Chris Rossini of EconomicPolicyJournal.com recently made this important insight into the character of the final two Republican nominees for the presidency: Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. The differences between the character and ambition of Ron Paul and his fellow opponents vying for the White House were readily apparent throughout the campaign. While there is no doubt that both Romney and Paul (among others) tirelessly worked the campaign circuit, the different responses in the aftermath of defeat certainly shed light onto intentions behind each seeking the White House.
Since the election, Ron Paul has revved up his educational engine by leaving government in the dust and hitting the road by finding new and unique ways to promote the message of liberty. Instead of backing down and hiding after an electoral defeat, Paul has become even more brazen in his stances (is that possible?) and has embarked upon a path that will continue to spread the ideas and principles that he stood for. It was not the power that he was after; merely a platform by which he could continue to educate others.
Contrast this Mitt Romney, who until this week had not been heard from since the immediate aftermath of his electoral loss. While it may be common practice for the defeated candidate to stay out of the spotlight after an election, this only further serves to make my point. Romney, et al. are not interested in bringing a real, principled philosophy to government. They are interested in the power they can attain and the ways they can use it to give the spoils of victory to their backers.
There is a fundamental difference here between two men who have had the following to say about leaving government:
“I certainly don’t miss congress”
“It kills me not to be in there, to be in the White House.”
I’ll let you figure out who said which. It should be clear “Two men didn’t become President. Only one was defeated.”