Why I Won’t Vote for Ron Paul
I don’t know what kind of magic dust gets blown in people’s faces that gives them a slavering priapism for Ron Paul, but to date it has not been blown in mine. Paul is doing better in this GOP Presidential primary than he ever has before, because all but one of the other candidates are openly lunatics and the one that isn’t is Mitt Romney.
With progressives massively disappointed in Obama, Ron Paul’s friendly guy-from-UP face and Winnie the Pooh voice advocating an end to our endless campaign of senseless overseas warfare, and the equally senseless domestic “war on drugs,” plus his stated desire to focus on the Constitution, makes him seem like he’s the candidate that would get America back on track.
Thing is, the track he’d get us back on is one we had to fight long and hard to get off of. Ron Paul is not a friend to progressives, and I’m glad there’s finally a concise collected summary of his noxious views. Of course, his non-alliance with progressive values should be obvious even from the simple fact that he identifies with the Republican party and not the Democrats or the Greens or what-have-you.
A man who opposes protection of women’s and minority rights? Whose solution to our economic problems is simply to travel back in time without regard to the current global economic climate? Who would effectively dismantle the federal government and make the “United” in “United States of America” purely poetical? I’m sorry, that’s not the lesser of two evils in most of the plausible election scenarios I can imagine. His supporters say he’s been “consistent” as though that’s a good thing. Aside from his stance on overseas war, the values he’s “consistently” upheld are downright toxic.
Also, consistency in the face of conflicting evidence is not a virtue. We’re still in one of the worst recessions in history and are staying out of full-on depression by the merest skin of our teeth, due to poor regulation and out-of-control greed in our financial system. To believe that the “free market” will work toward the best interests of all people and not just the interests of the people running the market, that “market forces” will have the tendency and power to balance and correct against any shenanigans — to truly believe such things, if indeed he does, isn’t just naïve; at this moment in history, it’s downright insane.
Ron Paul is not the best option for America. Fact is, he might be the one of the worst. He’s certainly the most dangerous. At least you can see how crazy the other ones are just by looking at them.
Dorkman's Blog 
OK Michael, chillax dude. Ron Paul doesn’t have any chance; plus you’ve made your point and now I know why you will vote for Romney. LOL.
Little late in reading this. I’m not a card carrying progressive, not much of a card carrying anything these days, but I am curious about your thoughts on this response to the HP article.
http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2012/01/response-to-bob-cesca-on-ron-paul-not.html
His argument appears to be “If Ron Paul gets elected he’ll probably compromise his principles and do something completely different than he’s campaigning on, and err toward the more progressive.”
This is idiotic for a number of reasons. Why would you vote for a candidate who doesn’t represent you based on some imaginary future change in his positions? Especially Ron Paul, whose personal cultists like to tout more than anything else the fact that he has NOT changed any of his positions over 30 years in office? And why assume that if he DID change his positions it would be in a progressive direction, when besides his stance on war his views are all party-line far-right conservativism?
Call me naïve, but I prefer to vote based on the assumption that the candidate I’m voting for will do what they say they’ll do while in office, or at least try. And if what they say they’re going to do is fanatically insane, I’m not going to vote for them and hope they don’t really mean it.
Paul is very open about being against canibis prohibition in general, & medical marijuana in particular. My understanding is that he supports strengthening 1st amendment protections, including the separation of church & state & free speech. While he has supported federal marriage benefits like tax credits being based on a couple being a man & a woman, in ALL other regards he has been consistent in supporting equal rights for homosexuals. Instead of just throwing an attack around, could you say what exactly the man said that you think is insane?
Here is a more complete version of the argument: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-is-green-republican-coalition.html
It’s about changing the debate and creating the possibility of a coalition rather than sticking with the sentimental and waiting for 60 progressive votes in the US Senate. It’s about dealing with the reality of massive budget cuts close on the horizon and making sure they come out of the military industrial catastrophe rather than an already weakened domestic budget. It’s about killing the corporate beast so the funds can be made available for building a peaceful green economy. It’s about returning government to the people. It’s about forming a tactical and temporary alliance to escape the bait and switch, divide and conquer lowest common denominator politics of the already opulent and permanently powerful. It’s about getting our heads out of their corporate asses. Fanatical insanity is thinking that Obama 2 or Romney 1 is going to be an inch different from Bush 2 and 3. Ron Paul is no messiah but he has proven his willingness to work with progressives and he has provided a transition plan that can become a spring board not for compromising anyone’s principles but for moving our politics in the common direction both progressives and libertarians want so that we can have an honest contest as to where to go beyond that common ground that the duopoly is currently squatting on.