The Recovering Romney Voter

Johnny Hardy – a firm believer that the only moral role of government is to protect rights, the federal government should be strictly restrained to the powers specifically delegated in the Constitution, and the US military should not be engaged in aggressive undeclared wars throughout the world – was seriously considering voting for Mitt Romney.  Johnny discusses why he first considered that Romney may be worthy of his vote and then discusses why he no longer feels this way.  He also discusses whether voting for a third party is a wasted vote.  The episode ends with Jeremy explaining who he is planning to vote for on election day.

This entry was posted in Podcast, Politics Podcast. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to The Recovering Romney Voter

  1. andrew says:

    i would love to see the content of that e-mail.

  2. Chelsea says:

    Great podcast! I’m sending this on to a few people. Jeremy: Jordan and I had the same thing with Gary Johnson happen. We also decided we can’t vote for him because he is pro-choice, even though he is also for state’s rights. We listened to an interview of him on YouTube and he couldn’t answer the question! I also got the email about the home teacher thing, I was so irritated I couldn’t respond. Ridiculous. People can also search YouTube for the video, still voting for Mitt Romney. It shows many of the flip flops and is pretty entertaining.  I kind of tend to think if he isn’t transparent, then he knows exactly what he is doing to get elected. Oh, and he doesn’t want to audit the fed…that is telling. Thanks again guys.

  3. Darth Ben says:

    Darth Ben is a great home teacher.

  4. Richy says:

    Because there is no perfect candidate, I think everyone needs to prioritize what is most important for them in any given election, and support the candidate who comes nearest to what they believe is most important. Clearly, a candidate who supports the constitution and principles of liberty should be very high on that list. I believe that high on that list should include a candidate who is opposed to gay marriage (I would argue that these this issue has a lot to do with principles of liberty as well). I believe this specific topic should be on the forefront of our minds for three reasons:

    1.) It is highly likely the President will nominate at least one person to be a supreme justice in the next four years. Though I recognize the Senate needs to confirm the appointment, this nomination is one of the few powers that the President has direct control over. The topic of same-sex marriage is one that is brought on a more continually regular basis to justices on the state level, and will inevitably be brought forward more regularly to supreme justices as differing state laws will have only more friction.

    2.) The Church has made it very clear where it stands on this issue. We don’t frequently see the Church issue statements regarding political issues, however the most frequent releases have been regarding same-sex marriage (if I am wrong about this, please correct me). Does this not illustrate how significant this issue is? For example, if were not significant, why did the Church issue a six-page statement about the issue in 2008? ( see http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage ). If this was not important to discuss, why did the church declare its support for an amendment that supports traditional marriage? ( see http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=ab1a9150dfcad010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=7cecc8fe9c88d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD).

    3.) This issue has a lot of to be principles of liberty, namely religious freedom. In 2009, Elder Oaks described how the movements toward same-gender marriage can be considered attacks on religious freedom. (see http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/oaks-religious-freedom) Is not religious freedom a right that should be on the forefront of our minds?

    I really enjoy these podcasts. They are both entertaining and entitling. However, considering its significance I do find it quite interesting that this topic was not addressed at all when discussing the appropriate candidate to support. Jeremy, Johnny, JC and others – is this topic not important to discuss and consider in voting? Is it not one of the most important issues, especially if you based your vote on teachings of the Church? If it is important, its important to note that at least with Romney and Obama, there are major differences. What does Gary Johnson believe? I believe Ron Paul believe in turning the power back over to the states (correct me if I’m wrong). Does this position stand more in line with what we have been taught by the Church than what other candidates believe?

    • Johnny Hardy says:

      Richy,

      You bring up a very interesting point about the Church recently supporting a marriage amendment. This very topic was actually discussed in our podcast recording, but unfortunately it got edited out (probably because other comments immediately before and after were redundant and didn’t add much to the podcast). When I said I agree with Ron Paul 90-95%, this is a good example where I disagree (also disagree with Gary Johnson). You’ll very rarely find a candidate that you agree with 100% of the time, so in any election some compromise is necessary. The important thing is that you support a candidate that you agree with the majority of the time, and overall is striving to move government the right direction.

      Although Romney is correct on this issue, he is wrong on many other issues where the prophets and apostles have spoken. For example, the church is very clearly opposed to socialism, but Romney supports it in forms such as social security, medicare, and various subsidies. As governor, Romney supported abortion even though the church is very clearly opposed. In the last General Conference, Elder Oaks said: “Many laws permit or even promote abortion, but to us this is a great evil.” These are only a couple examples. If you take Romeny’s stance overall versus what the Gospel teaches about government, unfortunately I think he’s wrong the majority of the time.

      • Johnny Hardy says:

        I just learned today, although Romney supports a marriage amendment, he thinks gay couples have a right to adopt. In May 2012, he said in an interview with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto: “And that if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship and even want to adopt a child, in my state individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view that’s something that people have the right to do, but to call that marriage is, in my view, a departure of the real meaning of that word.” [http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/romney-consistent-in-support-of-gay-adoption-supports-letting-states-decide/]

        This contradicts what the prophets taught us in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”, which states: “Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.” [Note: the "entitled" indicates that it is a right that they are "reared by a father and a mother"].

        So to say you’re voting for Romney mostly because he is in line with what the Church has taught about Gay rights isn’t quite correct–he still contradicts the Church on this issue (although admittedly less than other candidates).

  5. Michael Lee McKee says:

    Where do I start? Notwithstanding the main thrust of the conversation, I am having a troublesome time trying to determine why I should not cast my secret ballot for the candidate who holds the Melchizideck Priesthood. Upon seeking understanding from the Holy Ghost, it became clear to me. I am now absolutely certain why I should cast my lot with the man who may receive revealed truths from the source of all truth. Were I to vote solely based upon my understanding of our constitutional principles, I would be inclined to cast my ballot for the man who has no equal in the halls of governance. It would also be my inclination to disuade my priesthood brethren from entering the voting booth without having first sought revelation to guide their hand.

    • Johnny Hardy says:

      Michael,

      I agree that we should seek personal revelation in deciding who to vote for. I also know I cannot receive revelation for you. However, based on your reasoning, I take it you also then support Harry Reid because he is a Melchizidec Priesthood holder. So since Reid and Romney disagree on a plethora of issues, which is following the Holy Ghost?

      • Michael Lee McKee says:

        For the sake of clarity, I should indicate my understanding for seeking devine guidance. I have learned it is much more successful when we have come to a solid conclusion after having struggled with a multiplicity of thoughts and desired conclusions. Once we have settled our minds on just one specific thought, we may seek to know if our final decision is justifiable.

        I will cast my vote for Brother Romney with absolute confidence I have made the correct decision based upon the many conflicted thoughts which occupied my mind prior to arriving at the aforementioned conclusion.

        I should further indicate why I had such a trying time to reach my final decision. I cast my vote in 2008 for Pastor Chuck Baldwin due to being a member of The Constitution Party. While I tried to support and consider Brother Romney, I simply could not do so. Chuck Baldwin was endorsed by Ron Paul, who would have been my choice, before he recommended Pastor Baldwin. I am also a member of the John Birch Society which, as you may know, has shown us why we should abstain from voting for either the Republican or the Democrat candidate. I support and agree with their assessment. I have had opportunities to dine and get to know both Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin. I would follow either of them through the gates of hell to fight for freedom, liberty and justice. I would also feel blessed to carry the standard of Captain Moroni while so engaged. My mentors in the church are President Ezra Taft Benson, W. Cleon Skousen, H. Verlyn Andersen, and many others who saw there wisdom and insight into exposing the secret combinations which should not be getting above us as they are.

        As for your comment concerning Brother Reid, he is not a presidential candidate. Personally, I would need to decline a Temple Recommend interview with him were I his Bishop. Our Heavenly Father has commanded us to pray for our enemies and it is not easy for me to do so for this brother.

        In the final analysis, I pray we will consider the things Mitt Romney may do for the betterment of this land as opposed to the things the alternative choice will do toward further destroying the scant remains of the freedom and liberty far too many of us take for granted. The harsh reality of the current system is one of these two souls will become the President of the United States of America chosen, hopefully, by the voice of the people. The remaining alternatives have virtually no chance of being successful due to those same conditions.

        I, for one, have faith we will be able to turn the tide of Constitutional destruction under the Leadership of a President Mitt Romney, and it is my prayer we will all be as energetic at supporting him as we have been at finding the multiplicity of political faults he has demonstrated due to the fact he would have gotten no where under the perfected scenario we would like to see. Our main objective after this election should be to pray for his safety and make certain we stay actively engaged in working to change the many ills which diminish the protections the Lord would offer us were we to stand united on His side of the line.

        I have observed over many years just how quickly the people will go back to business as usual. We must not, under any political circumstances, allow ourselves to cease our efforts to solidify the final thread which remains of our Constitution. With all my heart I pray we who are members of the church will carry the Book of Mormon in our right hand and a Pocket Constitution in our left while, at the same time, we follow our prophets and spend much more time upon our knees.

        • Michael Lee McKee says:

          BTW, I knew Brother Romney in the spiritual realm before we came to the earth. He arrived 17 days before the Lord sent me. While this may sound silly to some, I know this is true for me because the Holy Ghost has shown me the goodness of faithful believing in things which have the potential for good. When you go to the privacy of the voting booth I pray you will bow your head and pray for our nation to come together in spite of the political misgivings which overshadow our lives currently.

  6. Johnny Hardy says:

    Evidence and Calculation that Romney plans to increase federal spending 5.7% over 4 years in office:

    a. On his website he says current spending is 24.3% of GDP, and he will reduce it to 20% of GDP by his fourth year, as long as there is 4% annual economic growth [http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending]

    b. Over the last 10 years inflation has been 2.45% annually (2.48% annually over the last 20 years). So, assuming Romney is using 2.45% inflation in his plan along with his claim of 4% economic growth, that means GDP would increase 6.45% (4% + 2.45% = 6.45%) per year, equaling a total of 28.4% increase over a 4 year period (= 1.0645^4 – 1 = 28.4%).

    c. So if GDP is $100 this year, federal spending is $24.30 (according to Romney). His plan estimates GDP $128.40 (= $100 x 1.284) in 2016, so Romney’s plan of 20% federal spending is $25.68 in 2016.

    d. $25.68 in 2016 > $24.30 in 2012 (5.7% increase).

    Also, I’d like to point out a couple times in the podcast when I said Medicaid, I meant Medicare. For example, in the republican convention, one of Paul Ryan’s focuses was that he wants to strengthen Medicare so it’s around for generations and generations.

  7. Joseph says:

    Maybe someone can answer a question that has been going through my head ever since I listened to this podcast.
    I am a firm believer in supporting the Constitution and living by it as close as I can, and not just by what it says but by the original intent. Someone correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that our Founding Fathers set up the election of the president in a way so the general population or common people would not be deciding. It was up to the electoral college and those men should have the freedom to choose whom ever they feel would be the best person for the job, regardless of parties. The Founding Fathers knew that if it was up to the population to vote and decide it would turn into what we have today, a beauty contest. We were only allowed to vote for the House of Representatives. So my question is if we truly want to follow the Contitution and abide by its principles then why are we votin at all? Shouldn’t we be working on getting the electoral college back the way it used to be? Because now we vote for our electoral college and they are bound to vote a certain way. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t by any means think this would solve our nations problems but at least we would be trying to return to the original Constitution. And if anyone could help me find when the change took place or when the general population could vote for the president then I would like to know. I know there is an amendment which allows us to vote for the senate but there isn’t one for the president. Thanks again you guys are awesome!

    • Johnny Hardy says:

      Joseph,

      My understanding is that, even from the beginning, the constitution simply indicated how many votes each state would have (number of senators plus representatives), and then it was left up to each state to decide individually how their votes would be determined. This was a compromise because some founding fathers wanted a general election while others wanted congress to directly vote.

      So even today, this same principle is followed: it is up to the states to decide how their votes will be determined. In the beginning, only some states used a form of general election, but over time, all of them have adopted this approach.

      • David Richards says:

        Here are some points that I think valuable in considering with regards to the current system we use to elect the President of the United States. But before I begin I want all to know that whatever I say is my personal opinion sprouted in the soil of my own research and study of the constitution and the Founding Fathers. As we briefly examine these facets of the issue I hope we leave with a better understanding or at least a desire to understand the background of both the Founding Fathers and the Constitutional Convention, the original intent of the Founders, and the envisioned role of the Electoral College.
        To begin with, whenever we approach the Constitution and the procedures it outlines we need to do so carefully. It is necessary to understand and appreciate the views, goals and background of the Founding Fathers. With that we also need to understand the Constitutional Convention. It has become traditional (and the establishment would have us believe) to see the think of the Constitution as a patchwork of compromises. This viewpoint always irritates me because this sacred document is not a creation of opinionated men fighting to have their opinions forced into this blueprint of the planned government. I wish people would see it for what it is; a set of tried and proven principles of liberty garnered through tedious study of history and law and forged in the furnace of experience. Our Founding Fathers never argued the principle of liberty but rather how best to implement these principles. James Madison even said, to the effect that, he, in all his life up to that point, never saw a group of men more united and dedicated to a single purpose than these men were to producing a limited government to protect a free land and people. With this in mind we should try and understand the Founders and the principles upon which the Constitution was created.
        These principles and the intent of the Founding Fathers in relation to the mode of electing the president are simple. While some suggested that Congress choose a president and others thought electors should be appointed by state legislatures the mood tended to shift. At one point one idea was more popular but then the general consensus would shift to another idea. However, the Founders never entertained very long the idea of a popular election. (see Making of America, W. Cleon Skousen pg. 519-520…this book is an excellent resource to understand the intent of the fathers of our nation) They knew the public is very tractable and the celebrity contest that our presidential elections have become just proves their point. The elections as currently run are a shameful apostate to the ideals of the Founding Fathers.
        The election was meant to be so much more effective in procuring a wise and honest man to fill the distinguished position of President of the United States. It is true that the states are free to select the electors in any manner they please. However, it completely decapitates the vision of the Founders to in effect bind the electors to copycat the popular election, only fulfilling the disrespected letter of the Constitution. There are even some states that punish the “unfaithful” electors. The Founder had dreamed of wise men carefully appointed to study and truly become acquainted with the candidates. Thus with their deeper, more intimate knowledge of the candidates and issues they would then be able to cast a conscientious vote. Instead, we, in most cases hardly know who these electors are, which makes no difference either way because they do not do anything except mimic. Most of the blame rests on the states, but I hope you can see the tragic deadness of the U.S. Constitution in such a simple thing as electing the President.
        Finally in conclusion, I would like to enforce that we have wandered so far from liberty’s light and we have unchained the power hungry monster the Constitution was designed to chain. We cannot and we will never be able to change the system through the system, it has gone too far. I do not believe we should vote. We should boycott the system and the election. Then dedicate ourselves and time to educating ourselves and other about the true principle of liberty that the Founding Fathers cherished, fought for, died for, and implemented into a system of government embodied in the Constitution of the United States. These our some of my sentiments and I am open to comments, opinions, or critique.
        For Liberty,
        David

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>