John Tate Statement on $350,000 C4L Ken Buck Media Buy Raises More Questions
John Tate's response to the question,
Did Campaign For Liberty Give $350,000 to a Neocon?, which was raised on the Ron Paul Forums, the Daily Paul, and other grassroots Liberty sites, can be read on the C4L's site via this link.
The numerous comments on the C4L link, as well as comment threads on Forums and the Daily Paul indicate overwhelming dissatisfaction with the vaguely worded explanation, and call for more answers.
Questions that come to my mind when reading the statement include:
Tate: The candidate featured in the Colorado ad answered 19 out of 20 questions correctly on our C4L candidate survey
We have seen the questions. Where are Buck's answers?
Regardless of how he answered, it is clear from his own website that he is a pro-war, pro-interventionist candidate:
We definitely need to continue a major effort in Afghanistan. We are told this effort will take at least 10 years. It will require both military and civilian personnel to help build up the country. The generals on the ground tell us we are likely to be in Afghanistan for the long term with a difficult and complicated mission.
Anyone with even the slightest familiarity with C4L's grassroots supporters knows that, while we are a diverse bunch, there are a few issues upon which we are in total agreement. One of these uniting issues is the principle of NON-INTERVENTIONISM. The fact that Buck answered 19 questions "correctly" is irrelevant.
THIS IS AN ISSUE ON WHICH WE NEVER COMPROMISE.
Tate: We treat these surveys as a personal promise from the candidate as to how they will vote upon entering Congress. And I can guarantee you we will hold them accountable for their actions and responsible for how they presented themselves to us.
How sweet. If these are "personal promises," how exactly do you intend to hold these candidates responsible once they become elected officials? Do you intend to bring lawsuits against the individuals should they break them? What is the plan here? I'm curious, since breaking campaign promises is a routine event in American politics.
If you are making a "guarantee," how will those of us who trusted your judgment be compensated for being duped?
Tate: The Colorado program was funded by a small number of Colorado activists. The funding for this program came ENTIRELY from this small group of new C4L donors.
This sounds like a side pool of money. Who is this "small number of Colorado activists?" Does the group have a name, or formal organization? Is the group's mission consistent with that of C4L? What other type of influence, if any, have they purchased within the C4L with this money?
Furthermore, what is the criteria for other groups who wish to channel side pools through the C4L? Did any of the money go to the C4L, or was it all used to fund the ad? Did any members of the C4L personally benefit from this transaction?
Tate: So for all our great grassroots who are wondering why we might not have used this money elsewhere, I can say two things: First, we WILL have similar programs in MANY other places soon
Really? When? Because 2010 primaries are coming up very, very quick. We've got a slew of REAL liberty candidates who have emerged from the grassroots movement started by Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. So far there has been no action on the part of the C4L to support these candidates. Candidates like: Rand Paul, RJ Harris Jake Towne, John Dennis, Adam Kokesh, and Debra Medina. As far as I understand, none of these candidates have heard a peep from C4L.
If your answer is: I think it is important to state up front that, in keeping with our 501(c)4 status, none of our work is in endorsement, support, or opposition for any candidate,
I'm afraid that just answer doesn't cut it - not after the Buck ad. While the ad may be consistent with the letter of the law, it is not consistent with its spirit.
Among the local grassroots, asking for help from the C4L has become a running joke. Such a suggestion is usually met with the roll of eyes and a sarcastic scoff: "Right, like that is ever going to happen."
In the end, this event has been very disappointing to everyone in the community who has steadfastly supported Ron Paul. My understanding of the C4L is that it was to work with the grassroots community toward common goals. That has not happened.
This response did very little to satisfy the growing dissatisfaction within C4L membership and grassroots Ron Paul supporters. We got no new information - nothing we hadn't already figured out on our own via the Forums.
We do not appreciate being treated like ignorant jackasses.
If the R3volution doesn't reach Dems we'll be tempted
to suck up to the GOP and promises of victory.
Free includes debt-free!
I think at this point Buck
and his positions are largely irrelevant, even if is shown beyond all doubt he out Ron Pauls Ron Paul.
C4L, since inception, has shown signs of operating like any other political/TDW organization and not in any way reflective of the unique, breath of fresh air character of our movement. We are politics not as usual, not just another flavor of the corruption game. This incident, barring strong evidence to the contrary, is near complete confirmation that indeed all that quacking is coming from a duck.
I am no longer interested in doing the please Mr Top of TDW feed us another crumb to help us sustain our illusion. I believe nothing short of Mr. ToTDW stating ASAP that a group from the grassroots, and known to be both "pure" and clean by the grassroots, is welcome to come and examine this matter fully and the entire operation.
Trust us is no longer cutting it.
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
have you read this?
I'll admit I haven't really followed CFL that closely but saw the story here and thought I would search a little on this guy. I found this at the end of an answer to a question about debating war policy (it was really about civility in debate):
So is that really that at odds with the Ron Paul approach? The only difference I see is that he is not ready to publicly say 'come home now' and perhaps that woudl be a deal breaker for you but it seems to me reading up on this guy that he has a lot more in common than not.
I'm probably a bit older than many posters on here but I'll just say that you will *never* get a 100% ideologically pure candidate. There will always be a nuance, if/and/but.
gedankenexperiment.dk views on finance, politics and science
Have you read this from Buck's website?
(on the "Where Ken stands" tab):
http://www.buckforcolorado.com/issues102k9.php
What Buck describes on his site does not reflect the ~bring 'em home, no nation-building~ noninterventionist ideas that Ron Paul has espoused.
Also, while proper declaration of war should happen if war is going to take place, declaration (or lack of) is not the only problem. Supporting BS wars is not ok, declaration or not.
But Buck isn't the only problem with this ordeal. You said you hadn't really followed that closely. Take a look at the comments in this or some of the other threads about this and you'll get a better idea of why the controversy.
Just Give Directly To Worthy Candidates
It's pretty clear that C4$L can't be trusted with money.
Give directly.
Socialists are Everywhere
Joe Kennedy was given a questionaire too.
On 1/20/10 Jack Blood interviewed Jake Witmer from the Joe Kennedy campaign. Jake says that C4L wouldn’t help the campaign, or give Kennedy an endorsement.
(There’s no time clock in the Quicktime player on this page, but the part about C4L starts about 1/5 of the way from the beginning in the scroll bar.)
http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Jack-Blood-32k-0...
Jake says that C4L gave the Kennedy campaign a questionnaire which they answered in a “…manor that indicated they support all of Ron Paul’s views.”
C4L then asked if the campaign already had $100,000 in their campaign fund.
C4L asked, “Do you have any polls that show you’re capable of winning?” (meaning over 30%)
Jake described the whole process as “politics as usual.” He says, “Joe financed his ballot access entirely on his own ($10,000).” Jake also claims that the Libertarian Party didn’t help with ballot access either.
Jake Witmer stated that he thinks a Ron Paul endorsement would have made a big difference in the campaign, especially in fundraising.
Jack Blood then mentioned the Daily Paul, he said, “The Daily Paul threw their whole hearted support behind Joe Kennedy." I think it’s safe to say that Jack Blood is a DPer.
Jack Blood’s show “Deadline Live” can be heard weekday afternoons from 4-6 PM EST on American Freedom Radio.
http://www.americanfreedomradio.com
Roanoke, Virginia
http://www.facebook.com/Roanokers4RonPaul
Who among us, except Mr. Nystrom,
has the time to work on the things we "want" to do, on the issues we really feel are important? We don't because we're all so busy chasing our tails working for others to make a buck. Not so with Mr. Nystrom and that is what separates him from you and your kind.
what on you on about?
are you trying to make a point or are you just being a jerk?
Sorry about that.
I posted that comment in the wrong place, it should have been placed under WCU4Pauls' comment here in this thread. It bugs me how WCU4Paul feels he can sparingly use the ease that comes with posting comments here at Daily Paul to pick apart how things are done without any regard to how much of Michael Nystrom's life has been poured into this place. All of our enthusiasm is fed here on a "Daily" basis and I'm 100% behind Mr. Nystrom, all the way. Sorry for the confusion.
CFL can't endorse candidates
I received in a C4L update a message from Debbie McKee that says "CFL can't endorse candidates". So what exactly would you call throwing hundreds of thousands at a candidate. I bet Debra Medina could use that money, or maybe Adam Kokesh. I am sick, disgusted, fed up. Excuse me while I puke!
Live free or DIE!
Aggh! In a show of retaliation,
I unsubscribed from C4L's emails yesterday so I appreciate you posting that.
I agree -- there are are so many, many future candidates who will need our help. They are finished with college, with no job and they are waking up, loaded with energy. They are literally and figuratively "babies" compared to the used up cronies that having been trying to run our lives and these new candidates will need all the support they can get.
Huzzah!
.
Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!
While I agree l'affaire Buck
While I agree l'affaire Buck definitely smells funny, my opinion is that an organization that gets folks like Tom Woods, Tom DiLorenzo, and Lew Rockwell out in front of more people can't possibly be all bad. Get to the bottom of this mess and apply corrective pressure, if necessary, yes, but I think it's premature to throw the whole organization out as a result of this weird incident. Just my two cents.
Freelance copywriter/editor who gets the "freedom message"!
Visit: http://www.DavidBardallis.com
C4L will never get another
dime from me since the fiasco of Ron Pauls
Presidential run they are all NOT true
Liberty,Peace & Hard Constitutionalist's.
Rand Pauls campaign is showing exactly what
his Dads should of guts and communication of
course I am talking about the so-called campaign
leader's.
"Freedom is a right that can never be won in war,only by each individual "
Refresher on the WCU4Paul (no)character
Sorry to go off topic but it is back attempting to cause trouble again and with the same all's fair..., win at all costs ethics:
http://dailypaul.com/node/113049
Thanks for your kind patience with this interruption.
Back to routing out whatever is going on at C4L HQ.
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
You seriously need help
A thread about me? Seeing as how I'm all caffeinated up, I'm tempted to go in there and point out how huge of an idiot you are by tearing apart that thread point by point, but you're not worth it.
Did it ever occur to you that even a "(no)character" like me might actually have non-internet friends in the movement? For instance, maybe my neighbor with whom I've spent many hours canvassing and petitioning alongside?
No, I guess not.
That's ironic, considering that you were right on the money with the Dondero thread (pointing out that some people are committed to dragging down this movement) and the proposal for a "dirty laundry" section where divisive topics can go. But I guess one cannot expect you to stand by your own beliefs.
When it comes to someone calling for MORE constructive dialog and less "screw Ron Paul and his organization! look at who they backed!!!!!!" you only believed in that sort of thing way back in....2009.
I accept the "apology" offered in your thread, seeing as how you're wrong.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. - SCotUS, 1995
Thank you again for the reminder
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/112988#comment-1227760
And thank you Starvo, for your passion!
The thanking "Stavro" line is a classic
If we were not involved in such a serious and important endeavor I would encourage this thing to continue-at times it is a hoot.
I do wonder what, whom it works for-earlier I thought it was a freelancer but now I am less sure. I also am starting to wonder if more than one person writes under the WCU4Paul screen name. Regardless, this thing will not achieve any traction here.
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
Good ole fashioned mistake? I don't know.
I was told tonight from our state C4L coodinator that suposedly Buck answered that he would not support unconstitional wars on the survey, but somehow they didn't verify this with his website. If this is the case, why isn't C4L simply admiting to the mistake? (which still sounds like a special interest group donation) My opinion is that most people do not like this candidate, but are mostly angry about the lack of explanation to the members. We have had enough of the top down, do as I say parties.
Ever since we traveled to Minnesota
Ever since we all traveled to Minnesota on our own dime to attend the Rally for the Republic and then what we had been told would be the founding convention of the Campaign for Liberty I have been suspicious of this movement. I was supposed to be a "delegate" and we were to vote on a charter and by-laws for the new organization. Instead, we sat for hours being lectured by twenty-somethings about things we already knew. We got a picnic lunch. Never voted on anything that I remember, and returned home wondering what it was all about.
The only thing memorable was the Rally itself. That was great. Still, I don't think I would have made a 3000 mile plus round trip and spent several hundred dollars just for the entertainment. We thought we would be founding something special. Turns out, our services were not needed or wanted.
If you really want to make a difference, join the Republican Liberty Caucus. If you don't have a local chapter in your town, start one. If you live in Texas, go here: http://debateall.com/drupal/
The RLC in Texas is largely composed of people who would be in the Campaign for Liberty if it had fulfilled its initial promise. Some belong to both, hoping against experience that things will work out in the CFL.
Some are disillusioned and cynical about the Republican Party, but almost without exception any liberty candidates, from Rand Paul to Debra Medina, are working within the GOP. Our hope lies in increasing the Liberty Wing of the Republican Party. Please, especially if you live in Texas, go here: http://debateall.com/drupal/
A WAY TO PUT AN END TO THIS MESS!
It's OK to be a member of one group (C4L) and contribute to another candidate out of a person's own pocketbook........but, I smell a rat. Could it be that we have an invasion of Cass Sunstein's operatives who are members "in name only" and who want to stir up trouble?
C4L's responsibility, though, should be to possibly file a lawsuit against this man for misrepresentation.
If they cannot do that, then, C4L needs to put an advertisement in COLORADO NEWSPAPERS stating they do not, and did not endorse this candidate.
Now, why can't they do that? And, put an end to this crap!
So anyway, We are ALL in TOTAL agreement except for the
multiple people/multiple screen names that comprise the WCU4Paul Group! :-D
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
So you're not only delusional, you're viciously hateful?
I don't mind you disagreeing with my viewpoint. That's your right and that disagreement, when expressed responsibly, is good in terms of testing our ideas.
But when you claim that I'm the only person in this movement who feels a certain way, that's out of line and disrespectful. When you pull this "multiple people" garbage, that's borderline libelous and an attack on my integrity.
Grow up. Want to attack my ideas? Fine. But you're crossing a line.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. - SCotUS, 1995
Ok, please stop now. You are embarrassing yourself.
You got caught. Please learn from your mistake and move on.
Also, it is rather comical that YOU would label someone else hateful and disrespectful. I mean, you do realize others can see YOUR posts, right?
WCU4paul has the audacity
to call people "delusional", while HE posts under numerous screen names.
Even previously busted as a troll.
STAVRO!
What a laugh!
He's a walking joke.
You familiar with the voice of Saruman?
Lord of th Rings Two Towers JRRT Book Three Chapter X The Voice of Saruman.
Free includes debt-free!
Sorry, no.
I've overheard some of the Lord of the Ringsmovie when my daughter was watching it, but I didn't catch enough to be familiar with the voice of Saruman.
Lord of the Rings is a literary adventure, movie not so much.
Tolkien was an anarchist. The War of the Ring was a rejection of central planning and control.
Saruman like Gandalf was sent to help men overthrow the Lord of the Rings. Saruman deceived himself and came to believe that he could use the power of his voice to control men for their own good.
In Chapter X, his treachery is laid bare for all to see. Yet not without a verbal joust, much of the kind we often see here at DP. IMO
I have recommended the Lord of the Rings books to people likely to undertand and enjoy it. The first was my college roommate, almost 40 years ago now. I had never given a gift of literature before, and was pleased at his heartfelt thanks, which really belonged to JRRT.
I thought you would enjoy it. IMO the human sruggles Tolkien narrates are applicable to our current struggle.
Free includes debt-free!
Do libel laws apply to anonymous screen names?
Integrity? Of an anonymous screen name?
That sounds pretty ridiculous.
Thanks again, Stavro, for your passion.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/112988#comment-1227760
Integrity??
Hey screen name, you have long been thoroughly discredited. Nothing is out of line when dealing with scoundrels. Try tactic #4, feigning indignation ain't getting it done. Better yet-give it a rest permanently.
I have another post ready where you are the star-see above. I can assure you that whenever you soil along these parts I will similarly refresh the record.
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in