20 Reasons I won’t Vote for Ron Paul.

Via Waylon Lewis
on Dec 14, 2011
get elephant's newsletter

Update: we just published not one, but two lists of reasons to vote for Dr. Paul. Let’s hear it for learning together, and respectful debate! ~ Waylon, ed.

I like Ron Paul.

A lot. He has integrity, consistency (not always a good thing—views can and should evolve, open-mindedness is a virtue, too), his values are clear. He’s pro-Wikileaks, pro-OWS, pro-legalization, anti-war, anti-SOPA, and anti-fascist state BS.

Here’s everything we’ve blogged up about him, lately (we give him a lot of love on elephant).

But I won’t vote for him. Why? Easy:

1. He’s anti-gay marriage (supports DOMA)

2. He’s a young earth creationist

3. He’s a climate change denier

4. He believes that America, founded on principles of freedom of worship by many less-than-Christian framers, is a Christian country.

5. Worse, he believes that separation of church and state is a myth

6. He is against net neutrality (you know, liberty online)

7. He believes the civil rights act had a negative impact on the country

8. His stance on safety-nets (none, please)

9. His stance on student aid (do away with it)

10. His stance on health care (including Medicare, Medicaid)

11. His stance on abortion (goodbye, Roe v. Wade)

12. He would shutter the EPA (goodbye environmental health regulations, hello toxic daily life for our children)

13. His stance on Social Security (a hindrance to freedom)

14. His stance on taxes on the super-rich (no, thank you)

15. His stance on financial regulations (none, please)

16. His lack of support for renewable energy

17. He would close the Department of Education

18. He wouldn’t be able to bring the troops home: “Closing bases and withdrawing troops is an expensive process, and the DoD isn’t going to get very far if Congress forbids them from spending any money on it. It’s the exact same problem that prevented Obama from closing Guantanamo Bay.”

19. He signed the Pro-Life Presidential pledge, which includes a vow to only nominate pro-life judges to the Court. Generally, serious presidential candidates should refuse to sign all pledges, since they remove the rights of citizens in a democracy to see their wishes represented, and make their reps beholden to outside interests.

20. Given his ground game, he’d be tough for President Obama to beat. A lot of liberals, including myself, would be tempted to vote Paul. I’d rather Obama get to bat around damaged-goods Newt or wooden-1%er Mitt.

Still, with the exception of Jon Huntsman, he’s the best—by far—of the rest of the GOP field.


PS: did I forget a reason not to vote for Ron Paul? Add in comments? Did I forget a reason we like Ron Paul? Add it in comments. Did I get any facts wrong? Let me know. I know this is politics, but we can do all this respectfully. If you can’t, read this. Disrespect will be deleted.





About Waylon Lewis

Waylon Lewis, founder of elephant magazine, now elephantjournal.com & host of Walk the Talk Show with Waylon Lewis, is a 1st generation American Buddhist “Dharma Brat." Voted #1 in U.S. on twitter for #green two years running, Changemaker & Eco Ambassador by Treehugger, Green Hero by Discovery’s Planet Green, Best (!) Shameless Self-Promoter at Westword's Web Awards, Prominent Buddhist by Shambhala Sun, & 100 Most Influential People in Health & Fitness 2011 by "Greatist", Waylon is a mediocre climber, lazy yogi, 365-day bicycle commuter & best friend to Redford (his rescue hound). His aim: to bring the good news re: "the mindful life" beyond the choir & to all those who didn't know they gave a care. elephantjournal.com | His first book, Things I would like to do with You, is now available.


140 Responses to “20 Reasons I won’t Vote for Ron Paul.”

  1. L.K. says:

    What about his wanting to tax corporations LESS — add that next to not taxing the rich. How big can the divide between the rich and poor get before the whole system collapses? I guess we'd find out if Ron Paul was at the helm.

    Is this guy really much different from any other Republican, and many Democrats, believing that the trickle-down effect works? Believing that the inhumane Milton Freedman economic policies are a good thing?

  2. True! I guess my point was that hypothetically, the areas where he appeals to me (though they are few) are things he could address from within Congress…if he had any influence.

  3. BluBlah says:

    A body within a body is different than your own body. It's not just a body part.

  4. Bryan says:

    Good one.

  5. Any “liberal” who says they’re tempted to vote for Paul … isn’t one.

    And, no, he wouldn’t be tough for Obama to defeat at all. Unless Obama is even more clueless than he actually is.

    As for me? I’ll be voting Green again, as I have every election this century. I’m not tempted to vote for either one.

  6. Guest says:

    The powers that be don't like him. That's one thing in his favor.

  7. elephantjournal says:

    I'd love to be wrong on that! Not sure it's that simple to close bases and withdraw troops, though—we seem to like the status quo, and to keep our military large…in any case this is one reason why I support Dr. Paul, and President Obama. Less war the better. ~ Waylon

  8. elephantjournal says:

    Nice opinions.

  9. elephantjournal says:


  10. Sasha says:

    These points are mostly valid, but I make two counterpoints:

    1) None of this gives any argument not to vote for him in the primaries. All the other Republicans are in every conceivable way worse. Except for the haircut.

    2) War outweighs all other issues put together. To say that you will support a candidate who will start a war against innocent people because you want to maintain some benefit the government gives you is a morally indefensible position.

    3) For several of your points, you should remember the Ringo Starr truism: "Everything the government touches turns to shit." For instance, rejecting the department of education is not to reject education; it is to reject the centralization of decision making in education. This centralization has been empirically disastrous, and has helped to inculcate an environment where education is a kind of internship to being a prison inmate. Education should flow from the community up, not the other way around. Ditto many, many other things.

    4) Many people support Ron Paul because they have become disillusioned with the very foundations of our society. I believe that State Democracy is a dangerous and failed social model, that around the world has led to unprecedented concentrations of wealth and power, and acted as a cover for vast transgressions against fundamental human rights. We need something totally new.

    Ron Paul talks about the constituion and conservatism, but in the past has been closely associated with Murray Rothbard, a leading anarcho-libertarian theorist. Many suspect that RP himself has anarchistic leanings that he keeps private.

    No matter what happens this year, I leave with these words to ponder:

    "A democratic vote does not confer authority; it is merely a mechanism for collective decision making within a group that already has a morally consistent authority to make the decision. Confusion over this point is the root failure of western society."

  11. Stephanie says:

    Having read many bills/laws, I feel it is necessary to point out that you are only commenting on one item of the Net Neutrality Bill. I have found that the plethora of amendments attached to most bills, often have such negative consequences to our economy, that any sane elected official should immediately vote against the bill. Unfortunately, many do not even appear to be cognizant of the material in stated amendments – or they would be exposing them to the public. So anytime I hear someone yelling about someone voting against this or that – I take it with a pound of salt – and that applies to all parties. It is time WE THE PEOPLE actually start READING what these people are voting on – not polly parrotting what someone else says. Respectfully yours – Steph

  12. Stephanie says:

    The No Child Left Behind Act was a disaster before it started. It literally lumped all children, including those that have severe mental handicaps, into the requirements to achieve academic success. There are no provisions for exempting these children, therefore the schools that service them are doomed to fail the NCLB Report card. They also require children learning a second language to perform on par with students whose native language is English. There are no provisions allowing for these students to be excluded from the scoring for the recognized amount of time it takes to learn a new language and become adept in the academic portion of the new language. The best analogy I have ever heard in this matter was an agricultural one. Take blueberries. You want to market them in those little cartons. A farmer ships you his crop. You sort though and put the berries in the cartons to sell. Would you sell the squashed ones in those cartons? NO. But that is what NCLB is demanding the schools to do – and we are suppose to put them back together – something the medical community can't even do. With all due respect, NCLB has to go. It is simply a sink hole for more federal tax dollars, and is causing more waste on the state and local level than you can imagine!

  13. Stephanie says:

    Kate – the problem lies in the fact that the Federal Government was NOT given the right to decide this issue. The ONLY legal way they should get involved is if WE decide to go for a Constitutional Amendment. Otherwise, it IS a state decision. And truthfully, no matter which side of the fence you are on in this issue, it is technically a "popular opinion". It is a choice of the society.

  14. buddhaflow says:

    So has Coca Cola, Nike, Subway Sandwiches, and the Bank of Podunksville. So what?

  15. buddhaflow says:

    He named his son Randall. That is his name, nothing to do with Ayn Rand.

    She made some good points, but libertarianism != objectivism. We should help each other, the problem is being forced at gunpoint to help each other.

    And if you don't think the bailouts have anything to do with the core mission of OWS, please pack up your tent and go home. Farmville is calling.

  16. David says:

    Ron Paul's position on Roe v. Wade is that it never should have been decided at the Federal Level. If you listen to everything Ron Paul says, his position is always about whether or not the Federal Government ought to be involved at that citizen level. He is for scaling back Federal Government intrusion.

    His position is that abortion rights ought to be decided at the state level for each state. State's rights have been over-run by the Federal government and Paul wants the Federal government to BACK OFF. Get your nose out of State business.

  17. David says:

    Ron Paul's position on Roe v. Wade is that it never should have been decided at the Federal Level. If you listen to everything Ron Paul says, his position is always about whether or not the Federal Government ought to be involved at that citizen level. He is for scaling back Federal Government intrusion.

  18. Brian says:

    ron paul is not a racist. more lies spread by the liberal media. Hear him speak, tell me if you hear a single racist comment.

  19. David says:

    He took money from them? Did they ask for it back?

    What a crazy objection. I am not aligned with them in any way, but I can;t imagine there isn't someone they want to support for their country, too. However objectionable, they are Americans, and can support whoever they want.

    Remember: A country that would get rid of them, would also be able to get rid of you and your kind for what you believe.

  20. Tony says:

    Every point on your list is comically unresearched and skewed to meet your sad political reality. Vote Ron Paul!

  21. Vman says:

    Yeah and Paul would support child sweatshops if a business could make a buck. After all it's the corporations right of freedom to do business anyway they want. When Sates and others defy the constitution that clearly says we are all equal, the government needs to step in an assure minorities are treated fairly. In Ron Paul's world everything is left up to the individual assuming wrongly of course that humans will do the right thing. Look at lynchings in the south etc, did States do the right thing, NO. Ron Paul is for the freedom to discriminate.

  22. Vman says:

    Tony…now that is a well researched response. Full of ZERO. What part is unresearched? Come on throw some research our way. Instead of just crappola. ROFLMAO

  23. Vman says:

    The big picture is that Ron Paul is a Republican, and he supports the unlimited ability of Corporations to fund elections. Nuff said.

  24. Vman says:

    The 99% have no use for Paul. He supports the ability of the corporation to give without restriction to political campaigns. In this regard he opposes the most central point of the OWS movement. He wants to shrink government so he can drown it in a bath tub, whose idea is that? None other than the chump in chief and corporate tool extraordinaire, Grover Norquist. We should help the black man about ready to be hung, but heaven forbid in Paul's world if we are forced to. In Paul's world freedom is all about ME ME ME and the freedom to be a heartless, greedy prick.

  25. globeyogini says:

    you ROCKED this tentcityhall!! thank you from the bottom of my heart for educating Waylon AND me (i'm a RP supporter). jeesh….you would think a "progressive" subscription based newsletter would not write borderline slanderous half truths about public figures in order to sway public opinion.

  26. Ashley says:

    No. As a gay woman, I say no.

  27. Samir says:

    MISINFORMED! This list is comprised of either wrong or incomplete information. All you have to do is go to Ron Paul's website and research each topic, make sure it is taken within context and fitting the whole Ron Paul philosophy. I am positive that if you listen to the entire story, it will make sense to you as well, and you would be a Ron Paul supporter.

  28. JMQuinn says:

    Ron Paul is way too old. He was born in 1935. He would be 78 in 2013. Does anyone want a fossil of 86 running the country? We had enough Alzheimer’s with Ronald Reagan. At the end of Reagan’s term, he was 77. Ron Paul would just be getting started! There is a minimum age of 35 to be President and there should be a maximum age, too.

  29. cheeseandcrackers says:

    turn off your fox news are read about Ron Paul. half your reasons are false. Ron Paul will make a Great president and restore America

  30. Marc Time says:


    1)One scoring method published in the American Journal of Political Science[183] found Paul the most conservative of all 3,320 members of Congress from 1937 to 2002.
    2)He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations, and from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
    3)He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes;[62] he cast two thirds of all the lone negative votes in the House during a 1995–1997 period
    4)He endorses eliminating most federal government agencies, terming them unnecessary bureaucracies.
    5)Paul terms himself "strongly pro-life",[194] "an unshakable foe of abortion",[195] and believes regulation or ban[196] on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".[197][198] He says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe life begins at conception;
    6)As a free-market environmentalist, he asserts private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention. In 2009, he claimed that climate change is a hoax.
    7)Paul pushes to eliminate federal involvement with and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to decrease due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market. He is also opposed to federal government influenza inoculation programs
    8)Paul was critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."
    9)In an article titled "The Pink House" Ron Paul’s newsletter wrote that "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
    10)He opposes federal regulation of the death penalty[.

  31. buddhaflow says:

    But the government is currently the #1 vector of racism into the world.

    War on Drugs + War on Terrorism > All laws that prevent discrimination.

    Which would you rather have: the right to buy hamburger's from "Racist Robs Rib Roast," or the right to leave a prison you have been unfairly sentenced to?

  32. vesseleternal says:

    FREE markets equal innovation. He is for TRULY FREE MARKETS. That's an explosive economy.

  33. Anon says:

    John Huntsman is the best candidate? Try reading up on Gary Johnston.

  34. Michael R says:

    In this interview http://youtu.be/UJz81lAwY0M at about 2:00 after being asked "Should gays be allowed to marry" He responds "Sure they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want"

  35. N. Falvo says:

    Gary – you should read the Entire Bill.. not the hand-picked, spoon-fed CT crap…

    here is the part of the bill that everyone is crying wolf over…

    (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.–The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

    (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

    (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111- 84)).

    (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

    (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

  36. N. Falvo says:

    but if you go and look at THIS part of the bill…

    (b) COVERED PERSONS.–A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

    (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

    (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

  37. N. Falvo says:

    and then of course d & e….

    (d) CONSTRUCTION.–Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

    (e) AUTHORITIES.–Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

  38. N. Falvo says:

    and of course… the most damning section against conspiracy nuts….


    (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

    (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

    (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined–

    (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

    (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

  39. N. Falvo says:

    (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

    (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

  40. N. Falvo says:

    (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

    (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

    (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

    here's the bill in full…

    S.1867.PCS http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pd

  41. sundene says:

    As a woman (and 51% of us are) he is definitely not capable of representing my interests, based on some of his stances. I also do not favor a country where the first amendment freedom of religion rights are tossed out in favor of this being a "christian" country. So no, those things don't trump much of anything for me.

  42. Rand March says:

    In what context is his refusal to disavow the endorsements of neo-Nazi and KKK groups and to criticize their racism acceptable to you?

    And PLEASE spare me the "They have the right to free speech" nonsense: His criticism of their bigotry would – in no way – infringe upon their rights

  43. Rodger says:

    The funny thing is, Ron Paul has his views, but if you look at all of his votes in congress, and none of them impede the values of individual Americans. He doesn’t impose his views on the people, a true constitutionalist and libertarian.

    Ron Paul wants the the government OUT of issues like marriage… so what his views on marriage are is inconsequential.

    I personally don’t agree with a lot of his views, but support him completely for the presidency.

  44. CJM says:

    #21: When he gets mad he reminds me of my dad, all whiney and crumudgeon.

  45. Satyavira says:

    Great points, and thanks for bringing up Rothbard.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate on either side of the political spectrum who is not afraid to speak about indefinite detentions of American's as being a BAD thing. He is the only candidate talking about the FED and their phony fiat ponzi scheme. What he thinks of gay marriage and abortion i can live with. He's a doctor who knows where the bleeding is coming from and not afraid to say that.

  46. elephantjournal says:

    Thanks for your comment! Like I said in the list, I like him a lot and would be happy to vote for him were I a GOP member. As it is, I greatly value his ability to bring us back to the Constitution and spark the only real debate in those "debates."

  47. […] may not vote for Ron Paul, but god I respect […]

  48. shao says:

    Media parrot…

  49. Larry says:

    Well if anyone here agrees with mostly Ron Paul but let's say not foreign policy then maybe you should check out what happened in Iran going back to 1953. In the debates Santorum kept going after Ron Paul in like the first 5 debates about Iran. But in that last one Ron Paul brought up the 1953 coup. Santorum acted as if he did not know about that. Which is okay because a lot of people either do not remember or do not know. Go watch these quick vids: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed
    then watch this video which has some surprising people in it, maybe then you would agree RP is the guy, we are not behind him as a candidate, we are behind the principles and taking our control back from the government and make federal government smaller and with lower taxes http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed
    Michelle is competing right now against Ron Paul. Before running as candidate that they both go out to lunch pretty frequently and she looks up to Ron Paul. If she changed her view on Iran she could be even considered as possible VP for Ron Paul.