Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
WELL, THIS IS THE FIRST
TIME I GET TO SAY THIS, BUT I AM
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.
[APPLAUSE]
TO DO THAT, I THINK YOU HAVE TO
HAVE A CERTAIN RESONATE TO BE
ABLE TO DO THAT.
I LIKE TO THINK THAT I DO HAVE
IT.
I HAVE BEEN AN ENTREPRENEUR MY
ENTIRE LIFE, EVER SINCE I WAS
13-YEARS OLD, THROWING
NEWSPAPERS, DOING LINES.
SINCE I WAS 17-YEARS OLD I GET
PAID FOR EVERYTHING I HAVE HAD
IN MY LIFE.
WHEN I WAS 21-YEARS OLD I
ALBUQUERQUE.
STARTED A HANDYMAN BUSINESS IN
20 YEARS LATER, I EMPLOYED AT
1000 PEOPLE -- ELECTRICAL,
MECHANICAL, PLUMBING.
AN AMERICAN DREAM COME TRUE.
NAIVELY, WHEN I WAS ELECTED
GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO, BEING
GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO AND BEING
IN BUSINESS WAS NOT REALLY A
PLUS.
THAT WE SHOULD HAVE.
WE WERE NOT GETTING THE WORK
IN 1999 I SOLD THAT BUSINESS.
NOBODY LOST THEIR JOB AND THAT
BUSINESS IS DOING BETTER THAN
EVER.
I RAN FOR GOVERNOR OF NEW
MEXICO.
I HAD NEVER BEEN INVOLVED IN
GOVERNOR.
POLITICS PRIOR TO RUNNING FOR
I INTRODUCED MYSELF TO THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY MUCH LIKE I AM
DOING RIGHT NOW.
I INTRODUCED MYSELF TO THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY A COUPLE OF
WEEKS BEFORE I ANNOUNCED.
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY OF NEW MEXICO SAID, "I
LIKE YOU.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS GOING TO
LOVE YOU.
WE ARE AN OPEN PARTY.
WHEN IT COMES TO RUNNING FOR
GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO, IT WILL
BE AN OPEN PROCESS.
YOU'LL BE ABLE TO TAKE PART IN
THE DEBATE AND THE DISCUSSIONS.
THEN HE SAYS, "I THINK YOU ARE
GREAT, BUT YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT
YOU'LL NEVER GET ELECTED.
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO COME FROM
COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OF POLITICS
AND GET ELECTED GOVERNOR IN A
STATE THAT IS2-TO-ONE DEMOCRAT."
EVERYTHING SHOULD BE A COST-
BENEFIT ANALYSIS.
WHAT ARE WE SPENDING OUR MONEY
ON AND WHAT ARE WE GETTING FOR
THE MONEY WE ARE SPENDING?
IN NEW MEXICO I THINK I WAS MORE
OUTSPOKEN THAN ANY GOVERNOR IN
THE COUNTRY REGARDING SCHOOL
CHOICE.
I REALLY BELIEVE IN FREE
MARKETS.
[APPLAUSE]
I BELIEVE IT BRINGING
EDUCATIONAL ON SUPER NORSE TO
BEAR WHEN IT COMES TO EDUCATION
WOULD REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
-- ALL ENTREPRENEURS TO BEAR
WHEN IT COMES TO EDUCATION WOULD
REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
I MAY HAVE VETOED MORE BILLS
WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE LINE-ITEMS
THAT I ALSO VETOED IN NEW MEXICO
-- I MAY HAVE VETOED MORE
LEGISLATION THAN THE OTHER 49
COMBINED.
GOVERNORS IN THE COUNTRY
IT WAS NOT JUST SAY NO.
IT WAS LOOKING AT WHAT WE WERE
SPENDING OUR MONEY ON AND WHAT
WE WERE GETTING FOR THE MONEY WE
WERE SPENDING.
I REALLY DO BELIEVE IN SMALLER
GOVERNMENT.
I REALLY BELIEVE THERE ARE
CONSEQUENCES OF LEGISLATION THAT
GETS PASSED.
MAYBE IT IS NOT IN OUR BEST
INTEREST TO PASS ALL OF THE
LEGISLATION THAT WE PASS, THAT
IT LAYERS OF BUREAUCRACY ON
TRANSACTIONS THAT ARE NOT MADE
ANY SAFER BY YOU AND I, BUT END
UP MAKING IT SO MUCH MORE
CUMBERSOME, SO MUCH MORE
BURDENSOME, AND ENDS UP ADDING A
LOT OF MONEY AS OPPOSED TO THE
NOTION OF LIBERTY AND FREEDOM
AND THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
THAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT.
AS GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO, I
RAISED A DIALOGUE REGARDING THE
WAR ON DRUGS.
IT WAS JUST AN EXTENSION OF
EVERYTHING THAT I DID AS
GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO, WHICH
WAS WHAT ARE WE SPENDING OUR
MONEY ON AND WHAT ARE WE GETTING
FOR THE MONEY WE ARE SPENDING?
I AM OUTRAGED OVER THE FACT THAT
THIS COUNTRY IS BANKRUPT.
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
HOW DID WE GET OURSELVES INTO
THIS POSITION?
MY ENTIRE LIFE I HAVE WATCHED
GOVERNMENT SPEND MORE MONEY THAN
WHAT IT TAKES IN.
I ALWAYS THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A
DAY OF RECKONING WITH REGARD TO
THE SPENDING.
I THINK THAT DAY OF RECKONING IS
HERE AND THAT IT IS RIGHT NOW
AND IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.
TWO IS RESPONSIBLE?
A WEEK AGO I WAS ASKED SHOULD
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE
PLAN BE REPEALED?
YES.
I THINK THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
EL CARE PLAN SHOULD BE REPEALED
BECAUSE WE SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD
IT.
BUT WHAT I SAID THEN AND I WILL
SAY NOW, I THINK REPUBLICANS
WOULD GAIN A LOT OF CREDIBILITY
IN THIS ARGUMENT IF REPUBLICANS
WOULD OFFER UP A REPEAL OF THE
PRESCRIPTION HEALTH CARE
BENEFITS THAT THEY PASSED WHEN
THEY CONTROLLED BOTH HOUSES OF
CONGRESS AND RAN UP RECORD
DEFICITS.
[APPLAUSE]
THOSE RECORD DEFICITS AND DEBT
SPENDING PALES IN COMPARISON TO
TODAY, BUT THE POINT IS THAT
BOTH PARTIES CAN SHARE IN WHAT
WE HAVE GOTTEN TO RIGHT NOW.
I THINK WE ARE ON THE VERGE OF A
COUNTRY.
FINANCIAL COLLAPSE IN THIS
THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL.
THIS IS NOT FEAR MONGERING.
THIS IS "WE ARE GOING TO
ENCOUNTER A FINANCIAL COLLAPSE."
QUITE SIMPLY, WE CANNOT REPAY
$14 TRILLION IN DEBT WHEN WE ARE
RACKING UP $1.65 TRILLION IN
DEBT GOING FORWARD.
IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
I AM ADVOCATING BALANCING THE
FEDERAL BUDGET TOMORROW.
I DO NOT HAVE A 20 YEAR PLAN FOR
BALANCING THE FEDERAL BUDGET.
THE PLAN FOR BALANCING THE
FEDERAL BUDGET IS TOMORROW.
THAT IS $1.60 TRILLION IN
REDUCED FEDERAL SPENDING.
THE DEBATES AND THE DISCUSSION
THAT WENT ON A COUPLE OF WEEKS
AGO REGARDING GOVERNMENT'S
REDUCED SPENDING -- WE NEED TO
BE CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING
BY 43 CENTS.
WHAT WENT ON TWO WEEKS AGO WAS
ABOUT LESS THAN ONE PENNY.
IT TURNS OUT AFTER SOME ANALYSIS
THAT IT ACTUALLY WAS LIKE ONE
ONE-HUNDREDTH OF A PENNY OF THE
43 CENTS WE NEED TO CUT WHEN IT
COMES TO FEDERAL SPENDING.
WE NEED TO PLAY OUT WHAT HAPPENS
IN WASHINGTON -- WHAT HAPPENED
IN WASHINGTON A COUPLE OF WEEKS
AGO HUNDREDS MORE TIMES IF WE
WANT TO BRING THIS TO BEAR.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BALANCING THE
FEDERAL BUDGET, IT IS IMPORTANT
TO START OUT TALKING ABOUT
MEDICAID, MEDICARE, SOCIAL
SECURITY -- NOT CUTTING SOCIAL
SECURITY, MAKING SOCIAL
SECURITY SOLVENT.
AND DEFENSE SPENDING.
WHEN IT COMES TO MEDICAID AND
MEDICARE, I THINK THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SHOULD SIMPLY BLOCK
GRANT THE STATES A FIXED AMOUNT
OF MONEY WHICH WOULD BE 43% LESS
THAN WHAT WE ARE CURRENTLY
SPENDING, DO AWAY WITH ALL THE
MANDATES, AND GIVE STATES THE
ABILITY TO DELIVER HEALTH CARE
TO THE BORK AND THOSE OF 65.
THAT WOULD BE LABORATORIES OF
INNOVATION.
I WILL BE TALKING ABOUT IS THE
WHOLE TIME RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT
-- THIS IS ABOUT 50 STATES.
HAVE.
THIS IS THE COUNTRY THAT WE
I WORKED 50 LABORATORIES OF
INNOVATION ALL OUT ON THIS
NOTION OF BEST PRACTICES.
BEST PRACTICES GET EMULATED.
OF COURSE THERE WILL BE FAILURE.
BUT THE NOTION THAT WASHINGTON
KNOWS BEST HAS US IN THE
POSITION WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW
WHICH IS BANKRUPTCY.
WHEN IT COMES TO SOCIAL
SECURITY, IT IS A PROBLEM THAT
IS PALE IN COMPARISON TO
MEDICARE.
MEDICARE IS GOING TO END ALL THE
ENTIRE FEDERAL BUDGET IN A SHORT
AMOUNT OF TIME IF IT IS NOT
BROUGHT UNDER CONTROL.
SOCIAL SECURITY IS A SYSTEM THAT
NEEDS TO TAKE IN MORE MONEY THAN
WHAT IT PAYS OUT.
WITHOUT RAISING TAXES WHEN IT
COMES TO SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU
CAN RAISE THE RETIREMENT AGE.
HE COULD HAVE MEANS TESTING.
YOU CAN CHANGE THE ESCALATOR
BUILT INTO SOCIAL SECURITY FROM
AND INDEXED.
THE WAGE INDEX TO THE EMPLOYEES
THAT THIRD ITEM WOULD, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, MAKE SOCIAL
FUTURE.
SECURITY SOLVENT INTO THE
WHEN IT COMES TO DEFENSE
SPENDING, CAN WE CUT 43% OF OUR
DEFENSE BUDGET AND STILL
MAINTAIN A STRONG NATIONAL
DEFENSE?
I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN AND WE
HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO THAT.
WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE
OURSELVES WITH A STRONG NATIONAL
DEFENSE, BUT I THINK A STRONG
NATIONAL DEFENSE IS WAY
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE ARE
CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN, WHICH IS
IN MY OPINION JUST NATION
BUILDING ACROSS THE WORLD WHEN
WE HAVE OUR OWN NATION TO BUILD.
I WOULD HAVE BEEN OPPOSED TO
IRAQ AT THE GET GO.
I THOUGHT WE HAD THE MILITARY
SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITY TO SEE
IRAQ BROKE OUT IN THE WEAPONS OF
MASS DESTRUCTION.
IF THAT THEY WOULD HAVE DONE
THAT, WE COULD HAVE GONE IN AND
MILITARILY ADDRESS THAT
SITUATION.
I THOUGHT IF WE WENT INTO IRAQ
WE WOULD FIND OURSELVES IN A
CIVIL WAR TO WHICH THERE WOULD
BE NO END.
AFGHANISTAN, INITIALLY -- I
THOUGHT THAT WAS TOTALLY WANTED.
MILITARY.
THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE
WE WERE ATTACKED, WE ATTACKED
BACK.
IF WE ARE AT WAR WITH THE SUM OF
BIN LADEN AND AL QAEDA.
WE SHOULD REMAIN VIGILANT TO THE
TERRORIST THREAT.
BUT AFTER BEING IN AFGHANISTAN
AFTER SIX MONTHS, WE HAD
EFFECTIVELY TAKEN OUT AL QAEDA.
THAT WAS 10 YEARS AGO.
WE ARE BUILDING ROADS, SCHOOLS,
BRIDGES, AND HOSPITALS IN IRAQ
AND AFGHANISTAN AND WE ARE
BORROWING 43 CENTS OUT OF EVERY
DOLLAR TO DO THAT.
IN MY OPINION, THAT IS CRAZY.
I THINK WE SHOULD GET OUT OF
IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN TOMORROW.
[APPLAUSE]
FOR ALL OF THE DEBATE AND
DISCUSSION THAT WE WILL HAVE
OVER THAT ISSUE, ALL OF WHICH
WILL BE WANTED, I SUGGEST TO YOU
THAT WE WILL HAVE THAT SAME
DEBATE AND DISCUSSION 25 YEARS
FROM NOW IT THAT IS WHEN WE
FINALLY DECIDE TO GET OUT.
IN THE MEANTIME, WE WILL
CONTINUE TO SPEND MORE MONEY IN
THOSE LOCATIONS.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO SPEND MONEY
WE DO NOT HAVE.
WORSE, A LOT OF MEN AND SERVICE
WOMEN WILL END UP LOSING THEIR
LIVES.
LIBYA -- IN THE ENVIRONMENT I AM
IN RIGHT NOW, I HAVE TO ISSUE AN
OPINION RIGHT AWAY.
I AM OPPOSED TO WHAT HAPPENED IN
LIBYA A THROUGH Z.
AUTHORITY?
WHERE WAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL
WHERE WAS THE CONGRESS CHECK OFF
ON US GOING INTO LIBYA?
WHERE IS IT IN THE CONSTITUTION
THAT SAYS THAT IF WE DO NOT LIKE
A BORN LEADER, WE SHOULD GO IN
AND TOPPLED THE BORN LEADER?
WHO ARE THE REBELS IN LIBYA?
HAVE WE NOT INJECTED OURSELVES
INTO A CIVIL WAR IN LIBYA?
ARE THERE NOT BY OTHER COUNTRIES
IN THE MIDDLE EAST RIGHT NOW
THAT QUALIFIED FOR THE SAME
MILITARY INTERVENTION THAT WE
HAVE IMPLEMENTED IN LIBYA?
UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF A NO-FLY
12 YEARS.
ZONE, SADDAM HUSSEIN EXISTED FOR
UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF A NO-FLY
OCCURRED.
ZONE, THE ATROCITIES IN BOSNIA
AT WHAT POINT DO GROUND TROOPS
BECOME COMMITTED IN LIBYA?
I THINK WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN
THAT.
THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF
GOVERNMENT AND ITS ACTIONS -- WE
TAKE OUT SADDAM HUSSEIN AND
THERE GOES THE CHECK TO IRAN
WHICH MAY INVEST VIA MILITARY
THREAT OR MAY IN FACT BE A
SECURITY THREAT TO THE UNITED
STATES.
I DO NOT BELIEVE IT EXISTS AT
ALL AT THIS POINT.
IT IS SOMETHING I THINK WE
SHOULD REMAIN VIGILANT TOWARDS.
IT GOES ON AND ON AND ON.
I BELIEVE IN FREE MARKETS.
THE DISCUSSION AND THE DEBATE
WILL BE OVER GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT REGULATION, AND THREE
MARKETS.
I AM ALWAYS GOING TO DEFEND PRE-
MARKET.
-- FREE MARKETS.
WHEN FREE MARKETS ARE TALKED
ABOUT, I ALWAYS POINT OUT THAT
THE FACT WE DO NOT HAVE FREE
MARKETS IS A RESULT OF THE
PROBLEM WE END UP HAVING.
IT IS GOVERNMENT AND THE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF
GOVERNMENT AND ITS ACTIONS,
PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS WHEN
IT COMES TO BUSINESS, PICKING
WINNERS AND LOSERS WHEN IT COMES
TO BANKING, AND PICKING WINNERS
AND LOSERS WHEN IT COMES TO
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.
GOVERNMENT.
THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF
HAVING BEEN GOVERNOR OF NEW
MEXICO AND HAVING VETOED 750
PIECES OF LEGISLATION, I TRY TO
PUT MYSELF ON IN THE POSITION OF
WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE
LEGISLATION.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF THIS
WILL IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN
ANYONE'S LIFE IN NEW MEXICO?
WILL WE END UP SPENDING A WHOLE
LOT MORE MONEY WHEN IT CAME TO
THESE ISSUES?
LOOKING AT HEALTH CARE IN THIS
COUNTRY, BELIEVING IN A FREE
MARKETS, BELIEVING THAT THE
GOVERNMENT COULD REALLY PROVIDE
SOLUTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO
HEALTH CARE BY JUST ELIMINATING
IMPEDIMENTS FOR HEALTH CARE
ENTREPRENEURS TO DELIVER BETTER
SERVICES AT LOWER PRICES.
BY THE WAY, HEALTH CARE IN THIS
COUNTRY IS ABOUT AS FAR REMOVED
FROM FREE-MARKET AS IT POSSIBLY
COULD BE, BUT ALWAYS IN THIS
PROCESS, IN THIS UPCOMING
DISCUSSION, WHICH I RELISH, I
WILL BE THE ONE TO TAKE UP THE
DEFENSE OF THE FREE-MARKET
SYSTEM AND HAL IF IT WAS
ACTUALLY APPLIED, IT WOULD MAKE
A DIFFERENCE.
IMMIGRATION IS A REALLY HOT
BUTTON ISSUE RIGHT NOW.
IT IS A DEBATE.
IT IS A DISCUSSION THAT SHOULD
TAKE PLACE.
I HAPPEN TO THINK THAT
IMMIGRATION IS REALLY A GOOD
THING.
I THINK THIS COUNTRY IS BASED
ON IMMIGRATION.
IN VIEW IMMIGRATION AS A JOB
CREATOR, NOT A SITUATION THAT
TAKES AWAY JOBS.
RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF OUR
CONVOLUTED IMMIGRATION POLICY,
IS FROM ABROAD ARE COMING AND
GETTING EDUCATED IN THE UNITED
STATES, BUT BECAUSE OF OUR
CONVOLUTED IMMIGRATION POLICY,
WE ARE SENDING THEM BACK TO
THEIR COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN WHERE,
ULTIMATELY, THEY WILL EMPLOY
TENS OF MILLIONS OF INDIANS AS
OPPOSED TO TENS OF MILLIONS OF
AMERICANS -- BUSINESSES THAT
WOULD HAVE STARTED UP AND
DEVELOPED AN BEEN NURTURED IN
THIS COUNTRY.
I ADVOCATE ITS ELIMINATION OF
THE CORPORATE AND CONTACTS,
RECOGNIZING THIS IT IS A DOUBLE-
TAXED.
BY DOING THIS, IT WOULD CREATE
TENS OF MILLIONS OF JOBS IN THIS
COUNTRY.
THIS WOULD BE THE PLACE TO
START UP, BUILD, NURTURED
BUSINESSES THAT ARE CURRENTLY
TAKING PLACE IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
CORPORATE INCOME TAX STARTED OUT
AS ZERO IN THIS COUNTRY.
GET BACK TO THAT, AND THAT IS
WHEN WE WILL RELEASE THE SOME
JOB CREATION.
IMMIGRATION -- IMMIGRATION
SHOULD BE ABOUT WORK, NOT
WELFARE.
REGARDING WELFARE.
WE HAVE ISSUES IN THIS COUNTRY
OUR EMIGRANTS COMING ACROSS THE
BORDER AND TAKING ENTRY-LEVEL
JOBS FROM AMERICANS?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
WE AS AMERICANS, WE CAN SIT
HOME AND COLLECT A WELFARE
CHECK THAT IS THE SAME AMOUNT OF
MONEY FOR DOING NOTHING.
I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE IT AS
EASY AS POSSIBLE FOR EMIGRANTS
TO GET A WORK VISA -- IMMIGRANTS
TO GET A WORK VISA.
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT
CITIZENSHIP OR A GREEN CARD.
I AM TALKING ABOUT A WORK VISA
WHICH WOULD ENTAIL A BACKGROUND
CHECK AND A SCISSORS SUIT -- AND
A SOCIAL SECURITY CARD SO
APPLICABLE TAXES COULD BE PAID.
REGARDING THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
IN THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW, THIS
GOVERNMENT.
IS AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF
GOVERNMENT HAS MADE IT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR IMMIGRANTS TO GET
A WORK PERMIT.
THEY KNOW IF THEY GET ACROSS THE
BORDER, EVEN ILLEGALLY, THAT
THEY CAN GET A JOB BECAUSE THEY
HAD DOZENS OF FRIENDS AND FAMILY
THAT LIVED IN THE UNITED STATES
AND THAT THEY CAN GET ACROSS THE
BORDER, THEY WILL GET THAT SAME
JOB.
WHEN RONALD REAGAN SET UP AN
AMNESTY PERIOD IN THE '80S, HE
PUT THE GOVERNMENT IN CHARGE OF
QUOTAS.
CALLED IN QUOTAS.
DO NOT GET THE GOVERNMENT AND
MAKE IT EASY TO GET A WORK VISA.
BUT BUSINESS DECIDE WHETHER OR
NOT THERE IS A NEED FOR LABOR.
IF NOT, EMIGRANTS WILL GO BACK
TO THEIR COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN.
IF THAT THERE ARE JOBS
AVAILABLE, WE'LL SEE THOSE JOBS
FILLED.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A GRACE PERIOD
WHERE THE IMMIGRANTS WHO ARE IN
THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW CAN GET
LEGAL WORK VISAS.
BACKGROUND CHECKS, SOCIAL
SECURITY CARD -- SAID THAT TAXES
WILL BE PAID.
THE NOTION OF BUILDING A FENCE
ACROSS 2,000 MILES OF BORDER,
THE NOTION OF PUTTING THE
NATIONAL BAR ACROSS 2,000 MILES
OF BORDER, IN MY OPINION, WOULD
BE A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY SPENT
WITH VERY LITTLE IF ANY BENEFIT
WHATSOEVER.
AS I SAID REGARDING DRUG POLICY,
A LEGAL LOT -- LEGALIZE
MARIJUANA AND ARGUABLY 70% OF
GOES AWAY.
THE BORDER BALANCE WITH MEXICO
THAT IS THE ESTIMATE OF THE
DRUG CARTELS ACTIVITY THAT IS
ENGAGED IN MARIJUANA.
IF WE CANNOT CONNECT THE DOTS
BETWEEN VIOLENCE AND
PROHIBITION, I DO NOT KNOW IF WE
EVER WILL BE ABLE TO.
THESE ARE DISPUTES BEING PLAYED
COURTS.
OUT WITH GUNS RATHER THAN IN THE
LET'S REALLY TAKE A NEW LOOK AT
ALL OF THESE ISSUES.
NOW BACK TO MY ANNOUNCEMENT --
MIGHT ANNOUNCEMENT THAT I AM
CHRIS -- SEEKING THE REPUBLICAN
NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES AND I LOOKED OVER
TO THE DEBATES AND THE
DISCUSSION THAT WILL TAKE PLACE.
THIS IS A GREAT COUNTRY.
THIS IS A TERRIFIC COUNTRY.
WE WENT TO THE MOON.
WE CAN SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS WE
HAVE RIGHT NOW, WHICH BURST AND
FOREMOST IS INSOLVENCY.
WE NEED TO DO THIS NOW.
I WOULD NOT BE HERE RIGHT NOW IF
SAID.
WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS BEING
IT IS NOT BEING SAID.
THE IDEA HERE IS TO ACTUALLY --
WHAT I AM POSING IT IS TO TAKE
PART IN A CONTEST TO BE THE
PARTY.
SPOKESPERSON FOR THE REPUBLICAN
IF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DOES NOT
HAVE OPTIONS, THEN PERHAPS THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY CHECKS OFF A
NAME THAT IS NOT ALL THAT REP OF
WHAT REPUBLICANS MIGHT BELIEVE.
I THINK I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE
MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS.
THAT IS A CONTEST I AM ENGAGED
IN RIGHT NOW.
I LOOKED OVER TO THE DEBATE AND
DISCUSSION THAT WILL FOLLOW.
IF I DID NOT SAY IT EARLIER, I
HAD A "MR SMITH GOES TO
WASHINGTON" EXPERIENCE.
I REALIZE THERE ARE LOTS TO GO
TO WASHINGTON, BUT I WAS ONE OF
THEM.
I FEEL LIKE THEY MADE A
DIFFERENCE AND I FEEL LIKE I CAN
MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THIS WHOLE
PROCESS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[APPLAUSE]
I WILL TAKE SOME QUESTIONS.
QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS, ANY INSULTS THAT ANY
OF YOU HAVE?
DESCRIBE MY APPROACH IN NEW
HAMPSHIRE.
I HAVE BEEN TO ABOUT 34 STATES
IN THE LAST 16 MONTHS.
ONE OF THE PLACES I REALLY
ENJOYED MORE THAN ANYWHERE IS
NEW HAMPSHIRE, WHICH IS REALLY
GOOD BECAUSE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IS
KEY TO THIS WHOLE PROCESS FOR
ME.
I HAVE TO DO AND WHAT TO DO
REALLY WELL IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.
I WILL SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN
NEW HAMPSHIRE WHERE YOU CAN GO
FROM OBSCURITY TO PROMINENCE
OVERNIGHT WITH A GOOD SHOWING
IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.
I WILL GO OUT ON A LIMB AND SAY
THAT I WILL NOT BE AT WORK WHEN
IT COMES TO BEING IN NEW
HAMPSHIRE AND TALKING TO PEOPLE.
[APPLAUSE]
YES, IT IS.
IT IS KEY TO THE EQUATION.
IT IS KEY TO THE EQUATION TO DO
WELL IN THE EARLY PRIMARY STATES
WHERE, AGAIN, YOU CAN GO FROM
OBSCURITY TO BEING IN A PLACE
WHERE THE LIGHTS DID NOT SHINE A
BRIGHTER.
I LOVE RETAIL POLITICS.
I LOVE THE FACT IT IS REALLY A
ONE ON ONE DISCUSSION, DEBATE.
I LOVE THE FACT THAT IN NEW
HAMPSHIRE -- AND I SAW ALL THIS
MIGHT ALL BE BACK -- WHAT DO YOU
PRESIDENT?
THINK ABOUT MITT ROMNEY FOR
I AM HAVING HIM OVER FOR DINNER
SUNDAY NIGHT, BUT I AM
UNDECIDED.
I HAVE TO MEET THEM ALL.
I LIKE THAT.
WHAT IS DIFFERENT?
I RAN TWO CAMPAIGNS FOR GOVERNOR
WHERE I DID NOT MENTION MY
OPPONENT IN PRINT, RADIO, OR
TELEVISION.
THE IDEA WAS TO PRESENT IDEAS
AND GIVE PEOPLE A CHOICE TO THE
LESSER OF TWO EVILS.
WHEN IT COMES TO ME AND
COMPARING MYSELF TO OTHERS, I AM
NOT THE PERSON TO TALK TO.
CONCLUSIONS.
I WILL LET YOU DRAW THOSE
BYPASS THE EXPLORATORY
COMMITTEE?
FIRST OF ALL, I AM COMMITTED TO
DOING THIS.
WHY DO AN EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE
F. I AM COMMITTED TO DOING THIS?
FUND RAISING IS PART OF THIS.
WE WILL HAVE A VERY AGGRESSIVE,
ONLINE FUND-RAISING CAMPAIGN.
20 MINUTES AGO.
THE WEBSITE WOULD HAVE GONE UP
IT IS GARYJOHNSON2012.COM.
CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT WHERE YOU HAVE BEEN?
WHEN IT COMES TO GUN CONTROL,
I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT THE SECOND
AMENDMENT.
AS GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO BACK
IN 1995, CONCEALED-CARRY IT WAS
SOMETHING BEING HOTLY DEBATED.
I SAW THAT AS AN ISSUE THAT
WOULD ACTUALLY LEAD TO LESS GUN
VIOLENCE.
THAT WOULD BE SUPPORTING
CONCEAL-CARRY.
I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SIGN
LEGISLATION ALLOWING CONCEALED-
CARRY, BELIEVING IT WOULD LEAD
TO LESS OVER ALL GUN VIOLENCE.
I THING WE HAVE SEEN THAT PLAY
OUT GIVEN THE SIMI STATES HAVE
PASSED THAT AND IT HAS COME TO
PASS -- SO MANY STATES HAVE
PASS.
PASSED THAT AND IT HAS COME TO
THE PRESIDENT WAS TALKING
ABOUT RAISING MONEY FOR HIS
REELECTION CAMPAIGN.
THE QUESTION WAS, HOW CAN YOU
COMPETE IN A MARKET THAT TAKES
SO MUCH MONEY?
WE BELIEVE WE WILL RAISE ENOUGH
MONEY TO BE COMPETITIVE.
REPUBLICAN PRIMARY.
WE WILL RAISE IT IN THE
IT WILL INVOLVE A LOT OF WORK.
IT INVOLVES SOME
ENTREPRENEURIALSHIP ON OUR PART.
I HAD NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE
WAY -- ABOUT THE PROCESS.
HAVING RUN FOR GOVERNOR OF NEW
MEXICO, I DO NOT HAVE ANY
COMPLAINTS.
THE RULES OR WHAT THEY ARE --
ARE WHAT THEY ARE.
I ACCEPT THAT AND EXPECT TO DO
WELL IN THIS PROCESS.
HOW DO I FEEL ABOUT UNIONS?
I JUST HAVE ONE ISSUE WITH
JUST ONE.
UNIONS.
THAT IS BATHAT -- UNLESS THIS
USED TWO HYPOTHETICAL MEMBERS OF
THE UNION -- OF THOSE TWO
HYPOTHETICAL MEMBERS, ONE IS THE
SEEN.
WORST WORKER THAT I HAVE EVER
THE OTHER ONE IS THE BEST WORKER
I HAVE EVER SEEN.
I CANNOT REWARD THE BEST AND I
CANNOT FIRE THE WORST.
I HAVE TO ACCEPT THEM BOTH AS
BEING EQUAL.
I DO NOT THINK IT WORKS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[APPLAUSE]