John Tate Statement on $350,000 C4L Ken Buck Media Buy Raises More Questions

(on the "Where Ken stands" tab):

"On Iraq & Afghanistan

My son is a third year cadet at West Point. I'm very proud of my son's decision to serve his country. He understands the risks involved. He also understands there is a price for freedom in this country and he's willing to stand up and shoulder that burden. For so many of our brave men and women today, that means shouldering the burden in Iraq and Afghanistan.

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.

As Colorado's Senator I will always look first to the advice of the generals, and I will strongly support the mission of our troops who are in harm's way."

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.

are you trying to make a point or are you just being a jerk?

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.

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.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/112988#comment-1227760

And thank you Starvo, for your passion!

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.

It's safe to say that those who pay to keep the CFL afloat want answers immediately. My only fear is that CFL's current leadership can get by on the financial assistance of "a small group of donors."

Michael's comment below covers much of my thoughts about your post, but I wish to add one thing.

It is not my intent to turn this thread into a 9/11 debate, however after all of your tirades about ~truthers~ on this forum, I'd like to point out that you having used 9/11 to support what you said above is all the more reason why the lies we have been fed by the gov't and media about 9/11 need to be exposed.

Perhaps what you have said here about that will be inspiration for ~truthers~ to strive even harder in that endeavor. :)

First of all, I haven't "positioned" myself in any way. I just ended up here based on the actions I took at the start of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign, in January of 2007. I set up the Daily Paul, and it was the first website set up to promote Ron Paul's 2008 campaign. The fact that it continues to this day is a testament to the strong grassroots support for Dr. Paul and the principles he stands for. Because this support exists, I have kept the Daily Paul going. Truth be told, I would rather not be in this position.

Which do you think is easier? To be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of this site, and this community, and ensure that things function as smoothly as possible, 24/7/365 as I do, with my real name on the line, or to be someone like "WCU4Paul" - and there are many like you - who hides behind a screen name, and possibly several, taking snide potshots and making underhanded remarks about me when you feel it is convenient?

The last time we saw you, you were using my site to solicit your idea of building a "Mainstream version of the Daily Paul". You closed that post saying, "I would gladly start a more focused site if I had the time, resources, and technical knowledge to do so."

Surprise surprise. I'm glad that you acknowledge that actually takes work to run this site, and it doesn't appear from thin air, like the Federal Reserve notes that fund America's interventionist foreign policy. It takes work.

We saw you again after I installed a new spam filter on the Daily Paul which didn't work properly because I have limited resources and therefore have to do much of this programming work myself. I am NOT a programmer, and I don't have a $4 million budget, or $350K to throw around on ads. At that time you snidely asked whether it was a New forum feature, temporary bug, or more censorship?

And you are still here on my forum, after you accused me of banning you - another subtle way of trying to raise doubts about me. You're very good at your job, who ever you are and whoever you're working for.

I only bring up these issues so that those following along know who we're dealing with, know your tactics, and understand what you're trying to do with the opening statements in your post about me such as "positioning" myself, and:

"But I do not think he is psychic and his interpretation of the movement"

I never claimed to be psychic. But I do have feelings, I have a brain, and I can read. At the time I wrote the above post, I had read every entry in the then 51 page thread on the Ron Paul Forums. That post is now up to 94 pages. Perhaps if you took the time to read it, you would understand that I was not using any psychic abilities, but I was reflecting what I read from the community - not just on the Forums, but here on the Daily Paul, and on the C4L site itself.

My statements represent the overwhelming majority opinion of Ron Paul supporters, and if you took the time to read those threads as I did, you would understand that as well.

I never said we were in total agreement, as you again try to subtly mislead. That is you putting words into my mouth, as you are wont to do, as you hide like a coward behind your anonymous screen name.

I also know exactly where you're trying to go as you subtly try to shift the topic to the AUMF in Afghanistan. You're trying to get us to start fighting over Ron instead of focusing on the issue at hand. There is a huge difference between the AUMF and staying there for 10 years nation building as Buck says we need to do:

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.

You're trying to muddy the issue when the issue is already crystal clear. We know Ron Paul's position. He stated it clearly and forcefully in the debates in regards to Iraq, and from his numerous speeches and statements, we know exactly where he stands on this in regards to Afghanistan as well. To quote Ron Paul:

We marched right in, and we can march right out. Just come home.

Can you see the difference between the two statements, the first one from Buck, the second from Ron Paul? I think you can. Ron Paul is most definitely NOT into nation building, a position Buck clearly takes. Your equating Paul's vote on the AUMF with nation building there is a red herring. i.e. a diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue at hand.

I know your tactics. I've been running boards like this for years. We all know that operatives are active on message boards like this one, attempting to make non sequiturs appear as logical arguments. You're very good at your job, but we're all on to you here, WCU4Paul.

Now let me ask you a question, since you didn't address much of my post in your reply.

1) Don't you think what has happened is fishy in any way? A group of high rollers comes in to spend $350K promoting this candidate. Tate is clear that none of "our" money was used. But if that is the case, why did the high rollers need the C4L in the first place? Why didn't they form their own pressure group?

Something here stinks to high heaven, and the more I stew on it the worse it stinks. I don't have any confirmation on my suspicions yet, but a group of us are looking into it.

2) In regards to the fishiness, Tate says that Buck "answered 19 of 20 survey questions correctly." And yet his answers have yet to be published. Wouldn't you expect us to be able to see the answers? After all, the answers for other candidates, in Illinois, have been published. Especially after the brouhaha that was raised on the forums, the DP and the C4L site, do you think this was just an oversight? If it is, it speaks to incredible insensitivity and incompetence.

My concern and disappointment is echoed by Michael Maresco, and numerous other dedicated grassroots supporters, all over the internet. Again, I'm not a psychic. I just read.

To address your last point - I'm not treating Buck as a "political enemy." Personally, I don't know about him, nor care about him, and most certainly would never have heard of him if the C4L had not endorsed him. As yes, in spite of Tate trying to get off on technicalities, the ad was cleverly designed to be deceptive. Any reasonable man would agree that it is an endorsement. Tate has admitted as much with his corporate-speak language of "it could have been couched differently."

The main problem here comes down to what I will call "Neocon creep." The neocons are everywhere, and they invade everything through incrementalism. This is an example of an incrementalist invasion making inroads into the C4L. This is the crux of the matter, something Tate completely misread, and you have as well.

Ron Paul supporters represent an incredibly diverse collection of individuals. Among the factions represented are (much to your dismay): truthers, birthers, conspiracy theorists, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Greens, anarchists, health-food nuts (and I say nuts with an endearing fondness, as I consider myself a nut in this insane world), gun nuts, constitutionalists, hippies, yuppies, the young, the old, blacks, whites, hispanics, asians... Fill in the blank. The list goes on. Dr. Paul has commented on this numerous times, and this is what he is taking about when he says, "Freedom is popular!"

However, among this huge, rangy, diverse, motley group of rag-tag individuals, there are certain principles that everyone shares in common. One of those principles is a NONINTERVENTIONIST FOREIGN POLICY.

By endorsing an Interventionist, Tate and the C4L effectively gave a slap in the face to every single one of the groups that support Ron Paul. The reason that Ron Paul attracts such a diverse crowd is because he is, aside from a few others, the only non-interventionist around, Democrat or Republican.

Tate goes to great lengths to stress that none of the grassroots money went to this campaign. This is not the point. The point is that the C4L brand is so tightly tied to Ron Paul as to be nearly indistinguishable from the man who started it. And with that single ad, Ron Paul's good name, and good character is tarnished. Everything he has worked for so diligently for the past 30 years is subtly poisoned, in the same subtle way you try to poison the Daily Paul.

For Tate to say "it cost nothing" is another slap in the face of all Ron Paul supporters.

The reason that the Ron Paul community is up in arms over this is because we understand incrementalism. We have learned from the best - from Ron Paul himself - who has educated us on the subject, and pointed us to the resources to understand the detrimental effect that incrementalism has over time. This is why the Community is taking such an impassioned stand. The best time to nip incrementalism is in the bud, at the very first sign of it. The best way to do that is to take a principled stand, which is what we are doing.

We don't want the C4L to be transformed into just another Washington lobbying group playing the same old politics of 'you scratch my backside, and I'll scratch yours.' There are enough of those already.

BTW, what is your real name, and who do you work for, WCU4Paul?

theoretical manner. The very heart and essence of freedom is non-aggression. Once aggression is accepted it's only a matter of time until total tyranny is in control.
You cannot have freedom without peace and good will. Humanity has never understood they are mutually supportive, and that is why we never have fully attained either.

Were they your fellow liberty minded countrymen?

No compromise on noninterventionism. This isn't blown out of proportion. It goes to the core of this movement.

This has way more to do with how Tate spent a huge amount of money on one candidate then whether Buck is OK or not. We have not even been given a reasonable amount of proof that this has really come from Colorado activists that's just what Tate said. This is totally about trust and transparency. If C4L had disbursed funds among the obvious liberty candidates and included Buck in there with the rest then I'm sure there would have been some criticism for a day but we would have moved on. How can anyone be OK with 1 marginal candidate that used up an exorbitant amount of C4L funds without the consent of it's members.

It's about TRUST and TRANSPARENCY