Why would liberals support Ron Paul for President? A comment at MoveOn explains that Ron Paul “outright rejects evolution. He says he ‘doesn’t accept it as a theory.’ He has also said he supports allowing ‘alternative theories’ to be taught in science class. ‘Alternative theories’ means creationism and/or intelligent design.”
David Sherr comments, “The world Paul envisions would have to include people dying in the streets because of no social security (money I worked for, incidentally, not an “entitlement”) and no medical care. Paul has socialized medicine, why can’t I?”
The Daily Beast notes, “Paul’s support among the country’s most committed theocrats is deep and longstanding, something that’s poorly understood among those who simply see him as a libertarian. That’s why it wasn’t surprising when the Paul campaign touted the endorsement of Phil Kayser, a Nebraska pastor with an Iowa following who calls for the execution of homosexuals.”
A liberal Facebook group sums up the argument against Ron Paul nicely: “What you may not know about Ron Paul is the most harmful to the 99%. Despite what he claims, he is NOT on our side. Sure, government cannot protect us from ourselves… but that’s not their job. Their job is to protect us from those people, corporations, and substances, including food, water and air – that might be harmful to us and our children. It’s up to us to make our government what we want it to be, not to get rid of all of the safety nets that are there to serve the people. If Ron Paul had his way there would be no more public schools, no Social Security, no public housing for the poor, no Environmental Protection Agency, no Health and Human Services, no protection for Labor, no Civil Rights … the list goes on and on. The worst thing that Ron Paul is against is regulation, including the market. Isn’t that what caused this mess to begin with?”
It comes down to this: There are real liberal alternatives to Barack Obama. Look at Jill Stein. Consider Rocky Anderson. If you want a Democrat, there’s Darcy Richardson.
There is absolutely no reason that a liberal has to make the significant compromises of principles inherent in voting for Ron Paul. Come to your senses, progressives! Join liberals against Ron Paul!
Some people in South Carolina seemed to want to vote for Newt Gingrich because Gingrich has the ability to be visibly angry during a political debate. Let’s get some perspective, though. This is a presidential election, not a boxing match.
