He gave me permission to share this with others if I so chose. I am choosing to share it with you….
Impractical Zealot’s Article
As for me I look for a man who has been successful at all his endeavors. Who has no vested time on the beltway. Who has taken on the liberals in their own state and won. Who was praised by conservatives, liberals, independents and libertarians alike for his approach to health care in his democratic state (until of course it became politically unpopular and claimed by all of the above, for their individual motivations, as the seed of Obama care which HE totally opposes). Who has his own money invested in the outcome. Who has had a career of turnarounds and has actual major leadership experience. Who took the Olympics after 9/11 when many lobbied to have a bye and resurrected it from the hands of dishonor and corruption to be the most successful of winter Olympics, thus giving all a needed patriotic boost. Who believes the constitution an inspired of God document that made possible the restoration (of the gospel of Jesus Christ). Who represents everything that is good about family and the strength of America. Who was brought up in a home where American values were core and continues them with his family. Who would have a hard time with the legalization of drugs and prostitution. Who has been financially successful through his own work ethic and resolute dedication. Who certainly has weighed on the scale all of his opponent’s thoughts and has clearly laid out his beliefs in his book, “No Apologies,” for all to read and attack (clearly Joshua has not studied that). And, who is a faithful Temple recommend holder who does not shy from his faith or that of his fathers and has served others in church callings from (being a) home teacher to (being a) Stake President and has administered and understands the principles of welfare.
Never the less, Joshua, and others of like mind, may get what they clearly must want most. A man who cannot, under any circumstance, win the election. And they can loudly claim their cause was right as the nation suffers another four years of President Obama. If that happens they may well loose their opportunity to influence the good that Paul represents in the future.
Well said “brother of Kris.” This isn’t a time to choose death over compromise. Maybe later.
I heard of a new book being talked about today that grabbed my interest. I have wondered what the world would be like had the USA never existed. Dr. Robert Kagen in “The World America Made” gives his opinion on that issue and on the decline of America. One reviewer summarize thus: “Overall it is a compelling, if frightening argument for why American cannot and should not withdraw from the world stage. “
Great thoughts Josh. Ron Paul is the candidate for people who want freedom and liberty. He is the candidate for less government. He is the man with a track record of rejecting new law that is contrary to the Constitution. Ron Paul understands the concept of free moral agency which should be in the forefront of the minds of all Christians and especially members of the LDS church. Government can make tens of thousands of laws and create a remedy for “moral crime” but it can’t change the hearts of bad men and women. Only the gospel of Christ embraced by the individual believer can make a real difference. Government is the problem not the solution. If the Mitt lovers could reflect on the writings of Hans Verlan Anderson and also “The proper Role of Government” by president Benson, some clarity might evolve to reveal the most desirable candidate for the highest office in the Federal government.
There are more people in jail in America per capita than anywhere else in the world. That does not say much about the American way of life and perhaps says much about a society that is out of control in the big government department. See 2 Chronicles 7:14 for the real answer to this dilemma
http://www.zionsbest.com/proper_role.html
Read about the proper role of gov’t here
2 Chronicles 7:14
King James Version (KJV)
14If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
In response to Kris’ brother, I’ll start at the end, with the claim that Ron Paul “cannot, under any circumstance, win the election.”
It might be true that Ron Paul will not win the election, but it’s not true that he couldn’t. His greatest challenge would be winning the GOP nomination. With that in the bag, winning the general election would be relatively easy. Not easy, but relatively so. Doubt it? Ron Paul has consistently polled as being able to beat Obama in a general election, with this being just the latest poll to show such a thing.
It’s my opinion that Ron Paul would actually have a better chance of beating Obama than Romney does. Why? Independents make up roughly 40% of voters, more than either Democrats or Republicans. Romney does better amongst Republicans, but much poorer amongst Independents than Paul, and Independents, not Democrats or Republicans, will decide who wins the general election. See the book The Declaration of Independents for more on this. I do not see Romney as very electable against Obama in the general election. I think it will be difficult for him to differentiate himself and he has a problem coming across as genuine. And unfair as it may be, his religion will be a factor. There is a substantial number of people who will not vote for him no matter what on that issue alone.
As for his record as a businessman he has certainly been successful, but does that necessarily translate into success as a President? I might hire him to run a private equity firm or a big business, but I don’t see the problems in our country as being operational in nature. Making Social Security more efficient won’t fix our problems. Making Medicare run leaner won’t save us from bankruptcy.
Despite Romney’s successful record as a businessman I am also not convinced he understands how the economy works. This usually brings scoffs and people saying “Look how successful he’s been! Of course he understands the economy!” But being a successful businessman and understanding how the economy works are two entirely separate disciplines, like quantum mechanics and long division. Sure, they’re sort of related, but being an expert in one doesn’t mean one is an expert in the other, although that assumption might plausibly be made by someone who is an expert in neither and sees it all as “just math”. If Romney did understand the economy he wouldn’t have supported TARP. He would have known that his health care plan in MA would, of necessity, raise the price of insurance, which has happened and now MA has the highest health insurance premiums in the country. Economics is more about understanding people and how they respond to incentives as individuals and groups when it comes to matters of production and trade, and I see no reason to believe Romney is an expert in these areas. If he were, he’d be praising the Austrian school of economics which has predicted every major financial catastrophe of the past century. He’d be railing against the Federal Reserve system and talking up sound money.
I am sure Romney believes the Constitution is an inspired document, but I am not sure he understands it, nor the minds of the men who wrote it. If he understands the Constitution, why did he support Obama’s signing of NDAA? Why has he supported unconstitutional wars? Why did he support TARP?
What exactly are the American values Romney holds dear? The federal war on drugs has cost tens of billions of dollars to US taxpayers, has directly funded the explosion of organized crime, makes it more difficult for addicts to seek treatment, has destroyed countless families, and has destabilized multiple countries in South America. And yet it is easier for a 12 year old to purchase heroin than alcohol, which is legal. The war on drugs has failed massively on all counts, which is why so many of our police officers and others on the front lines of this war are calling for an end to it. I’ve never done drugs and don’t plan to. I don’t want my children to do drugs. I want fewer people generally to do drugs. That’s part of why I’m against the war on drugs and in favor of legalization, or at least decriminalization. I don’t think it’s the job of the federal government to fight drug use–that’s the job of families, friends, churches, and treatment centers, and those organizations are imminently more qualified to do the job. For me, ending the war on drugs is the practical thing to do if we want to more effectively stem drug abuse. But most of all, I’m against drugs being illegal based on principle. As long as I’m not hurting someone else, nobody else has the right to dictate what I put in my body. If I commit an act of aggression while under the influence of a substance I should be punished for the crime I committed, but whether or not I was under the influence of something should have no bearing on the matter.
What disturbes me most about Romney is his apparent lack of understanding of individual freedom and our G0d-given rights. We were given two plans to choose from; one wherein we would be forced to do what was right and sin was not an option, and another in which we would be free to choose our actions but responsible for the consequences. The more I learn about Romney, the more I see him as someone who is willing to use the power of government to force all of us to behave properly, according to Romney’s definition of “proper”. I’m sure I agree with Romney on what is proper and what isn’t, but I believe it dangerous to endow government with the power to decide what is and what isn’t proper and to punish those who do not behave properly. Allowing people to have their freedom means people will do things we don’t like. They may do drugs, frequent prostitutes, “marry” other people of the same sex, etc., but that is the price of living in a free society. If I am willing to create a system that strips freedom from people who do things I don’t like, when they’re not hurting me, someday that system will be controlled by those very people, and they will take my freedom away. If I don’t want the system to be used against me, I must fight against the creation of the system, even if the system can be used for good purposes. This is what the NDAA does, it creates a system that can be abused. Romney’s response was “I don’t think he [Obama] will abuse this power, and if I were president I would not abuse this power.” Thomas Jefferson’s response was “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
Four more years of Obama is not the worst thing that could happen to this country. Far worse would be for this country to continue moving in the wrong direction because we keep on falling into the trap of voting for the lesser of two evils, never realizing that both “the evil” and “the lesser evil” are moving toward a cliff. If we are ever going to stop this train we call America from going over the cliff, we must start supporting those who are calling for us to stop it and turn it around. As long as we are willing to settle for the guy who will merely lessen the rate of acceleration, just because the mainstream media tells us he’s more electable, we will continue moving toward the cliff and will eventually go over it.
I am completing my reading of Gandhi and Churchill which documents the fall of the British empire. The similarities between the fall of the British empire and the current state of the United States are striking. The British saw their involvement in the world as a great good, a blessing to the world. They saw whatever they did as right, regardless of what it was. They saw their superiority as God-given, and considered only themselves fit to rule their colonies, ostensibly for the good of the inferior citizens of those colonies, such as India. They ignored the great harm and suffering their empire created. They saw no reason to apologize for anything they did. Many of the problems we are experiencing today, especially in the Middle East, can be tied directly to Britain’s foreign policy. Britain is still suffering from their domestic policies started in the wake of WWII. I fear that we, like they, are engaging in very similar foreign and domestic policies. Obama does not seem to understand this. Neither does Romney. It is clear from what Ron Paul says that he has studied history and does understand the danger we’re in, and that’s why I can’t vote for Romney. To do so would, in my opinion, be to give up on this country, violate my religious beliefs, and throw my vote away.
To vote for the lesser of two evils is to vote for evil.
Your vote for Ron Paul is a vote for “choosing the right”
Your choice for good will be evaluated by the One who sees fairly and judiciously some day soon.
For people of faith, this should matter.
“We engage in the election the same as in any other principle; you are to vote for good men, and if you do not do this it is a sin; to vote for wicked men, it would be sin. Choose the good and refuse the evil. Men of false principles have preyed upon us like wolves upon helpless lambs. Damn the rod of tyranny; curse it. Let every man use his liberties according to the Constitution. Don’t fear man or devil; electioneer with all people, male and female, and exhort them to do the thing that is right. We want a President of the U. S., not a party President, but a President of the whole people; for a party President disfranchises the opposite party. Have a President who will maintain every man in his rights.” Hyrum Smith
Now, Romney is certainly not the type of man to whom Hyrum Smith was referring. I don’t believe Romney has a malicious bone in his body. But his comments and actions imply that he does not understand the Constitution nor fundamental principles of individual liberty, and as such may pose as great a danger as someone who does have malicious intent. Worse, in a sense, because it confuses people. We see this with Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Republicans thought Clinton was horrible, so they elected Bush. Bush was much, much worse than Clinton, but because he was a Republican, everyone assumed that whatever Bush did was in line with conservative principles when in reality he was just continuing Clinton’s policies but with more gusto. Now we have a generation that thinks that whatever Bush did was conservative, when in reality it wasn’t. Because Bush’s policies were progressive, they didn’t work, but instead of liberalism or progressivism getting the blame, conservatism got the blame, and so we got Obama who promised change. Of course Obama hasn’t changed anything, but has doubled down on Bush’s liberal, big government, welfare/warfare state policies. But at least we know who to blame. If Romney is elected, people will expect they’re going to get conservatism which will supposedly fix things, but instead they’ll get a continuation of Clinton-Bush-Obama, only more “efficient”. Once again, people will be misled as to what conservatism is and it will be tarnished with the stain of failure when “it” doesn’t work even though it won’t be conservatism that has failed, but rather Romney who will fail to be a principled conservative. Far better to stand on principle and make clear the differences between conservatism and progressivism, even if it means losing. If progressivism wins, but is correctly identified, when it fails this increases the chance we will one day get true conservative principles established. But if we continued to fool ourselves into assuming anyone with an R in front of their name is a conservative, and we vote for whomever the media tells us is electable, we will continue on the path we’re on, and nothing will change, nothing will be fixed, and we’ll go over the cliff regardless. As Alan said, we cannot vote for the lesser of two evils or we are voting for evil.
Kris’ brother faulted me for not having read Romney’s book, No Apology. I just finished it, and here’s what I think of it.
Looks like I’m not the only one thinking about Romney as a potential VP for Ron Paul.
Have you seen the TV show “The Shark Tank” on ABC? They have an expression that I’m going to use for this particular dialog. Are you ready for it?
“I’m out.”
If you don’t understand, I suggest you watch this interesting show. It’s aired on Friday nights.