Conservatives and Libertarians United Against Ron Paul

Watching what Ron Paul does. Not what he says.

Ron Paul at 1% in the most libertarian state in the nation

Posted by chip91 on August 17, 2007

by Eric Dondero at the Libertarian Republican

California is often cited as the most libertarian state in the nation. There are more Libertarian Party members in California than over 10 other states combined. The California Republican Party itself, is heavily populated by self-described “libertarians” more so than any other single state. Thus, it is surprising to learn that Ron Paul continues to receive very low poll numbers in the Golden State, especially after his 7 months of campaigning, including numerous visits to California. Coming off his mediocre 5th place, 9% showing in Iowa last weekend, this cannot be welcome news for the Ron Paul campaign and Paul supporters.

From the San Diego Union-Tribune:

By John Marelius, Staff Writer

August 16, 2007

Rudy Giuliani holds a solid lead in the Republican presidential race in California while Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson are making gains and John McCain is in free-fall, according to a new Field Poll.

The nonpartisan public opinion survey shows the former New York mayor to be the choice of 35 percent… Former Massachusetts Gov. Romney placed second with 14 percent; followed by 13 percent for Thompson… and McCain, the senator from Arizona, at 9 percent.

Rounding out the field are Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, 3 percent; Rep. Duncan Hunter of Alpine, 2 percent; and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, all at 1 percent. Tommy Thompson dropped out of the race on Sunday.

*Note – Dondero is a former Senior Aide for US Congressman Ron Paul, 1997-2003.


15 Responses to “Ron Paul at 1% in the most libertarian state in the nation”

  1. Why the new title,Chip91? It is one thing for Conservatives to be united against Ron Paul, but Libertarians to be united against Ron Paul? Ron Paul is a Libertarian!?! How are Libertarians supposed to be against Ron Paul?

  2. Oh, O.K.! It is because what Eric Dondero said about Ron Paul on a recent post, eh? I bet Eric Dondero has a personal vendetta against Ron Paul. As for what he said about Libertarians, I have always heard that Libertarians are thee most pacifist entities around. Sure, some Libertarians identify with the right wing, but for the most part, they are peacenik doves.

    (I also hate the name change!)

  3. jp said

    how is he polling in Alaska? I think they are more libertarian, but of course minor with only 3 electoral votes.

  4. tsoldrin said

    I hereby sentence you to the obscurity you so richly deserve.

  5. Libertarian or Conservative, if the MSM is not in favor of a party, let alone a candidate, that candidate is a lost cause. The AP fed media, sorry to say, still drives the game on the street. The blogs are running strong, but way back in the pack. It will take possibly years before the great info that you present, is read by the commoner (voting masses) good luck to you and keep up the traffic flow on the real ‘information highway’.

  6. Wrong. I do not have a personal vendetta against Ron Paul. In fact, I was quite favorable to his candidacy before he made those idiotic, offensive statements at that debate blaming the United States for the attacks of 9/11.

    Thanks for changing the name of the blog. There are scores of Libertarians who are opposed to Ron Paul and his candidacy. Unfortunately, the libertarian media and the mainstream media are ignoring us, and our concerns. Perhaps with your blog, we can have an opportunity to get our views aired.

    You are doing a great service to the Blog community. Thank you very much for this site. And don’t let the Paul tin foil hat-wearing fanatics intimidate you.

  7. Dick Clark said


    You are either incredibly dumb or a bald-faced liar. Ron Paul has never blamed anyone for the 9/11 attacks but the people that took over those planes. They committed murder. Their motive would never have existed, however, were it not for United States government involvement in foreign internal affairs. No reason in the world excuses or justifies murdering innocent people, but we can certainly gain some insight into matters by examining the reasons why the crime was perpetrated.

    Ron Paul opposes total war–unlike you, Eric–so explaining that criminals have motives doesn’t imply that those motives then justified committing atrocities. This is hard to understand for war hawks like you, since you believe in murder as a means to an end. Although we all agree that terrorists’ actions against civilians are unjustified, that doesn’t mean that we ought not examine whether US foreign policy is creating conditions in which people are incentivized to resort to such heinous acts.

    In Liberty,

    Dick Clark

  8. jp said

    “Their motive would never have existed, however, were it not for United States government involvement in foreign internal affairs.”

    this is why the RP cult is such an absolute morally repugnant disgrace. You are either lying or ignorant(just as bad) of radical islam and “why they attacked us”….Its because of the Sura’s and Evilness, doesn’t have one thing to do with the US, you can take your blame America first lies to the DNC were they belong. the Jihadist are attacking literally all over the world, whether its in Thaliand, Phillipines, Morraco, India, Bali, etc and none of these countries have a presence in the Middle East, period.

    Conservatives, and sane people, have “read why they attacked us”, and RP’s disgraceful dumbing down and lying about it is why we hate the guy. He brings up Beirut withdrawal as a model, when Bin Laden specifically mentions it as a sign that we were WEAK and a Paper Tiger, making him think they could attack us and get away with it(because of FOOLS like your self).

    IF in a fairy tale, the enemies of the United States would cheer if a nutjob like Paul got elected. A modern day Useful Idiot, his non-interventionism policy(the complete opposite of Ronald Reagan) would do nothing but EMPOWER the evil forces of the world. Just like it did when we did this post WW1, sticking our heads in the sand thinking we could hide and ignoring Churchilll, which lead directly to WW2 and the rise of Hitler. Had we not had morally repugnant views post WW1, Hitler never would’ve been able to do what he did.

  9. JJ said

    Had we not intervened in the First World War, the second was unlikely to happen. You should learn your history better.

    It is true, I personally agree: Islam is a religion, when taken to extremes, which inspires violence and repression. That said, I think if we build a tidy fence and put proper security at our ports, the World will come to find an equilibrium with Islam. Rejecting it for the most part.

    Our Intervention disserves us; it polarizes World opinion. It drives otherwise sympathetic parties who would oppose Islam’s spread by violence into their arms, out of fear of big bad America coming to invade them and theirs, and overthrow their governments.

    We should bring our forces home. Deal with hemispheric threats in Latin America. Secure our borders.

    This adventurism in the Middle East is for the birds. The War Hawks. And thems Neoconservative chickens anyway; Romney went to France to avoid being drafted.

    The shriller these military-industrial enthusiasts become, the more I think they need to see The Doctor and get themselves cured.

    Rabies doesn’t win you friends and eventually kills you. Our rabid interventions poison us. Dr.Paul has a prescription, and it is the cure to what ails us. Just come home. And secure our borders.

    America loves you Dr.Paul!

  10. “Commanding Heights” the Battle for the worlds economy. 6 hours 3 DVD set. (PBS) I recommend it to get a picture of what is occuring in the world today. “Brave New World’ by Aldus Huxley is being fulfilled so it seems. Ah yes, History depends on who writes it, almost as much as who is left in power to rewrite it.

  11. jp said

    even if we got into WW1 and shouldn’t have(a big IF), it still does not change the fact we took on an Ostrich Foreign Policy after WW1 like RP wants now, and it led directly to the rise of Hitler and murder of millions. Proving it didn’t work then, and wouldn’t have worked pre-WW1, just a different face of evil would’ve risen.

    the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, learn it and try applying to the real world. The only reason we didn’t have an all out bloodfest with Soviets is because of interventionism.

    watch Reagan’s documentary sometime:

  12. rightcoast said

    Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.

    Paul: He’s a disgruntled former employee who was fired.

    Reason: But he says he’s running because of your debate performance. So is this presidential campaign weakening your standing in your district?

    Paul: Well, if it affects my standing in my district then I wouldn’t be a very good candidate for the presidency. If these views are popular, and I think they’re popular enough, then they should be popular in my home district. They’ve been hearing me saying this for a lot of years and I keep getting re-elected rather easily. I think politicians are always concerned about how they’re doing in their district, but right now, if Eric Dondero is the only thing I have to worry about, then I don’t have a lot to worry about.

    Reason: What Dondero’s said is that “there are essentially two Ron Pauls. There’s the national liberal media (and libertarian blogosphere) Ron Paul. And then there’s the South Texas good hometown doctor, red, white, and blue Ron Paul.” And he’s said you talk a good game about supporting veterans but they don’t know your positions.

    Paul: All one would have to do is go to the veterans part of my website. I win so many awards; we have so many people who call us from around the country because of the work we do for veterans. My biggest beef is that the veterans get shortchanged because of our war spending, and we end up with Walter Reed problems. So that statement makes zero sense.

  13. Jason said

    Dick Clark, when describing Dondero you should tkae out the word “or” and replace it with “and”, because saying he is either dumb or a liar is a false dichotomy. He really is both.

    He’s angry that he was fired by Dr. Paul. He’s also angry that he sold his soul to the neoconservatives and didn’t even get a lousy tee-shirt, so he’s hoping that by stumping for neocon Giuliani he can get the tee-shirt.

  14. Joel S. Hirschhorn said

    Ron Paul says he is the champion of the Constitution but he refuses to public support use of the Article V convention option that the Founders gave us in case the public lost trust in the federal government; well????? It’s happened. So where’s Ron Paul??? Learn more at and become a member.

  15. Not Joel said

    Hey Joel, you’re gonna lay that issue at Ron Paul’s feet? Go fuck off and die you piece of scum. I might have actually been interested in what your website might have had to say, but it’s obvious your a schill. FOAD.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: