Official C4l Announcement

[UtahApocalypse]

Here it is, have not read it:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=31963

[pacelli]

from the message


In retrospect, the ad we are running could have been messaged differently to help avoid any confusion on its intent and to better advertise our issue discussion program.

What a bunch of bullshit.

Go take a long walk off a short pier, tate.

[pacelli]

Posted by John Tate on 01/29/10
Last updated 01/29/10

Throughout 2010, Campaign for Liberty will be running an issue discussion program through our candidate surveys in every state to promote our issues and agenda and to lobby candidates for federal office and to get them on the record in support or opposition on our issues.

Since our inception, we have had many requests from our members for such an effort to help in their work to educate those around them.

As part of this program, mail, radio and TV ads, banner ads, and other forms of communication may be run to encourage candidates to go on record in support of our Liberty agenda, to highlight the responses of the candidates on our issues, and to hold those candidates who ignore our cause accountable.

There have been some questions as to why certain candidates have received surveys while others haven't. This is simply a matter of putting in place a systematic approach based on candidate filing deadlines and clear survey response deadlines in order to send out surveys in an organized fashion.

For example, Texas candidate surveys have been mailed, and Kentucky surveys will be mailed next week. Illinois survey results are already available on our web site.

As we launch this new undertaking, I also want to take a moment to address your inquires about one of our first public survey ads in Colorado.

First, 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. In our survey program, we seek only to report where candidates stand in regard to the specific questions to which they have responded.

In retrospect, the ad we are running could have been messaged differently to help avoid any confusion on its intent and to better advertise our issue discussion program. Your invaluable feedback will help us correct this in the future and, as a result, strengthen the effectiveness of our program. This is C4L's first foray into launching this kind of national initiative, and we are convinced it has the potential to make a tremendous impact.

The candidate featured in the Colorado ad answered 19 out of 20 questions correctly on our C4L candidate survey, and he has been publicly outspoken on Audit the Fed and an out of control federal government. He also answered the Foreign Policy questions and warrantless search question on our survey correctly.

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.

That being said, there is an even more important fact: 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.

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, and second, we did NOT use any money raised generally by Campaign for Liberty to run these ads in Colorado.

In order to both launch the Colorado effort and test our survey program, C4L did not use existing donor funds but built new support and donations, especially within Colorado, specifically for this project. This is the approach we hope to take as we seek funding for many other special projects this year in other states.

I take our message of peace, freedom, and prosperity as well as the responsibility entrusted to me to run this organization very seriously. I hope you all know that, and can give us here at C4L the benefit of the doubt when a situation arises about which you might want more information, or with which you even might not agree. As a multi-issue organization with activists from all manner of backgrounds, we each certainly will have our share of disagreements and agreements. The critical question is whether or not we will let disagreements on occasional topics destroy the unity we share in our desire to be a free people.

This movement has a unique window of opportunity to change politics in our country and restore our lost liberties. But to accomplish this, it will take our unified effort and focus. I see great things for us in 2010 and beyond if we can do that. I hope I'll have your support as we continue our campaign for liberty.

[specsaregood]

The candidate featured in the Colorado ad answered 19 out of 20 questions correctly on our C4L candidate survey, and he has been publicly outspoken on Audit the Fed and an out of control federal government. He also answered the Foreign Policy questions and warrantless search question on our survey correctly.

If that is the case, I wonder what questions weren't asked.

[MsDoodahs]

TRUST US.

:rolleyes:

[UtahApocalypse]

As expected. im done with C4L

[brandon]

Tate can S my D.


Making back room deals with shady anons in support of a pro-war thought-crime prosecutor is NOT OKAY anyway you try to spin it.

[MsDoodahs]

The candidate featured in the Colorado ad answered 19 out of 20 questions correctly on our C4L candidate survey, and he has been publicly outspoken on Audit the Fed and an out of control federal government. He also answered the Foreign Policy questions and warrantless search question on our survey correctly.

NEVERMIND THE FACT THAT THE CANDIDATE HAS BEEN PUBLICLY OUTSPOKEN PRO WAR.

Don't look at that....

[dannno]

Ya I'm curious about those 20 questions.

[RCA]

Fuck em.

[Melissa]

Here are the questions

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/candidatesurvey.php?state=IL#questions

[kahless]

Anyone have a link or can post the candidate survey and Bucks response to the candidate survey?

EDIT: thanks. Hmm does not look like Buck is listed.

[specsaregood]

and he has been publicly outspoken on Audit the Fed and an out of control federal government.

Well if thats the criteria, then every single republican in the house is CFL-approved.

[TCE]

Here are the questions

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/candidatesurvey.php?state=IL#questions

Those are really horrible, they should be neutrally worded.

[KCIndy]

Here are the questions

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/candidatesurvey.php?state=IL#questions


Great.

But where can we see each candidate's personal response?? I would love to see them put THAT on the record.

:(

[RCA]

Great.

But where can we see each candidate's personal response?? I would love to see them put THAT on the record.

:(

It's on the same page.

[KCIndy]

Anyone have a link or can post the candidate survey and Bucks response to the candidate survey?

I posted a request to that effect on the CFL blog page.

How much do you want to be it'll get no response??


:mad:

[Aratus]

folks... poor jim bunning took offense when mitch mcconnell wanted him out of the kentucky
senate race because he thought the old baseball player had lost sight of the fine lines of
our election rules. if the C4L has been careful, more careful than sen. bunning has been in
rarified instances in the past, then the FCC and the FEC won't land on them at all for this ad.
in light of the NEW supreme court decision, would many gray area "for instances" be backed off of?

[erowe1]

Judging from the comments that are already flooding that message, this is just the beginning of the drama.

[jclay2]

So are we supposed to be happy that they didn't use existing donor money and just ignore the fact that they are promoting (I know they don't say it that way) a candidate who is pro war aka pro big government.

[specsaregood]

Those are really horrible, they should be neutrally worded.

Indeed. PRobably 90% of the current house republicans would score 85% on this BS.
how about some philosophical questions? Not this crap.



Complete Survey Questions

1. Will you cosponsor and call for roll call votes on Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill, designed to bring transparency to the Federal Reserve (H.R. 1207/ S. 604 in the 111th Congress)?

2. Will you support legislation removing capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coinage?

3. Will you vote to oppose any legislation that allows the federal government to prohibit the sale, use, or carrying of firearms?

4. Will you support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that includes hard spending limits and allows for no increase in taxes or other federal revenue enhancements?

5. Will you support legislation that forbids U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command?

6. Do you support and will you vote to protect states asserting their rights under the Tenth Amendment?

7. Will you oppose Big Labor's Card Check bill and any other legislation designed to empower union bosses?

8. Do you support U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations?

9. Will you support the American Sovereignty Act to restrict the Executive's ability to forge international agreements that lessen our sovereignty?

10. Will you oppose using U.S. forces to occupy a foreign nation without a declaration of war?

11. Will you oppose any attempt to nationalize our health care system, including any sort of public option for insurance?

12. Will you oppose so-called "Cap and Trade" legislation?

13. Will you vote to eliminate the IRS?

14. Will you vote against any budget that increases our debt?

15. Will you oppose federal power grabs like roving wiretaps and warrantless searches, and oppose Patriot Act renewal that includes such items?

16. Will you oppose any legislation that requires states and citizens to participate in a National Identification Card program?

17. Will you oppose the so-called "NAFTA Superhighway" and any move toward a North American Union?

18. Will you support legislation that ensures Members of Congress have at least 72 hours to read any bill before it is allowed to come to the House floor?

19. Will you oppose all tax increases?

20. Indicate the tax cuts you are willing to vote for:
•Across the Board Income Tax Cut
•Capital Gains Tax Cut
•Business Tax Cut
•Estate Tax Cut

[KCIndy]

It's on the same page.

I saw the "Y / N" but I thought there were written responses as well... essay type.

You mean to say the whole thing was nothing but a "circle one" Y or N questionnaire??

Oh, hell.

[kahless]

They could have come up with a better worded and ordered list of questions. Anyone know which question out of those 20 Buck voted against?

[TCE]

I saw the "Y / N" but I thought there were written responses as well... essay type.

You mean to say the whole thing was nothing but a "circle one" Y or N questionnaire??

Oh, hell.

Y=good.
N=Bad.

Any person with any common sense will mark yes for enough to get a $350,000 ad.

[UtahApocalypse]

Funny thing is on that list there is already some candidates that had 20/20 yet did not get the ad when Buck only scored 19/20 on that crap questionnaire.

[MsDoodahs]

Well if thats the criteria, then every single republican in the house is CFL-approved.

AND he has been OUTSPOKEN on his PRO WAR view.

CFL is full of SHIT thinking that's their out.

[AuH2O]

I saw the "Y / N" but I thought there were written responses as well... essay type.

You mean to say the whole thing was nothing but a "circle one" Y or N questionnaire??

Oh, hell.

You never let the candidate write their own answer in a survey program. Then they turn it into answering their own (less politically sticky) question and give themselves a way out no matter what.

[specsaregood]

I say a nice reply would be for US the CFL members to come up with our own survey. Give them an idea of the type of questions the members would like asked.

[Pennsylvania]

You never let the candidate write their own answer in a survey program. Then they turn it into answering their own (less politically sticky) question and give themselves a way out no matter what.

From experience, amen.

[catdd]

"Only the rocks last forever."

Ancient Sioux saying

[LittleLightShining]

Well if thats the criteria, then every single republican in the house is CFL-approved.

Exactly!


Notice Q10. declaration of war to "occupy" a foreign nation?

What about declaring war to ATTACK a foreign nation?

[Free Moral Agent]

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.

Which part of this statement does the CFL not understand? Answering the questions correctly is just a smoke-screen... Whoever authorized this commercial should get the boot and the CFL association made within the ad needs to be pulled ASAP!

I doubt these new CO donors Tate speaks of will have anything to do with CFL after this little project to promote their neo-con candidate is finished with. How much of their donation will go towards other CFL activities besides promoting Ken Buck? Probably zero. Its a losing situation all around; I can see the CFL getting into hot water over this thanks to some insider funneling this dirty money.

[aclove]

I think a huge part of the disconnect is this: the leadership at C4L national doesn't seem to understand that for 99% of the C4L general membership, there are 2 main issues that are absolute, deal-breaker, litmus-test issues: ending the Fed, and being anti-war. It doesn't matter to us how many other issues a candidate may agree with us on, if they don't have the correct answer to both of those, we want nothing at all to do with them and consider them the enemy. From what's been leaked and based on Tate's statement, Buck agrees with C4L's stated positions on all issues except an immediate pullout from Afghanistan, Iraq, and everywhere else. For national, that was enough to do a deal for $350,000 of free publicity. I think they genuinely do not understand why we would have a problem with that, because having the wrong answer on the war issue is not a deal-breaker for them...it's just another issue.

[specsaregood]

Exactly!
Notice Q10. declaration of war to "occupy" a foreign nation?
What about declaring war to ATTACK a foreign nation?

OR, continuing to support an already undeclared war and occupation.
"Oh, well they did it anyways, I guess its ok to support it now? "

This is just an out so the Republicans can pretend to be against wars now that they are out of power.

[KCIndy]

I'm gonna puke...

Based on those questions, even a RINO Republican like Dick Lugar or John McCain would probably qualify for a C4L endorsement... uh... er... I mean, a "C4L Survey commercial."

http://www.your3dsource.com/images/donotfalldownstairs_01.gif

I have to go take some aspirin and lie down for a while.... seriously....

:mad:

[catdd]

I think a huge part of the disconnect is this: the leadership at C4L national doesn't seem to understand that for 99% of the C4L general membership, there are 2 main issues that are absolute, deal-breaker, litmus-test issues: ending the Fed, and being anti-war. It doesn't matter to us how many other issues a candidate may agree with us on, if they don't have the correct answer to both of those, we want nothing at all to do with them and consider them the enemy. From what's been leaked and based on Tate's statement, Buck agrees with C4L's stated positions on all issues except an immediate pullout from Afghanistan, Iraq, and everywhere else. For national, that was enough to do a deal for $350,000 of free publicity. I think they genuinely do not understand why we would have a problem with that, because having the wrong answer on the war issue is not a deal-breaker for them...it's just another issue.

+1

[AuH2O]

Based on those questions, even a RINO Republican like Dick Lugar or John McCain would probably qualify for a C4L endorsement... uh... er... I mean, a "C4L Survey commercial."

The idea is that a written pledge is political ammunition if they go back on their word after making campaign promises and winning a seat. Any candidate who signs 20/20 has a whole range of issues they have to be afraid to mess with once elected.

[newbitech]

If you have a well funded special interest group that wants to promote your candidacy anonymously and without accountability, all you have to do is answer these questions correctly and we will front for you.

"Paid for by Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty"

Earmarked of course by special interests who wish to remain anonymous and not be a part of the grassroots efforts that spawned this organization in the first place. Never mind the values and principles that the org is founded under. What you don't see can't hurt you.

What a friggin joke. "As a 501c4, we can't endorse candidates." The ad wasn't about the candidates. The ad was about candidates who answer our survey and oh by the way, we will do it again and again and again...

Blech, why do I even bother...

[LittleLightShining]

The idea is that a written pledge is political ammunition if they go back on their word after making campaign promises and winning a seat. Any candidate who signs 20/20 has a whole range of issues they have to be afraid to mess with once elected.

Oh? Is that what it is?

Wouldn't you think that would be the same idea with a 10th amendment resolution? Have something to hold feet to the fire with?

Well, Debbie Hopper thinks those are a waste of time and resources (that state groups ARE NOT GETTING from national). So this vague conservative questionnaire is a more effective tool?

Come ON.

[kahless]

They know people would want to see Ken Bucks questionaire responses after making such a statement but they provide a list with his name removed. People demand accountability and that kind of bullshit is just not going to cut it.

I try to look at the bright side of things which is if he does commit to 19 out of 20 questions he is better senators than that hold office now.

[Todd]

Regarding the petition. I'm curious which one of the questions this guy gave a No to. If it was the non intervention and constitutionality of U.S. war efforts, then I think CFL better rethink things a bit.. He may have gotten 19/20....but if it's this question it is a big one.

[newbitech]

Funny thing is on that list there is already some candidates that had 20/20 yet did not get the ad when Buck only scored 19/20 on that crap questionnaire.


nope those candidates didn't have well funded special interest who wish to remain anonymous and use C4L as a front to back their candidate.

I want to know who this group is that put the money out? Where did these groups stand on getting Ron Paul elected in '08? etc etc..

I would hope that C4L at least looked at that before they decided to tell the world that C4L did indeed fund the ad.

It's like saying well, this ad was funded by the C4L but it wasn't funded by the C4L. Come on...

[ItsTime]

Looks like a whole bunch of you really dont believe in state rights.


It was funded by Colorado C4L. They can do what they want with the money THEY RAISED RIGHT?

Just like Ms Doodahs believes she has the right to bitch out a few bucks that she donated being used for things she doesnt like.

Looking like a bunch of hypocrites here.

[MR2Fast2Catch]

The questionaire isnt horrible but it could use some more questions about Libertarian philosophy, such as the war on drugs, troop withdrawals, the Constitution, etc.

[AuH2O]

Oh? Is that what it is?

Wouldn't you think that would be the same idea with a 10th amendment resolution? Have something to hold feet to the fire with?

Well, Debbie Hopper thinks those are a waste of time and resources (that state groups ARE NOT GETTING from national). So this vague conservative questionnaire is a more effective tool?

Come ON.

State sovereignty resolutions ARE a waste of time, IMO, and are in fact harmful. Since they have no teeth they are easy for "conservatives" to vote for and clean their skirts, knowing that nothing will ever come of it, and thus no political retribution.

Get a vote on a State Firearms Freedom act or a Healthcare Nullification Bill and then you're talking.

[ItsTime]

Funny thing is on that list there is already some candidates that had 20/20 yet did not get the ad when Buck only scored 19/20 on that crap questionnaire.

Then those candidates better learn how to organize grassroots and raise up some money.

[specsaregood]

Looks like a whole bunch of you really dont believe in state rights.
It was funded by Colorado C4L. They can do what they want with the money THEY RAISED RIGHT?

Looking like a bunch of hypocrites here.
Please. When they slap the "campaign for liberty" logo on it, it reflects on all cfl members and the national organization.

[catdd]

newbitech: "The ad was about candidates who answer our survey and oh by the way, we will do it again and again and again..."


That's what I got out of it too.

[LittleLightShining]

Looks like a whole bunch of you really dont believe in state rights.


It was funded by Colorado C4L. They can do what they want with the money THEY RAISED RIGHT?

Just like Ms Doodahs believes she has the right to bitch out a few bucks that she donated being used for things she doesnt like.

Looking like a bunch of hypocrites here.NO> CO C4L had no idea this was happening.


State sovereignty resolutions ARE a waste of time, IMO, and are in fact harmful. Since they have no teeth they are easy for "conservatives" to vote for and clean their skirts, knowing that nothing will ever come of it, and thus no political retribution.

Get a vote on a State Firearms Freedom act or a Healthcare Nullification Bill and then you're talking.

DUDE! And how does this questionnaire differ??? I think you must be Debbie Hopper.

[ItsTime]

Please. When they slap the "campaign for liberty" logo on it, it reflects on all cfl members and the national organization.

They are the C4L in Colorado right? Or are we just going to start picking apart each person who donates? "Youre not libertarian enough for our special group GTF!" Good luck with that failing movement.

Just like if the C4L raised money here in NH I would f-ing hope they would say where the money went.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Looks like a whole bunch of you really dont believe in state rights.


It was funded by Colorado C4L. They can do what they want with the money THEY RAISED RIGHT?

Just like Ms Doodahs believes she has the right to bitch out a few bucks that she donated being used for things she doesnt like.

Looking like a bunch of hypocrites here.

How on earth did you ever come up with the idea that this is a State's rights issue. Geez. This is an issue of representation. The C4L accepted donations from people in Colorado (who are they, we don't know) to fund a $350,000 ad promoting a survey. However, the ad itself was an obvious endorsement of a Neo-Con. This ad had C4L logo on it.

ItsTime, It's Time to wake up and let go. There is no place neo-cons can't infiltrate. The only way to bring Liberty back to this country is to not be attached to any organization or person, but solely to an idea.

[MR2Fast2Catch]

Please. When they slap the "campaign for liberty" logo on it, it reflects on all cfl members and the national organization.

That is how I feel too. At least should have been a statement in the commercial that it was solely from the Colorado chapter of C4L. I don't want these kinds of candidates to represent C4L. But I guess it's reassuring that they did not use general funds for this guy.

[newbitech]

Looks like a whole bunch of you really dont believe in state rights.


It was funded by Colorado C4L. They can do what they want with the money THEY RAISED RIGHT?

Just like Ms Doodahs believes she has the right to bitch out a few bucks that she donated being used for things she doesnt like.

Looking like a bunch of hypocrites here.


Really because that is not what the ad says. Is there even a C4L Colorado? Who are they and exactly why are THEY attaching Ron Paul's name to a candidate that is not endorsed by Ron Paul? I mean really, is this what passes for vetting? Why not just look at the candidates current issues, past record etc etc? Where does that come in to play?

More of the same... This isn't how our country is going to change. What are they gonna do when the candidate backs off that platform? Hold up a piece of paper and scream LIAR? Do you think that candidate will give a shit once he's in office? Fuck no. Just look who the guy has worked for, look at what he has done with his political career. I'd rather have a crack head answer these questions correctly and hold that person accountable to office than a savvy career politician with ties to big government elitist.

[TCE]

You never let the candidate write their own answer in a survey program. Then they turn it into answering their own (less politically sticky) question and give themselves a way out no matter what.

C4L Q 1:

1. Will you cosponsor and call for roll call votes on Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill, designed to bring transparency to the Federal Reserve (H.R. 1207/ S. 604 in the 111th Congress)?

Neutrally worded:

Do you support a complete audit of the Federal Reserve?

C4L Q7:

7. Will you oppose Big Labor's Card Check bill and any other legislation designed to empower union bosses?

Neutrally worded:

Do you support Card Check?

Etc. All of these are yes or no, but they aren't worded as to completely give away what the right answer should be.

It also prevents candidates from going down the list marking "yes" to everything.

[pacelli]

It was funded by Colorado C4L.

Back up your statement with proof.

[ItsTime]

For those of you who cant read:



That being said, there is an even more important fact: 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.

[specsaregood]

They are the C4L in Colorado right? Or are we just going to start picking apart each person who donates? "Youre not libertarian enough for our special group GTF!" Good luck with that failing movement.

I look forward to "progressives" funding an ad and slapping a "campaign for liberty" logo on it.

And as newbitech points out the ad says paid for by "2010 campaign for liberty" it does not say anything about it being just a colorado group.

[TCE]

For those of you who cant read:

How did they raise $350,000 by themselves?

[hugolp]

For those of you who cant read:


That being said, there is an even more important fact: 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.

Is there any way the people can check this? Or is just a matter of believing what they are saying?

[ItsTime]

How did they raise $350,000 by themselves?

Pretty easy actually. They dont sit on line all day bitching about everything LOL.

[LittleLightShining]

How did they raise $350,000 by themselves?

It started out as being from "a donor" then it changed to a "small group of donors".

[AuH2O]

C4L Q 1:

1. Will you cosponsor and call for roll call votes on Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill, designed to bring transparency to the Federal Reserve (H.R. 1207/ S. 604 in the 111th Congress)?

Neutrally worded:

Do you support a complete audit of the Federal Reserve?

C4L Q7:

7. Will you oppose Big Labor's Card Check bill and any other legislation designed to empower union bosses?

Neutrally worded:

Do you support Card Check?

Etc. All of these are yes or no, but they aren't worded as to completely give away what the right answer should be.

It also prevents candidates from going down the list marking "yes" to everything.

There are generally two schools of thought when conducting federal and state survey programs, those being the two highlighted here: Specific questions leaving no room for "squishiness," and neutral ones with plenty of wiggle room.

True, specific questions telegraph the "correct" answer, but the are still a written commitment to a very firm position. "Supporting" an audit doesn't mean anything about actually getting an audit. In fact, as we've seen, even cosponsoring is not enough if a legislator believes the vote will never come. Calling for roll call votes is a firm commitment make an effort to go on the record and vote yes.

[pacelli]

For those of you who cant read:

That's not proof. Not good enough.

[UtahApocalypse]

That being said, there is an even more important fact: 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.

Who used the C4L to promote a neocon Candidate with ZERO oversight or vetting by national. that shows complete incompetence in them and they ALL need to resign.

[Charles Wilson]

Funny thing is on that list there is already some candidates that had 20/20 yet did not get the ad when Buck only scored 19/20 on that crap questionnaire.

Just out of curiosity where are you going to find more than a hand full of candidates to agree with you on all 20 questions? It would be awesome if all candidates would answer the way we want them to but in the real world that ain't going to happen. I agree with Ron Paul 99.9 percent of the time on the various issues but there is always some issue I don't fully agree with. We cannot expect perfection when dealing with human beings.

Strict interpretation and adherence to the Constitution, including States Rights (Article X), is my hangup. If we can restore the power of the Constitution and get our States Rights back, "We the People" can overcome the other issues through the State Governments.

I hope you all will take a look at the big picture and not let anyone sabotage the C4L -- we need unity.

[ItsTime]

Im not happy with the ad either. But IT IS THEIR MONEY THAT THEY RAISED. They can do what they want with it. You disagree with the guy one one fucking issue.

We have people bitching about the pennies they gave the C4L saying they dont want their money used for this and that. These people got 350k together and did this. Maybe we should be TALKING TO THEM to see if they WILL HELP FUND real liberty activist.


But nah bitching and moaning about them is much more fun.

[newbitech]

For those of you who cant read:

For those of you who cant read:

That being said, there is an even more important fact: 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.


Oh so that makes it ok to support someone who has a track record of supporting war-mongering and big government.

Ok my bad...

I guess the big group that donated enough for 10 of these types add just needs to back off and STFU then right? We have no say where our money goes cause ahhh.. we are what? Too big? Didn't donate enough, not organized? What?

[newbitech]

Just out of curiosity where are you going to find more than a hand full of candidates to agree with you on all 20 questions? It would be awesome if all candidates would answer the way we want them to but in the real world that ain't going to happen. I agree with Ron Paul 99.9 percent of the time on the various issues but there is always some issue I don't fully agree with. We cannot expect perfection when dealing with human beings.

Strict interpretation and adherence to the Constitution, including States Rights (Article X), is my hangup. If we can restore the power of the Constitution and get our States Rights back, "We the People" can overcome the other issues through the State Governments.

I hope you all will take a look at the big picture and not let anyone sabotage the C4L -- we need unity.


Adam Kokesh, Gunny, Medina, RAND friggin PAUL, Schiff.... come on....

[TCE]

There are generally two schools of thought when conducting federal and state survey programs, those being the two highlighted here: Specific questions leaving no room for "squishiness," and neutral ones with plenty of wiggle room.

True, specific questions telegraph the "correct" answer, but the are still a written commitment to a very firm position. "Supporting" an audit doesn't mean anything about actually getting an audit. In fact, as we've seen, even cosponsoring is not enough if a legislator believes the vote will never come. Calling for roll call votes is a firm commitment make an effort to go on the record and vote yes.

They aren't using this to hold it against them, just to see if they should endorse candidates or not. Between their websites and what they say they support, it should be obvious whether they deserve an endorsement or not.

Littlelightshining: It still seems odd that they gathered $350,000 out of seemingly nowhere.

[ItsTime]

Oh so that makes it ok to support someone who has a track record of supporting war-mongering and big government.

Ok my bad...

I guess the big group that donated enough for 10 of these types add just needs to back off and STFU then right? We have no say where our money goes cause ahhh.. we are what? To big? Didn't donate enough, not organized? What?

It wasnt your money.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

It wasnt your money.

It's our fucking organization!

[__27__]

I just want to say how proud of you guys I am. This reeks of people trying to use the grassroots brand of Ron Paul momentum to fuel their own candidate, and the community is having none of it. Whether or not C4L was in on planning it is irrelevant, the resolve of the liberty movement has been tested, and we won the first battle. I hope Palin is watching, and now knows she will have zero support from us.

Stay true, stay strong.

[JoshLowry]

It wasnt your money.

So if McCain, Palin, or their supporters donate a block of money to the CFL, should they run ads for them with the logo stamp of approval on it?

[UtahApocalypse]

Seriously can someone please ban ItsTime before I end up banned for saying something to him

[newbitech]

It wasnt your money.

no? are you sure? Cause last time I checked the money I sent in was earmarked to support liberty candidates. Apparently this money was earmarked for something else. So is this group not really a part of Campaign for liberty? My money doesn't mix with their money in the bank account?

What is there REALLY 100,000 different accounts for each person who donates? OR was this a special contribution from a special interest that was filtered through the same channel that my money was filtered through except for a completely different cause?

Psshhh,, who am I to think that my money is going to be used for what I want it to be used for. I guess I should made sure to earmark my cash for endorsing my special candidate of choice, but why would I do that when I have been told by the org THAT MY MONEY WAS NOT ALLOWED TO FUND candidates?

This is bullshit. Using the C4L funding means using C4L funding. That includes my money your money etc etc.

Like a corp who has investors making a fucked up investment that brings the stock price down. The investors say, hey wait a fucking minute and the board says, you don't worry it wasn't your money that we fucked up with, it was money from some new investors. Please....

[kahless]

Im not happy with the ad either. But IT IS THEIR MONEY THAT THEY RAISED. They can do what they want with it.

We have people bitching about the pennies they gave the C4L saying they dont want their money used for this and that. These people got 350k together and did this. Maybe we should be TALKING TO THEM to see if they WILL HELP FUND real liberty activist.


But nah bitching and moaning about them is much more fun.

They are the C4L in Colorado right? Or are we just going to start picking apart each person who donates? "Youre not libertarian enough for our special group GTF!" Good luck with that failing movement.

Just like if the C4L raised money here in NH I would f-ing hope they would say where the money went.

Maybe the outrage would not be so bad if Buck's support of nation building was not so extreme.



http://www.buckforcolorado.com/issues102k9.php
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

Do you really want C4L name to be associated with such a policy?
Do you support sacrificing Americans lives for this policy?
Would you be willing to give your life or that of a loved one for support of such policy?
Are you willing to further indebt and possibly bankrupt this nation for such a policy?

When you consider the answers to these questions the outrage is therefore of no surprise

[ItsTime]

So if McCain, Palin, or their supporters donate a block of money to the CFL, should they run ads for them with the logo stamp of approval on it?

Where do you draw the line? I thought the idea was to grow this movement not shrink it.

[TCE]

So if McCain, Palin, or their supporters donate a block of money to the CFL, should they run ads for them?

This.

If they put "Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty" at the bottom of the ad, then they are telling anyone watching that C4L endorses them. They are also smearing Dr. Paul's name.

[catdd]

I wonder why they chose to donate through C4L? They know anti war is one of two main topics in the organization.

[LittleLightShining]

Just out of curiosity where are you going to find more than a hand full of candidates to agree with you on all 20 questions? It would be awesome if all candidates would answer the way we want them to but in the real world that ain't going to happen. I agree with Ron Paul 99.9 percent of the time on the various issues but there is always some issue I don't fully agree with. We cannot expect perfection when dealing with human beings.

Strict interpretation and adherence to the Constitution, including States Rights (Article X), is my hangup. If we can restore the power of the Constitution and get our States Rights back, "We the People" can overcome the other issues through the State Governments.

I hope you all will take a look at the big picture and not let anyone sabotage the C4L -- we need unity.I'd rather have a handful of GOOD candidates than 40 marginal ones.

And the C4L has already been sabotaged-- by the people RUNNING IT.




Littlelightshining: It still seems odd that they gathered $350,000 out of seemingly nowhere.It's not from nowhere. We will find it.

[UtahApocalypse]

no? are you sure? Cause last time I checked the money I sent in was earmarked to support liberty candidates. Apparently this money was earmarked for something else. So is this group not really a part of Campaign for liberty? My money doesn't mix with their money in the bank account?

What is there REALLY 100,000 different accounts for each person who donates? OR was this a special contribution from a special interest that was filtered through the same channel that my money was filtered through except for a completely different cause?

Psshhh,, who am I to think that my money is going to be used for what I want it to be used for. I guess I should made sure to earmark my cash for endorsing my special candidate of choice, but why would I do that when I have been told by the org THAT MY MONEY WAS NOT ALLOWED TO FUND candidates?

This is bullshit. Using the C4L funding means using C4L funding. That includes my money your money etc etc.

Like a corp who has investors making a fucked up investment that brings the stock price down. The investors say, hey wait a fucking minute and the board says, you don't worry it wasn't your money that we fucked up with, it was money from some new investors. Please....

Amazing analogy.

[ItsTime]

Seriously can someone please ban ItsTime before I end up banned for saying something to him

For what? Disagreeing?

[JoshLowry]

So if McCain, Palin, or their supporters donate a block of money to the CFL, should they run ads for them with the logo stamp of approval on it?Where do you draw the line? I thought the idea was to grow this movement not shrink it.

Oh, I dunno. Somewhere around indefinite occupations of sovereign countries.

:rolleyes:

On top of that, I believe the movement is about education - not simply growing in numbers.

[angelatc]

Seriously can someone please ban ItsTime before I end up banned for saying something to him

Just put him on ignore. He is entitled to his opinion.

[TCE]

I'd rather have a handful of GOOD candidates than 40 marginal ones.

And the C4L has already been sabotaged-- by the people RUNNING IT.

It's not from nowhere. We will find it.

Since we have so many decent candidates that are far above average, Medina, Rand, Kokesh, Gunny, Hostettler, etc, there is no excuse to be donating to a pro-war candidate.

As of right now, it looks like from his statement that Tate knows who they are, but isn't releasing the names. Until we can say for certain that no C4L national money was used, it is unaccounted for money.

[JK/SEA]

Where do you draw the line? I thought the idea was to grow this movement not shrink it.

You seem like a smart fella. Figure it out. Maybe we could get Ron Paul to explain it to you.

[MelissaWV]

Organizations have mission statements and generally pass themselves off as standing for certain things. It would probably not be a good idea for PETA, for instance, to take large sums of money from its donors and start a line of mink coats and leather boots, and it would especially be wrong of them to deliberately find the cruelest methods by which to obtain those materials. I don't think it would matter much if it was "a select group of donors" that sent in money to PETA in order to support their starting that line of clothing.

Whoever these Colorado people are, wow. We'd not heard a peep about this, and they raised $350,000! But, beyond that, what is the point of having any of these organizations if you can simply raise a bunch of money and use the organization to pimp your candidate (regardless of whether or not the candidate really agrees with the organization's core values). In the end, the fault lies with CFL for having such shoddy oversight of the whole affair. 19/20 on a really crummy Q&A should not be worth backing someone with the track record the candidate has. I know their statement says they are not backing him. Watch the video, and see that it tells you more about the candidate (voted this way, champions this, etc.) than about CFL at all. If I didn't know what CFL was, and saw that commercial, I still really wouldn't know by the end of it. If, however, I didn't know anything about Buck before watching the commercial, I would feel I learned something about him by the end of it. I might even say "wow! This guy is totally for liberty!" if I were your average voter staring at the television.

It isn't my money, though, you're right. It isn't even a little bit my money, because I smelled the CFL coming a mile away. I had always wished I'd be wrong about it.

[ItsTime]

Oh, I dunno. Somewhere around indefinite occupations of sovereign countries.

:rolleyes:

On top of that, I believe the movement is about education - not simply growing in numbers.


“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said McCain. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep America safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”


;) I changed a few names and places.


Click here for source (http://www.randpaul2010.com/2009/11/rand-paul-try-convict-and-lock-up-terrorists-in-guantanamo/)

[MsDoodahs]

so if mccain, palin, or their supporters donate a block of money to the cfl, should they run ads for them with the logo stamp of approval on it?

thank you.

[LittleLightShining]

I wonder why they chose to donate through C4L? They know anti war is one of two main topics in the organization.I think there's a thread on this.


Organizations have mission statements and generally pass themselves off as standing for certain things. It would probably not be a good idea for PETA, for instance, to take large sums of money from its donors and start a line of mink coats and leather boots, and it would especially be wrong of them to deliberately find the cruelest methods by which to obtain those materials. I don't think it would matter much if it was "a select group of donors" that sent in money to PETA in order to support their starting that line of clothing.

Whoever these Colorado people are, wow. We'd not heard a peep about this, and they raised $350,000! But, beyond that, what is the point of having any of these organizations if you can simply raise a bunch of money and use the organization to pimp your candidate (regardless of whether or not the candidate really agrees with the organization's core values). In the end, the fault lies with CFL for having such shoddy oversight of the whole affair. 19/20 on a really crummy Q&A should not be worth backing someone with the track record the candidate has. I know their statement says they are not backing him. Watch the video, and see that it tells you more about the candidate (voted this way, champions this, etc.) than about CFL at all. If I didn't know what CFL was, and saw that commercial, I still really wouldn't know by the end of it. If, however, I didn't know anything about Buck before watching the commercial, I would feel I learned something about him by the end of it. I might even say "wow! This guy is totally for liberty!" if I were your average voter staring at the television.

It isn't my money, though, you're right. It isn't even a little bit my money, because I smelled the CFL coming a mile away. I had always wished I'd be wrong about it.

Well, what's funny about it is that there are really strict rules in place for using the logo. They're trying to make it out like this donor group in CO was really excited about having all this money and they went to national (without taking to the C4L folks IN CO) and said, "Gee, we love your survey so much we raised all this money so you can make an ad all about it!" Ummmm... no.

[LittleLightShining]

;) I changed a few names and places.


Click here for source (http://www.randpaul2010.com/2009/11/rand-paul-try-convict-and-lock-up-terrorists-in-guantanamo/)

That's totally different. Has Rand said we should expect to be in Afghanistan for 10 years?

[jmdrake]

Ok. Now I see the survey. (Thanks Nick). Next question. WHERE IS BUCK'S ANSWERS? I see answers from all sorts of candidates, but no answers from the guy this firestorm was started over.

Also I'm curious, why no question about withdrawal of troops? I suppose Q 10 is close. "Will you oppose using U.S. forces to occupy a foreign nation without a declaration of war?". But doesn't that leave an out for candidates who might say "I'm against doing this in the future, but since we're already there now...."

Here is how I would re-word question 10:

Q 10) Will you oppose using U.S. forces to occupy a foreign nation without a declaration of war? Will you support resolutions demanding that in the war zones were troops are already deployed there is either a proper declaration of war or an immediate withdrawal?

[ItsTime]

Oh here is another great quote


I might have gone into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, but I wouldn't have been there to occupy the country. I might have gone into Iraq, if I thought there were weapons of mass destruction. We had intelligence, and we knew where they were. I might have gone in there to take them out. Just like we think that Iran may be building nuclear weapons. If we really believe that, and we think that, and we tell the Iranians, and we tell the Iranians this is where we believe those weapons are, you need to let our inspecters in there, well, if they don't let us in there, we need to just blow the place up

Click here for source (http://www.fontcraft.com/broadside/?p=11858)

[ItsTime]

That's totally different. Has Rand said we should expect to be in Afghanistan for 10 years?

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh so its ok to kidnap people from their homes and hold them forever without trial..... gotcha......

[fedup100]

That being said, there is an even more important fact: 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.

While I have been upset that Glen Beck hijacked the RP movement, it is now clear that he did not do so, in fact he and RP or on the same page.

The statement above is blatant horseshit. This organization was started with my monies too and against my wishes. I gave money to a presidential campaign and when the candidate saw we had layed 6$ million of our hard earned money at his feet, he ducked, ran and quit, the rest of the money was shifted to this organization.

I feel like I did that day we received the "dear john" email by Paul or approved by Paul that his presidential run was over.

This is called "bait and switch", stamp C4L on the candidate and those who believed it was a liberty candidate will blindly vote for the SOS.

My head is hung low this day as I realize how me and my family have been so duped. We have wasted so much time, money and effort. This is a spirit breaker for sure. The GOP has had a good laugh on us.

[LittleLightShining]

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh so its ok to kidnap people from their homes and hold them forever without trial..... gotcha......

Got nothing. That's not at ALL what I said.

[ItsTime]

So we have banners for two candidates on this forum that agree that.....


1) America should be able to kidnap people from other countries and hold them without lawyers, without rights and indefinitely.

2) Should bomb and invade and occupy foreign countries because they have weapons we do not like.


But this guy who thinks we need to finish the job in Afghanistan is a nut job?

Hmm

So when are the Rand and Schiff banners coming down off this forum?

[jmdrake]

Where do you draw the line? I thought the idea was to grow this movement not shrink it.

That's a good question. Say if someone supports Obamacare or single payer but is answers "yes" to the rest of the survey? And this survey seems to be strongly slanted to republicans. That would be ok if it didn't leave out key points that Ron Paul is on record supporting such as ending the war on drugs, ending the department of Homeland inSecurity, ending FEMA, total opposition to the draft etc. If such questions were answered I bet you'd see some more "Ns" by GOP names.

It's also totally unacceptable that Buck's answers aren't posted. I could understand it if no candidates answers were posted, but are others posted and not his?

[ItsTime]

Got nothing. That's not at ALL what I said.

No apparently some MAJOR things are ok to disagree with a candidate if you have the right last name or your daddy is someone we like.....

So you agree with Rand and Schiffs statements? I dont. But I still support them.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

well we all new it was coming. tried to warn him.

[silverhandorder]

As far as I am concerned no more money for CFL central. The top leadership sucks.

[TonySutton]

It's also totally unacceptable that Buck's answers aren't posted. I could understand it if no candidates answers were posted, but are others posted and not his?

Did you read the letter? It says:

For example, Texas candidate surveys have been mailed, and Kentucky surveys will be mailed next week. Illinois survey results are already available on our web site.

The results listed are from the state of Illinois. This list was supplied as an example of work C4L has already done.

[newbitech]

So we have banners for two candidates on this forum that agree that.....


1) America should be able to kidnap people from other countries and hold them without lawyers, without rights and indefinitely.

2) Should bomb and invade and occupy foreign countries because they have weapons we do not like.


But this guy who thinks we need to finish the job in Afghanistan is a nut job?

Hmm

So when are the Rand and Schiff banners coming down off this forum?

the grassroots have a relationship with these candidates that is necessary to hold them accountable. Contrast the rise of these candidates through grassroots vetting vs the rise of this Buck fellow.

Do a comparative search on C4L of Buck vs Kokesh vs Schiff.

If you think the association of for instance Peter Schiff with the grassroots is the same as the association with Buck with the grassroots, then that is what you'd be overlooking.

I don't particularly care for Schiff as a politician, but we know he was behind Ron Paul during the pres run. He put his money where his mouth is. Buck? yeah... Employed by Dick Cheney, prosecutor of victimless crimes rebuked by the Supreme Court on Constitutional issuess... yeahhh..


http://23rdanddowning.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-is-stephanie-villafuerte-only-one.html


Meanwhile, Weld County’s rogue District Attorney, Ken Buck, received his latest – and most scathing rebuke – on Monday, this time from the Colorado Supreme Court. Under Buck’s direction, the Weld County sheriff raided a tax preparer’s office in Greeley.

During the raid, deputies seized nearly 5,000 tax returns belonging to the mostly Spanish speaking clientele. The purpose of the raid was to gain information to prosecute undocumented immigrants. By those standards, the raid was successful: almost 100 individuals were arrested, and many had charges filed against them.

By constitutional standards, though, the raid was a total disaster. At trial, most of the charges were dismissed when the trial judge ruled that the search and seizure violated the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The gains of the search, then, were fruit of a very poisonous tree and were inadmissible at trial. Ken Buck in other words had no case. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the trial judge, holding that there was no probable cause for the search.

[Charles Wilson]

Adam Kokesh, Gunny, Medina, RAND friggin PAUL, Schiff.... come on....

It is interesting that you listed Schiff (whom I support). I could swear I read somewhere recently where he indicated that he supports some military intervention. If my memory serves me right, your list just got smaller! :cool:

[LibertyEagle]

Why was ItsTime perma-banned?

[MelissaWV]

*Looks at Josh*

*Looks at LibertyEagle*

...Awkward.

[LittleLightShining]

Why was ItsTime perma-banned?

Why are you asking us? Don't you have a mod-forum?

And don't you have a thing about bashing our candidates here? What is it called again? Oh,... Yeah. The Mission Statement?

[jmdrake]

So we have banners for two candidates on this forum that agree that.....


1) America should be able to kidnap people from other countries and hold them without lawyers, without rights and indefinitely.


That's simply not true. Rand said that he supports a trial through a military commission and keeping KSM at Gitmo for the trial. He never said anything about "no lawyers" or "no rights" or "indefinite detention". Further Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was not "kidnapped". He was arrested in Pakistan by Pakistani intelligence and extradited to the U.S. That happens all the time. Ask Roman Pokanski. I disagree with Rand that having KSM on American soil somehow endangers America, and Rand seems to have gotten confused as to where KSM was arrested, but he did not take the position you are ascribing to him.



2) Should bomb and invade and occupy foreign countries because they have weapons we do not like.


That's also not true. In the very same video where Peter Schiff said he might go along with bombing nuclear facilities in Iran, he immediately said but we don't have to send all these ground forces in there. We don't have to occupy the country



That's


But this guy who thinks we need to finish the job in Afghanistan is a nut job?


Again that's not true. When Buck said he wanted to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" he did not limit his comments to Afghanistan. We're also in Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen.



Hmm

So when are the Rand and Schiff banners coming down off this forum?

When are you going to start telling the truth about what was actually said by these candidates?

[Original_Intent]

Well, I have not donated to C4L per se, however I donated a LOT to the RonPaul campaign that had a major economic impact on my family for at least a year. Since a lot of that moeny got rolled into C4L I consider myself a "founding member".

And everything about this stinks to high heaven. I read the response and was kinda semi feeling OK about it, but then I read thru this thread and I think most of you are right: Money is fungible and saying "oh this money was raised by this group" doesn't cut it. It's like the NRA taking out a gun control ad, and saying the money was raised by their special New York City and Washington D.C. branches. That doesn't cut it. From now on I donate only to candidates campaigns, and they damn well better spend the vast majority of it trying to get elected, not rolling it into a damned "educational" organization that has mostly educated me on what it is like to be screwed out of hard earned money.

F U Frank John Tate!

[MsDoodahs]

Why was ItsTime perma-banned?

Check the mod forum.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

it's ok kids. Mommy and Daddy still love each other. Go back to bed.

[LibertyEagle]

Why are you asking us? Don't you have a mod-forum?

And don't you have a thing about bashing our candidates here? What is it called again? Oh,... Yeah. The Mission Statement?

If we were following the Mission Statement, a whole lot of things would be different than they are.

[rancher89]

^^^^qft

[newbitech]

It is interesting that you listed Schiff (whom I support). I could swear I read somewhere recently where he indicated that he supports some military intervention. If my memory serves me right, your list just got smaller! :cool:


please read my comments further up regarding outspoke support by Schiff of Ron Paul's platform in 08 as well as the comparison between the relations with the grassroots.

You are not seriously comparing the well known and discussed Schiff from a 4th amendment trashing prosecutor coming out of right field are you?

[jmdrake]

Did you read the letter? It says:


The results listed are from the state of Illinois. This list was supplied as an example of work C4L has already done.

Ok. I missed that. My bad. But that raises another question. Since everybody is concerned about Buck, as opposed to some random candidate from IL, why not go ahead and mention his results? All Tate has to do is to say which question Buck answered no to.

[Matthew Zak]

I don't understand what the problem is. Based on what I read, it's my understanding that C4L didn't give anyone's money to anyone. C4L merely served as a middle man between a person who took a survery, an isolated group of people who wanted to spend their money on said individual.

What is the issue? Was everyone hoping that EVERY CANDIDATE would answer EVERY QUESTION the way Ron Paul answers them? Should C4L abandon it's survey program in order to ensure that the candidates who take part are not merely 95% percent perfect, but 100%? It's not even a DONATION, or an ENDORSEMENT, right?

What the heck is going on? Why are people so angry?

I just don't follow.

[UtahApocalypse]

I don't understand what the problem is. Based on what I read, it's my understanding that C4L didn't give anyone's money to anyone. C4L merely served as a middle man between a person who took a survery, an isolated group of people who wanted to spend their money on said individual.

What is the issue? Was everyone hoping that EVERY CANDIDATE would answer EVERY QUESTION the way Ron Paul answers them? Should C4L abandon it's survey program in order to ensure that the candidates who take part are not merely 95% percent perfect, but 100%? It's not even a DONATION, or an ENDORSEMENT, right?

What the heck is going on? Why are people so angry?

I just don't follow.

You must not know all the details and it would be hard to recap it all.

C4L is Dead

[LittleLightShining]

I don't understand what the problem is. Based on what I read, it's my understanding that C4L didn't give anyone's money to anyone. C4L merely served as a middle man between a person who took a survery, an isolated group of people who wanted to spend their money on said individual.

What is the issue? Was everyone hoping that EVERY CANDIDATE would answer EVERY QUESTION the way Ron Paul answers them? Should C4L abandon it's survey program in order to ensure that the candidates who take part are not merely 95% percent perfect, but 100%? It's not even a DONATION, or an ENDORSEMENT, right?

What the heck is going on? Why are people so angry?

I just don't follow.THAT"S not a problem???

[Vessol]

Could you please source where C4L was only a middle man between the two? From my perspective, they paid for the ad and monetary support of 350,000$ and the ad runs as an endorsement for the most part with a little schling throwed into about the survey in order to appease the IRS.'

The candidate is a war hawk, simply put. It's not that he differs from Ron Paul's views slightly, he goes completely against. Our foreign policy is one of the most important issues as it effects the world and our budget immensely, I think a lot of people downplay it as "Well if he is against the Fed, I don't care if he's a war hawk". I disagree, while Ending the Fed is very important, I think our disastrous foreign policy is far worse and will by far get us in a worse mess if we continue down it.

[Matthew Zak]

You must not know all the details and it would be hard to recap it all.

C4L is Dead

I guess I don't know all the details, then. Because it looks like a lot of people don't understand what is going on. What am I missing? Is it something simple or complex?


THAT"S not a problem???

I'm not sure. Why is it a problem?

Does anyone understand the survey program? What is it's purpose and what are it's functions to achieve that purpose?

[squarepusher]

Ya I'm curious about those 20 questions.

bump

[jmdrake]

Why are you asking us? Don't you have a mod-forum?

And don't you have a thing about bashing our candidates here? What is it called again? Oh,... Yeah. The Mission Statement?

I agree with LibertyEagle on this. The best way to deal wish misinformation is to correct it, not cover it up. When the comments from Rand and Peter first went public a lot of people based them and they didn't get banned. ItsTime was bringing up a valid point, even though he was exaggerating a bit. Rand and Peter clearly have between "tweaking" their message to reach the most voters. But the long term risk of that is the type of divisions we are seeing now.

Long term there is a bigger problem that nobody wants to acknowledge. It's the real reason why Ron Paul isn't president. People want to blame the "truthers" or the "smear campaign" or incompetence from the campaign staff or the old folks voting for McCain or the young voting for Obama or not voting. Some of those were factors and some weren't. But the biggest issue is that most people who oppose the warfare state support the welfare state and most who oppose the welfare state support the warfare state. Ron Paul opposes both. Put that Venn diagram together and the problem we have to overcome is obvious. The solution is not. Some want to enlarge the diagram by embracing other positions. Some would rather stick to positions and go the education route. Most would like to see some short term victories and education may be taking a back burner. :(

[specsaregood]

This response insults our intelligence.

[Charles Wilson]

Can we have a time out and get this issue in the proper perspective? C4L is supporting CPAC is it not? Who is attending CPAC? What is the agenda of CPAC? Just for the record I support
C4L participating in CPAC because by participating it will help grow our movement. We are beginning to get the respect we deserve as a legitimate movement. As for the tea parties, they have been hijacked by the neocons but we are still included in their numbers. My point is just because we associate with those that have a different agenda than ours, that association does not mean we agree with them. I think the explanation given by C4L for their actions clears up the matter as far as I am concerned.

[John E]

I think I understand the concerns and I think I understand what the CFL was trying to do and what went wrong. I hope the CFL improves this going forward.

[UtahApocalypse]

I guess I don't know all the details, then. Because it looks like a lot of people don't understand what is going on. What am I missing? Is it something simple or complex?



I'm not sure. Why is it a problem?

Does anyone understand the survey program? What is it's purpose and what are it's functions to achieve that purpose?

I just realized.... You read the "Response blog" right?

wow.... I had not even thought about the fact that someone unfamiliar with the issue would have NO clue from that response what the issue even is or was. It never even identified ANY of the facts or questions that were brought up.

[Vessol]

I guess I don't know all the details, then. Because it looks like a lot of people don't understand what is going on. What am I missing? Is it something simple or complex?

I'm not sure. Why is it a problem?

Does anyone understand the survey program? What is it's purpose and what are it's functions to achieve that purpose?

This is the ad in question

YouTube - CO pro buck ad.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87D8DCgJcA&feature=player_embedded)

Watch it and tell me that isn't an endorsement.

[MsDoodahs]

...

[JoshLowry]

I guess I don't know all the details, then. Because it looks like a lot of people don't understand what is going on. What am I missing? Is it something simple or complex?



I'm not sure. Why is it a problem?

Does anyone understand the survey program? What is it's purpose and what are it's functions to achieve that purpose?

Just because the CFL got money from an outside group, doesn't mean they should endorse the candidate. (Which they did for the first 25 seconds of the ad.)

What if McCain's supporters or Palin's supporters threw money at the CFL?

Here is the CFL advertisement about why you should support Buck the candidate surveys (well 5 seconds of it at least.)

YouTube - CO pro buck ad.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87D8DCgJcA)

[tangent4ronpaul]

I have stopped reading their BS and begging for money....

Mail from that organization gets directed to the trash bag, unread. E-mail is ignored.

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

I think I understand the concerns and I think I understand what the CFL was trying to do and what went wrong. I hope the CFL improves this going forward.

Won't happen till they fire ALL senior management - which ain't gonna happen as one married into the Paul family.

C4L is a *JOKE*!!!!!

-t

[KCIndy]

What is the issue? Was everyone hoping that EVERY CANDIDATE would answer EVERY QUESTION the way Ron Paul answers them? Should C4L abandon it's survey program in order to ensure that the candidates who take part are not merely 95% percent perfect, but 100%? It's not even a DONATION, or an ENDORSEMENT, right?

What the heck is going on? Why are people so angry?
.

Speaking only for myself here, but....

The 20 question survey that has been the root of the whole C4L debate is a sick and twisted joke! That's at least PART of the problem.... ANY politician can answer "YES" to most of these poorly phrased questions and still leave themselves plenty of weasel room to do just the opposite - AFTER getting a C4L (not)endorsement and $350,000 worth of air time.

And Buck, in Colorado, seems to be venomously in favor of expanding the (undeclared, unconstitutional) war in Afghanistan.

Let's say I want a $350,000 TV spot.

I can answer ALL of C4L's little questions to their apparent satisfaction. Remember, all the candidate fills in is a Y or N. They aren't required to expound or interpret their own feelings on the matter....

So, here are my Y or N answers, WITH the ADDED waffling most politicians will use when they inevitably turn and bite the hand that has fed them:



1. Will you cosponsor and call for roll call votes on Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill, designed to bring transparency to the Federal Reserve (H.R. 1207/ S. 604 in the 111th Congress)?

YES! But since the bill seems to be going nowhere this year, I'll wait to see if it's introduced again next year and THEN be a cosponsor.


2. Will you support legislation removing capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coinage?

YES! Of course, we need to make sure the rich don't take advantage of this, so I'll vote for it only if there are caps and limits...



3. Will you vote to oppose any legislation that allows the federal government to prohibit the sale, use, or carrying of firearms?

YES! Within reasonable limits, of course. After all, even the NRA supports background checks, etc...


4. Will you support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that includes hard spending limits and allows for no increase in taxes or other federal revenue enhancements?

YES!! Of course, right now we are a nation at war, which by necessity overrides all other concerns.... but rest assured, I'll vote for a balanced budget just as soon as it's practical...


5. Will you support legislation that forbids U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command?

YES! But we might need to make an exception for those tragic humanitarian disasters such as Haiti, Sudan, etc..


6. Do you support and will you vote to protect states asserting their rights under the Tenth Amendment?

YES!! Uh... as long as it doesn't interfere at all with any national concerns.


7. Will you oppose Big Labor's Card Check bill and any other legislation designed to empower union bosses?

YES!! Unless, of course, it's stuck in a Bill that we MUST pass, such as funding our military in their valiant overseas campaigns, which, after all, keep us safe here at home by "fighting them there so we won't have to fight them here."


8. Do you support U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations?

YES!! But remember, we're already honor-bound to pay all those backlogged bills, and it would be really mean to kick them off of U.S. territory, so I guess they can keep their cool pad on the Hudson.


9. Will you support the American Sovereignty Act to restrict the Executive's ability to forge international agreements that lessen our sovereignty?

YES!! Uh... can you say that again? I had a public school education.


10. Will you oppose using U.S. forces to occupy a foreign nation without a declaration of war?

YES!! And it's a good thing we're *rebuilding* Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, etc. otherwise I might have to oppose having troops in those places, too!


11. Will you oppose any attempt to nationalize our health care system, including any sort of public option for insurance?

YES!! After all, if Medicare is good enough for the retired folks, let's just extend that to everyone! There's no need to nationalize anything!


12. Will you oppose so-called "Cap and Trade" legislation?

YES!! Of course, any worthy human being is concerned about our environment, which is why I support mandatory purchasing of carbon offsets instead!


13. Will you vote to eliminate the IRS?

YES!! After all, we could replace it very easily with a simple flat tax of 20% PLUS a national sales tax of 18%. We definitely DO NOT need the IRS. Too much government intrusion!


14. Will you vote against any budget that increases our debt?

YES!! Except, of course, for times of war like now... and the last nine years... and probably the next twenty... but after that, sure.


15. Will you oppose federal power grabs like roving wiretaps and warrantless searches, and oppose Patriot Act renewal that includes such items?

YES!! Unless it can be proven to be absolutely necessary, and even then only for non-citizens.


16. Will you oppose any legislation that requires states and citizens to participate in a National Identification Card program?

YES!! After all, we've already passed the Real ID Act, and states have already been mandated to drastically step up security on their own state issued drivers licenses. That's good enough... no need for a National Identity card. Yet.


17. Will you oppose the so-called "NAFTA Superhighway" and any move toward a North American Union?

YES!! Because as everyone knows, the so-called "NAFTA Superhighway" is actually just a crazy urban legend propagated by right wing militia types... no one even believes in it, except maybe that loony Representative from Texas, Ron Paul.


18. Will you support legislation that ensures Members of Congress have at least 72 hours to read any bill before it is allowed to come to the House floor?

YES!! After all, president Obama promised this too, and look how well it worked for him.


19. Will you oppose all tax increases?

YES!! Tax increases are evil and unnecessary. Except for times of war, of course. Like now. We MUST win, and we need money to fight! But after the war is over, of course, I'll absolutely refuse to vote for any new taxes. You bet!


20. Indicate the tax cuts you are willing to vote for:

* Across the Board Income Tax Cut
* Capital Gains Tax Cut
* Business Tax Cut
* Estate Tax Cut

YES, YES, YES and YES, no problem.... Just as long as there are reasonable limits, such as making the cuts available to those with incomes under $150,000, so those filthy rich folks can't take advantage of it.


SOOO.... where's my 350,000 TV spot?? I'll take the cash instead!! Gimme Gimmee GIMMEEEE!!!!

Oh, my achin' head.... :(

[Bruno]

Just because the CFL got money from an outside group, doesn't mean they should endorse the candidate. (Which they did for the first 25 seconds of the ad.)

What if McCain's supporters or Palin's supporters threw money at the CFL?

Here is the CFL advertisement about why you should support Buck the candidate surveys (well 5 seconds of it at least.)



hard to disagree with that

[fedup100]

Wow, what a neat way to fleece the struggling freedom movement out of their hard earned cash and then funnel it to the enemy. Any word from Paul yet?

[Matthew Zak]

I just realized.... You read the "Response blog" right?

wow.... I had not even thought about the fact that someone unfamiliar with the issue would have NO clue from that response what the issue even is or was. It never even identified ANY of the facts or questions that were brought up.

Alright, will you enlighten me? Do you fully understand the statement? I perceived it differently than those who are angry about it. That's why I'm wondering if I am missing something. Or is it you who is missing something?

Does ANYONE know what is going on? Can you please explain it to us? I see a lot of assumptions with angry words but little to chew on.

[Bruno]

Wow, what a neat way to fleece the struggling freedom movement out of their hard earned cash and then funnel it to the enemy. Any word from Paul yet?

pretty sure when there is word it will be posted here in seconds.

[UtahApocalypse]

Alright, will you enlighten me? Do you fully understand the statement? I perceived it differently than those who are angry about it. That's why I'm wondering if I am missing something. Or is it you who is missing something?

Does ANYONE know what is going on? Can you please explain it to us? I see a lot of assumptions with angry words but little to chew on.

You have a lot of reading to do:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228504

[kahless]

Someone needs to get a mic in front of Ron Paul and ask him about this.

[Bergie Bergeron]

Someone needs to get a mic in front of Ron Paul and ask him about this.
He will be in Kentucky tomorrow, who's attending Rally for the Republicans (http://www.facebook.com/#/event.php?eid=249236095970&ref=ts)?
Could be a nice opportunity to do just that.

[Matthew Zak]

You have a lot of reading to do:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228504

I stopped reading after the second post in that thread because it was based on an incorrect assumption.

Unless I misunderstood.

Is C4L spending anyone's money without their knowledge? Is C4L spending anyone's money on anything they kept secret from the person who's money they are spending?

Is C4L not simply redirecting local contributors funds (with their knowledge and consent) to candidates of their choosing who take part in their survey in order to enroll as many politicians to this program as possible?

Is this program not designed to enroll all these politicians with the intent of highly scrutinizing and filtering them?

If these are not true assumptions, is it simply that the problem is with the security of the survey it's self? (In other words, candidates could lie, gain trust, and spend an easy $350,000 on their own agenda.) If that is the case, why aren't people demanding that C4L tighten it's survey security methods, rather than throw them under the bus, call them traitors?

Could this whole thing not be kind of a misunderstanding?


And does anyone have an original thought to put into this mess? Again, I see a lot of misdirected anger, and very little critical examination of this issue.

[UtahApocalypse]

I stopped reading after the second post in that thread because it was based on an incorrect assumption.

Unless I misunderstood.

Is C4L spending anyone's money without their knowledge? Is C4L spending anyone's money on anything they kept secret from the person who's money they are spending?

Is C4L not simply redirecting local contributors funds (with their knowledge and consent) to candidates of their choosing who take part in their survey in order to enroll as many politicians to this program as possible?

Is this program not designed to enroll all these politicians with the intent of highly scrutinizing and filtering them?

If these are not true assumptions, is it simply that the problem is with the security of the survey it's self? (In other words, candidates could lie, gain trust, and spend an easy $350,000 on their own agenda.) If that is the case, why aren't people demanding that C4L tighten it's survey security methods, rather than throw them under the bus, call them traitors?

Could this whole thing not be kind of a misunderstanding?


And does anyone have an original thought to put into this mess? Again, I see a lot of misdirected anger, and very little critical examination of this issue.

So you don;t care if the money goes to support a fucking neocon?>?

[kslove]

The 64-million-dollar question is, "Whose idea was it to kiss Ken Buck's ass?"

SOMEONE offered C4L funding for this ad, and the only plausible explanation is that it went something like: "We'll give you the money for the ad. You agree praise Ken Buck to the fullest extent of your legal capacity to do so, and to hide our identity, and in return, we agree to let you promote your questionnaire."

I don't even need to be TOLD that's how it went down. Logically, that's what must have happened. Otherwise, why praise Buck so highly (or at all) in the ad? That's not something that just randomly happens by accident. The purpose was to support him as much as they could without getting into legal trouble (proof of this is that they hired a lawyer to make sure they could do the ad legally under the restrictions of a 501 (c) 4.) John Tate is trying to direct attention away from how or why it came to be so pro-Ken-Buck. It's all "In hindsight, maybe that wasn't such a good idea." That's designed to make you stop wondering, "But how in the world could that have looked like a good idea, EVER????"

The $350,000 was not money that could otherwise have been spent in any other fashion (this is almost certainly true - if they lied about it, they'd get caught). (The question is whether the $350,000 deal should have been accepted at all, and the answer is NO.) So if your reason for being upset is that C4L should have spent it on a real liberty candidate, Tate & Co. can shoot your argument down and maybe mollify you. The same applies if our reason for being upset is that "our money" went to a cause we don't support. They can just say "It didn't come from general funds" and then we have to shut up (or we can keep on talking, but it will only weaken our position and credibility).

Let's not be tricked into A.) backing down, or B.) looking like a bunch of rabble-rousing malcontents that simply love to rebel against everything, just for the hell of it, which is frankly how they probably view many of us. Here are just a few arguments that I think are valid and will resist having holes punched in them:

1. For a start, it was a strategic mistake, even going by C4L's own precepts and training. The stated idea is to get candidates on record as to where they stand on the issues, so that in the future if they stray, we can hold their feet to the fire. This is impossible after having already sponsored an ad praising the politician. What happened to "NEVER praise a politician?" (from C4L training) If you've already praised him, he knows he's safe, you're not going to do anything if he strays (particularly when his publicly stated positions ALREADY contradict his survey responses.) The politician whom you threaten while simultaneously rewarding will from that point forward know that you have no teeth and your threats are meaningless.

2. C4L's own charter states that C4L does not endorse or support or oppose ANY candidate. And it has been made oh-so-clear to local C4L activists the channels they must go through to obtain permission before using C4L letterhead or doing ANYTHING AT ALL that could even POSSIBLY construed as supporting a candidate. Sure, they can just give themselves permission to hire a lawyer to make sure C4L's ass is covered even if they fly in the face of the spirit of that restriction, but good lord, did they think we wouldn't mind? (By the way, did these mysterious donors also pay for the services of the lawyer? Or did that come from "general funds"? Not to get sidetracked...)

3. John Tate points out that with a multi-issue organization and a very diverse membership, he's bound to piss people off left and right no matter what he does. This may be true. But he can't use that excuse when MOST of the membership disagrees with this choice. That's not infighting due to all of our diverse backgrounds. That opposition is due to the decision-makers making a boner decision that reflects poorly on the majority of the membership, who feel betrayed and compromised. It might be worth starting a petition and collecting signatures of C4L members so that we can back up the claim that the majority of the membership feels that the decision was contrary to the values of C4L. But do they even feel beholden to us anymore, if they can find alternate funding? The bottom line is, that by C4L making a decision that I'm assuming thousands and thousands of members feel does not represent them, they're sending a message that this is THEIR party, not ours, and if we don't like it, we can go home. Do we go home (revoke membership), try to reform them, or try to replace them with people that match our values better? (I don't know the answer to that question.)

The person who said we have to fight this battle as individuals, and not put our trust in organizations, shows a lot of wisdom. It is not an easy or light decision to walk away, though. C4L, and even the C4L national staff in particular, has done a LOT of good and can do a lot more. Let's acknowledge they are hardworking people whose hearts are in the right place. Don't know if I'd hitch my wagon to their star, but they're not the antichrist.

[pcosmar]

I was hopeful of C4L when it started,
I am unimpressed.

My outlook has not improved.

The "Explanation" didn't help at all.
It sucks. :(

[Matthew Zak]

So you don;t care if the money goes to support a fucking neocon?>?

Who's money is it? Did they want their money to go to the neocon? Why might it be necessary for C4L to be involved in redirected funds, regardless who they are redirected to? Is there a bigger picture here?

Tell me, did C4L give your money to a neocon against your will?

I'm still trying to find answers to questions I haven't seen many people ask.

[pcosmar]

Could this whole thing not be kind of a misunderstanding?


And does anyone have an original thought to put into this mess? Again, I see a lot of misdirected anger, and very little critical examination of this issue.

Misunderstanding? :confused:

What part of C4L giving a political endorsement to a warmonger is a" Misunderstanding"?

I don't care who paid the bill. C4L's NAME should have never been attached to this.

[johnrocks]

This has set them back months, it made me furious but now it saddens me.

[specsaregood]

This has set them back months, it made me furious but now it saddens me.

Or they succeeded in getting the CFL members that considered the non-interventionism a principle that we can't break to leave the organization. They can now proceed to grow the organization with typical pro-war republicans. This was one principle that seperated the CFL from the other "right wing" organizations.

Let's face it. Their fundraiser disagreed on this principle. This principle is what causes many republicans to not support Dr. Paul and by association the CFL. No doubt he was running into problems fundraising because of this issue. So I'm sure he is ecstatic that all the non-intervention people are leaving the CFL now. If not, then he has succeeded in proving that the CFL doesn't hold this principle very high on the list and that too will help him with fundraising.

[UtahApocalypse]

The 64-million-dollar question is, "Whose idea was it to kiss Ken Buck's ass?"

SOMEONE offered C4L funding for this ad, and the only plausible explanation is that it went something like: "We'll give you the money for the ad. You agree praise Ken Buck to the fullest extent of your legal capacity to do so, and to hide our identity, and in return, we agree to let you promote your questionnaire."

I don't even need to be TOLD that's how it went down. Logically, that's what must have happened. Otherwise, why praise Buck so highly (or at all) in the ad? That's not something that just randomly happens by accident. The purpose was to support him as much as they could without getting into legal trouble (proof of this is that they hired a lawyer to make sure they could do the ad legally under the restrictions of a 501 (c) 4.) John Tate is trying to direct attention away from how or why it came to be so pro-Ken-Buck. It's all "In hindsight, maybe that wasn't such a good idea." That's designed to make you stop wondering, "But how in the world could that have looked like a good idea, EVER????"

The $350,000 was not money that could otherwise have been spent in any other fashion (this is almost certainly true - if they lied about it, they'd get caught). (The question is whether the $350,000 deal should have been accepted at all, and the answer is NO.) So if your reason for being upset is that C4L should have spent it on a real liberty candidate, Tate & Co. can shoot your argument down and maybe mollify you. The same applies if our reason for being upset is that "our money" went to a cause we don't support. They can just say "It didn't come from general funds" and then we have to shut up (or we can keep on talking, but it will only weaken our position and credibility).

Let's not be tricked into A.) backing down, or B.) looking like a bunch of rabble-rousing malcontents that simply love to rebel against everything, just for the hell of it, which is frankly how they probably view many of us. Here are just a few arguments that I think are valid and will resist having holes punched in them:

1. For a start, it was a strategic mistake, even going by C4L's own precepts and training. The stated idea is to get candidates on record as to where they stand on the issues, so that in the future if they stray, we can hold their feet to the fire. This is impossible after having already sponsored an ad praising the politician. What happened to "NEVER praise a politician?" (from C4L training) If you've already praised him, he knows he's safe, you're not going to do anything if he strays (particularly when his publicly stated positions ALREADY contradict his survey responses.) The politician whom you threaten while simultaneously rewarding will from that point forward know that you have no teeth and your threats are meaningless.

2. C4L's own charter states that C4L does not endorse or support or oppose ANY candidate. And it has been made oh-so-clear to local C4L activists the channels they must go through to obtain permission before using C4L letterhead or doing ANYTHING AT ALL that could even POSSIBLY construed as supporting a candidate. Sure, they can just give themselves permission to hire a lawyer to make sure C4L's ass is covered even if they fly in the face of the spirit of that restriction, but good lord, did they think we wouldn't mind? (By the way, did these mysterious donors also pay for the services of the lawyer? Or did that come from "general funds"? Not to get sidetracked...)

3. John Tate points out that with a multi-issue organization and a very diverse membership, he's bound to piss people off left and right no matter what he does. This may be true. But he can't use that excuse when MOST of the membership disagrees with this choice. That's not infighting due to all of our diverse backgrounds. That opposition is due to the decision-makers making a boner decision that reflects poorly on the majority of the membership, who feel betrayed and compromised. It might be worth starting a petition and collecting signatures of C4L members so that we can back up the claim that the majority of the membership feels that the decision was contrary to the values of C4L. But do they even feel beholden to us anymore, if they can find alternate funding? The bottom line is, that by C4L making a decision that I'm assuming thousands and thousands of members feel does not represent them, they're sending a message that this is THEIR party, not ours, and if we don't like it, we can go home. Do we go home (revoke membership), try to reform them, or try to replace them with people that match our values better? (I don't know the answer to that question.)

The person who said we have to fight this battle as individuals, and not put our trust in organizations, shows a lot of wisdom. It is not an easy or light decision to walk away, though. C4L, and even the C4L national staff in particular, has done a LOT of good and can do a lot more. Let's acknowledge they are hardworking people whose hearts are in the right place. Don't know if I'd hitch my wagon to their star, but they're not the antichrist.

Amen!!! This ^^^^^^



Who's money is it? Did they want their money to go to the neocon? Why might it be necessary for C4L to be involved in redirected funds, regardless who they are redirected to? Is there a bigger picture here?

Tell me, did C4L give your money to a neocon against your will?

I'm still trying to find answers to questions I haven't seen many people ask.

The questions WERE asked for the last 3 days. they were NOT answered. Instead we got a half-assed fluff piece that skirts the issue at hand to the point that someone unaware of the issues at hand has no clue what the real problem are.

[LittleLightShining]

Can we have a time out and get this issue in the proper perspective? C4L is supporting CPAC is it not? Who is attending CPAC? What is the agenda of CPAC? Just for the record I support
C4L participating in CPAC because by participating it will help grow our movement. We are beginning to get the respect we deserve as a legitimate movement. As for the tea parties, they have been hijacked by the neocons but we are still included in their numbers. My point is just because we associate with those that have a different agenda than ours, that association does not mean we agree with them. I think the explanation given by C4L for their actions clears up the matter as far as I am concerned.Participating in an event is different than endorsing making an ad for a candidate survey.


Considering this turnip’s history as a prosecutor and his “fight the terrorists over there” speeches, either the son of a bitch lied to C4L, or the questions aren’t worded very fucking strongly, or the bastard that wrote this is lying now. Take your pick of those three options – all of which reflect negatively on C4L.


Wow, that’s pretty goddamn motherfucking naïve.


Good luck with that, asshole!


We’re back to those three options mentioned above. If they took a message of peace “seriously” then a different candidate, probably in a different state, would have been the recipient of their first C4L ad.



If this is true, it’s actually quite damning.

Any responsible organization following the principles that C4L espouses would have told them to pound sand and form their own organization to run that ad, if those donors wanted to have Buck featured in it.

And if these CO donors were indifferent to who was featured, why Buck?

Those donors, if support for Buck was key, could have run their own ad PRIVATELY without using C4L, but of course, if they did, their identities would be disclosed.

So the donors (if that is true!) either have (1) something to hide in their support for Buck, or (2) an agenda to discredit C4L.

C4L is “controlled opposition,” folks. At least, at the senior levels.

Divorce yourselves from the national org and starve them for money. If you’re in a local C4L and have true liberty candidates in your local area, feel free to maintain your current ties and activities as long as (1) you’re working for TRUE liberty candidates, (2) you kick no money “upstairs,” and (3) you’re suspicious as hell of any “help” from upstairs.

Politics is a cruel sport. Get used to it.Hah! Job well done?


Someone needs to get a mic in front of Ron Paul and ask him about this.NO. Not unless he fires someone. Otherwise he discredits himself.


The 64-million-dollar question is, "Whose idea was it to kiss Ken Buck's ass?"

SOMEONE offered C4L funding for this ad, and the only plausible explanation is that it went something like: "We'll give you the money for the ad. You agree praise Ken Buck to the fullest extent of your legal capacity to do so, and to hide our identity, and in return, we agree to let you promote your questionnaire."

I don't even need to be TOLD that's how it went down. Logically, that's what must have happened. Otherwise, why praise Buck so highly (or at all) in the ad? That's not something that just randomly happens by accident. The purpose was to support him as much as they could without getting into legal trouble (proof of this is that they hired a lawyer to make sure they could do the ad legally under the restrictions of a 501 (c) 4.) John Tate is trying to direct attention away from how or why it came to be so pro-Ken-Buck. It's all "In hindsight, maybe that wasn't such a good idea." That's designed to make you stop wondering, "But how in the world could that have looked like a good idea, EVER????"

The $350,000 was not money that could otherwise have been spent in any other fashion (this is almost certainly true - if they lied about it, they'd get caught). (The question is whether the $350,000 deal should have been accepted at all, and the answer is NO.) So if your reason for being upset is that C4L should have spent it on a real liberty candidate, Tate & Co. can shoot your argument down and maybe mollify you. The same applies if our reason for being upset is that "our money" went to a cause we don't support. They can just say "It didn't come from general funds" and then we have to shut up (or we can keep on talking, but it will only weaken our position and credibility).

Let's not be tricked into A.) backing down, or B.) looking like a bunch of rabble-rousing malcontents that simply love to rebel against everything, just for the hell of it, which is frankly how they probably view many of us. Here are just a few arguments that I think are valid and will resist having holes punched in them:

1. For a start, it was a strategic mistake, even going by C4L's own precepts and training. The stated idea is to get candidates on record as to where they stand on the issues, so that in the future if they stray, we can hold their feet to the fire. This is impossible after having already sponsored an ad praising the politician. What happened to "NEVER praise a politician?" (from C4L training) If you've already praised him, he knows he's safe, you're not going to do anything if he strays (particularly when his publicly stated positions ALREADY contradict his survey responses.) The politician whom you threaten while simultaneously rewarding will from that point forward know that you have no teeth and your threats are meaningless.

2. C4L's own charter states that C4L does not endorse or support or oppose ANY candidate. And it has been made oh-so-clear to local C4L activists the channels they must go through to obtain permission before using C4L letterhead or doing ANYTHING AT ALL that could even POSSIBLY construed as supporting a candidate. Sure, they can just give themselves permission to hire a lawyer to make sure C4L's ass is covered even if they fly in the face of the spirit of that restriction, but good lord, did they think we wouldn't mind? (By the way, did these mysterious donors also pay for the services of the lawyer? Or did that come from "general funds"? Not to get sidetracked...)

3. John Tate points out that with a multi-issue organization and a very diverse membership, he's bound to piss people off left and right no matter what he does. This may be true. But he can't use that excuse when MOST of the membership disagrees with this choice. That's not infighting due to all of our diverse backgrounds. That opposition is due to the decision-makers making a boner decision that reflects poorly on the majority of the membership, who feel betrayed and compromised. It might be worth starting a petition and collecting signatures of C4L members so that we can back up the claim that the majority of the membership feels that the decision was contrary to the values of C4L. But do they even feel beholden to us anymore, if they can find alternate funding? The bottom line is, that by C4L making a decision that I'm assuming thousands and thousands of members feel does not represent them, they're sending a message that this is THEIR party, not ours, and if we don't like it, we can go home. Do we go home (revoke membership), try to reform them, or try to replace them with people that match our values better? (I don't know the answer to that question.)

The person who said we have to fight this battle as individuals, and not put our trust in organizations, shows a lot of wisdom. It is not an easy or light decision to walk away, though. C4L, and even the C4L national staff in particular, has done a LOT of good and can do a lot more. Let's acknowledge they are hardworking people whose hearts are in the right place. Don't know if I'd hitch my wagon to their star, but they're not the antichrist.That's one hell of a first post. +1

I've made up my mind. I've deleted my account. It won't stop me from doing what I'm doing on the ground here where it matters.

[newbitech]

I stopped reading... I see ... very little critical examination of this issue.


this is what parts I chose to read.

really tho, not to be an ass, but you should probably go ahead and read past at least the first couple of pages of that thread. I would suggest reading it all. It will help your perspective I think if you look at this issue from maybe 100 different angles, and that is what you will get if you read all of it.

[MsDoodahs]

Is C4L spending anyone's money without their knowledge?

Possibly. We don't know because CFL has not been forthcoming with the NAMES and donation amounts of the mysterious "CO new donors." Further, the "CO new donors" would have had to direct the funds straight to national - and unless CFL kept their donations in a separate account.....


Is C4L spending anyone's money on anything they kept secret from the person who's money they are spending?

See above.


Is C4L not simply redirecting local contributors funds (with their knowledge and consent) to candidates of their choosing who take part in their survey in order to enroll as many politicians to this program as possible?

No, that is NOT what CFL did. CFL allowed its logo, name, and therefore by extention the name of Ron Paul and all his supporters to be used by an avowed pro war candidate. The spin of "oh, gosh golly, we were JUST trying to get candidates to fill out the survey" is exactly that: SPIN.

Further, because CFL has been SOOOOOO protective of its logo when ITS OWN DUES PAYING MEMBERS wanted to use it - their action of allowing a PRO WAR CANDIDATE to USE THE NAME AND LOGO in exchange for being the conduit for these funds represents their having SOLD OUT.


Is this program not designed to enroll all these politicians with the intent of highly scrutinizing and filtering them?

NO. TATE HIMSELF, in his statement, indicates that HE WAS FULLY AWARE that candidate Buck had been outspoken in support of auditing the fed and limited government. IT IS MY CONTENTION THAT TATE ALSO KNEW BUCK TO BE A PRO WAR CANDIDATE. And this was okie dokey with Tate. After all, CFL was just a FUNNEL for a HUGE campaign donation.

To believe otherwise means TATE IS INCOMPETENT.



If these are not true assumptions, is it simply that the problem is with the security of the survey it's self? (In other words, candidates could lie, gain trust, and spend an easy $350,000 on their own agenda.) If that is the case, why aren't people demanding that C4L tighten it's survey security methods, rather than throw them under the bus, call them traitors?

See above. TATE KNEW what this candidate's positions were PRIOR TO THE SURVEY. That is clear from his statement that BUCK HAD BEEN AN OUTSPOKEN ADVOCATE of a couple of things.

The SURVEY was nothing but a conduit for that hefty CAMPAIGN DONATION. I suspect someone got paid off. And since TATE and a few CFL people have worked in Colorado politics in the past, I suspect the person(s) wishing to pay off candidate Buck for past favors knew EXACTLY who to call to get their payoff accomplished.


Could this whole thing not be kind of a misunderstanding?

Like I said here yesterday - telling the TRUTH could have been done QUICKLY. It takes a little longer when you have to figure out how to cover your ass.


And does anyone have an original thought to put into this mess? Again, I see a lot of misdirected anger, and very little critical examination of this issue.

I've HAVE examined this issue.

You can take your insinuation that the members of this forum are just too stupid to understand and shove it.

[MsDoodahs]

or they succeeded in getting the cfl members that considered the non-interventionism a principle that we can't break to leave the organization. They can now proceed to grow the organization with typical pro-war republicans. This was one principle that seperated the cfl from the other "right wing" organizations.

Let's face it. Their fundraiser disagreed on this principle. This principle is what causes many republicans to not support dr. Paul and by association the cfl. No doubt he was running into problems fundraising because of this issue. So i'm sure he is ecstatic that all the non-intervention people are leaving the cfl now. If not, then he has succeeded in proving that the cfl doesn't hold this principle very high on the list and that too will help him with fundraising.

exactly.

[kahless]

And does anyone have an original thought to put into this mess? Again, I see a lot of misdirected anger, and very little critical examination of this issue.

It is not like Ken Bucks views were hidden from C4L. It is right there on his website which obviously contradicts C4L mission of non-intervention.



Ken Buck
On Iraq & Afghanistan
http://www.buckforcolorado.com/issues102k9.php
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.

[ARealConservative]

Why was ItsTime perma-banned?

It's TIme :D

[Brian4Liberty]

This response insults our intelligence.

No doubt that was the best statement that money could buy (from legal consultants). :rolleyes:

For legal reasons, we will never get any straight answers.

Let's look at the facts:

1. A compromise was made to one of our core planks. This is the crux of the entire debate.

2. Buck appears to agree on most everything else, including wanting an official declaration of war (it was in one of his speeches, but it's purely an agreement on Constitutional process, as he would vote for these wars).

3. Buck is the lesser of three evils in that Primary. He is running against a McCain picked neo-con, and an extreme neo-con. Another compromise. There is no 100% liberty candidate.

4. Somebody in CO was able to buy the CFL label for an advertisement.

Those are the facts. And 1 and 4 are pretty damning. No doubt other factors came into play in that decision, things that will not be made public. Some wild guesses:

- quid pro quo: maybe CFL is gaining something that can not be made public?

- is this an alignment with DeMint's SCF against the McCain/Graham establishment?

- how much was donated by the CO group to get the ad? Was it significantly more than what the ad cost?

There is probably more to this than what we know now...

[UtahApocalypse]

No doubt that was the best statement that money could buy (from legal consultants). :rolleyes:

For legal reasons, we will never get any straight answers.

Let's look at the facts:

1. A compromise was made to one of our core planks. This is the crux of the entire debate.

2. Buck appears to agree on most everything else, including wanting an official declaration of war (it was in one of his speeches, but it's purely an agreement on Constitutional process, as he would vote for these wars).

3. Buck is the lesser of three evils in that Primary. He is running against a McCain picked neo-con, and an extreme neo-con. Another compromise. There is no 100% liberty candidate.

4. Somebody in CO was able to buy the CFL label for an advertisement.

Those are the facts. And 1 and 4 are pretty damning. No doubt other factors came into play in that decision, things that will not be made public. Some wild guesses:

- quid pro quo: maybe CFL is gaining something that can not be made public?

- is this an alignment with DeMint's SCF against the McCain/Graham establishment?

- how much was donated by the CO group to get the ad? Was it significantly more than what the ad cost?

There is probably more to this than what we know now...

It was already shown in another thread somewhere that there was a liberty candidate that was pushed out by none other then Buck himself.

[kahless]

No doubt that was the best statement that money could buy (from legal consultants). :rolleyes:

For legal reasons, we will never get any straight answers.

Let's look at the facts:

1. A compromise was made to one of our core planks. This is the crux of the entire debate.

2. Buck appears to agree on most everything else, including wanting an official declaration of war (it was in one of his speeches, but it's purely an agreement on Constitutional process, as he would vote for these wars).

3. Buck is the lesser of three evils in that Primary. He is running against a McCain picked neo-con, and an extreme neo-con. Another compromise. There is no 100% liberty candidate.

4. Somebody in CO was able to buy the CFL label for an advertisement.

Those are the facts. And 1 and 4 are pretty damning. No doubt other factors came into play in that decision, things that will not be made public. Some wild guesses:

- quid pro quo: maybe CFL is gaining something that can not be made public?

- is this an alignment with DeMint's SCF against the McCain/Graham establishment?

- how much was donated by the CO group to get the ad? Was it significantly more than what the ad cost?

There is probably more to this than what we know now...

Hmmm. Do you know if Buck has always held the position I quoted above?

[Brian4Liberty]

It was already shown in another thread somewhere that there was a liberty candidate that was pushed out by none other then Buck himself.

Pushed out? The primary hasn't occured yet. Where is that candidate?

[Brian4Liberty]

Hmmm. Do you know if Buck has always held the position I quoted above?

Can you be more specific? You quoted the entire post. ;)

[jmdrake]

I don't understand what the problem is. Based on what I read, it's my understanding that C4L didn't give anyone's money to anyone. C4L merely served as a middle man between a person who took a survery, an isolated group of people who wanted to spend their money on said individual.

What is the issue? Was everyone hoping that EVERY CANDIDATE would answer EVERY QUESTION the way Ron Paul answers them? Should C4L abandon it's survey program in order to ensure that the candidates who take part are not merely 95% percent perfect, but 100%? It's not even a DONATION, or an ENDORSEMENT, right?

What the heck is going on? Why are people so angry?

I just don't follow.

On the endorsement question, the ad made the following points:


not a career politician
will take on D.C. insiders
is a tough prosecutor
is against Obamacare
will cut taxes
will stop out of control spending
champions conservative Colorado values


Only points 4, 5 and 6 are directly on the survey.

As to the "95% perfect" part, I would say the survey itself is highly flawed.

[LittleLightShining]

On the endorsement question, the ad made the following points:


not a career politician
will take on D.C. insiders
is a tough prosecutor
is against Obamacare
will cut taxes
will stop out of control spending
champions conservative Colorado values


Only points 4, 5 and 6 are directly on the survey.

As to the "95% perfect" part, I would say the survey itself is highly flawed.First time I've seen it broken down like this and I've read EVERY post on this issue. Nice analysis.

[kahless]

Can you be more specific? You quoted the entire post. ;)

I meant that as do you know if Buck always held this view which I posted his comments regarding Afghanistan here
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2518189&postcount=154

I quoted you since you were running along the lines of something that C4L knows that cannot be made public. In other words did he suddenly become a neocon to gain broad support and C4L perhaps knows that.

[Brian4Liberty]

I agree completely. It would be great to have a 100% Ron Paul candidate in every primary! For instance John Dennis who is running against Pelosi. But then you get all the flack (on this forum) that Pelosi can't be beat so no money should go to him...


That kind of favoritism needs to be looked at closely...

[Brian4Liberty]

I meant that as do you know if Buck always held this view which I posted his comments regarding Afghanistan here
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2518189&postcount=154

I quoted you since you were running along the lines of something that C4L knows that cannot be made public. In other words did he suddenly become a neocon to gain broad support and C4L perhaps knows that.

Who knows? I believe his statements on declarations of war are not recent. Considering that Bay Buchanon and Tom Tancredo seem to know Buck, one might assume that there is some past familiarity with Buck. Someone in another thread pointed out that Buck may have connections to the paleo-conservative types.

[LittleLightShining]

I meant that as do you know if Buck always held this view which I posted his comments regarding Afghanistan here
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2518189&postcount=154

I quoted you since you were running along the lines of something that C4L knows that cannot be made public. In other words did he suddenly become a neocon to gain broad support and C4L perhaps knows that.Um... no.


Ditto, jmdrake, the survey is fucked.[/QUOTE]Yes!


Who knows? I believe his statements on declarations of war are not recent. Considering that Bay Buchanon and Tom Tancredo seem to know Buck, one might assume that there is some past familiarity with Buck. Someone in another thread pointed out that Buck may have connections to the paleo-conservative types.Like Dick Cheney? Bwahahaha!!!

[Brian4Liberty]

Like Dick Cheney?

You never know. Buck meets Pat B. during the Iran/contra mess, Pat B. introduces Buck to Paul and Rothbard at a cocktail party. ;)

[kahless]

A new update from C4L.



Posted by Bonnie Cannon on 01/29/10 5:04 PM
Response to ad
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/#31973

With the release of John's statement, I wanted to take a minute to fill you in on what has been happening out here in Colorado.

I have been amazed at the effect the survey has had on other candidates. Several candidates have called and/or emailed me asking to fill out the survey or to tell me they have mailed in the form. This includes some who flat-out refused to fill it out before. Incumbents have also taken notice. Both CO C4L and I are being treated with much more respect now, instead of being written off as far-out "Ron Paulers" (which I proudly am!).

In speaking with Ken Buck last year, I found that he has been "educated" into a complete 180 regarding the Federal Reserve, and he is actively calling out Bennet to co-sponsor S. 604. Yesterday, he also chastised Bennet for his "yes" vote to confirm Bernanke for a second term. With his stance on the war, he is not perfect, but I have learned that he is teachable! He has also been working with three main C4L organizers in CO to learn about what we stand for, and he has read several of Ron Paul's books (The Revolution twice).

Yes, the commercial should have been different, but the survey has already had a great impact out here in CO, and I'm looking forward to continuing to hold politicians accountable for where they stand on our issues.
.

[newbitech]

Pushed out? The primary hasn't occured yet. Where is that candidate?
Good question where is he now? Being tied for third is a great start. So its not like CO C4L didn't have options.


http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/991327-gop-shows-big-love-competition

Luke Korkowski



Korkowski, a relative unknown, delivered a decidedly edgy message that drew applause and raves.





“We must insist that our president, our senators and our congressmen adhere to and be bound by the text of the United States Constitution,” declared the young attorney, who likens his views to those of Republican Texas Sen. Ron Paul.

[LittleLightShining]

A new update from C4L.

Blah blah blah. Of course candidates are in a tizzy to get their hands on this survey. Especially when they assume they'll be getting a nice endorsement starring role in a commercial for it. Didn't Gary Howard allude to more ads a couple of days ago?

[UtahApocalypse]

Good question where is he now? Being tied for third is a great start. So its not like CO C4L didn't have options.


http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/991327-gop-shows-big-love-competition

Luke Korkowski


Thank you for finding that again. just shows that BUCK was a Choosen candidate for some purpose and not to support liberty.

[Badger Paul]

How can a survey have a "correct" answer?

[kahless]

Blah blah blah. Of course candidates are in a tizzy to get their hands on this survey. Especially when they assume they'll be getting a nice endorsement starring role in a commercial for it. Didn't Gary Howard allude to more ads a couple of days ago?

How do you spin 10 years in Afghanistan.



With his stance on the war, he is not perfect, but I have learned that he is teachable! He has also been working with three main C4L organizers in CO to learn about what we stand for, and he has read several of Ron Paul's books (The Revolution twice).

[LittleLightShining]

How do you spin 10 years in Afghanistan.Not sure I understand what you're asking me but that's what Buck said himself.

Maybe like this?


With his stance on the war, he is not perfect, but I have learned that he is teachable! He has also been working with three main C4L organizers in CO to learn about what we stand for, and he has read several of Ron Paul's books (The Revolution twice).

[fj45lvr]

Exactly!


Notice Q10. declaration of war to "occupy" a foreign nation?

What about declaring war to ATTACK a foreign nation?


this is poor question. Isn't being in Germany and Korea an "occupation"??? Or what exactly?

as far as "attack" a "foreign nation" the politicians would like us to believe that "terrorists" are not a "foreign nation" (that when we try to attack them we are helping their nation)....nevermind when hezbollah and other "terrorists" by their definition win elections and control the governments (tyrannical as they may be like ours here in the US).

[tpreitzel]

Well, Mr. Tate, your survey process is obviously flawed if "candidates" like Buck receive tacit support from the C4L. I'm not just referring to Buck's pro-war stance either. ;)

Mr. Tate, for the good of our movement to restore constitutional liberty, you should immediately resign, i.e. NOW!

[NerveShocker]

Here are the questions

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/candidatesurvey.php?state=IL#questions

Hahaha I looked at that for 10seconds tops. All I saw was Will you Will you Will you... rofl. I was almost expecting the last question to be Will you answer yes to all these questions since it is obviously what we want to hear.

[rancher89]

Blah blah blah. Of course candidates are in a tizzy to get their hands on this survey. Especially when they assume they'll be getting a nice endorsement starring role in a commercial for it. Didn't Gary Howard allude to more ads a couple of days ago?

LOL nice! :D

[InTheoryTV]

I live in Colorado and was not aware of any of this beforehand and found out here on Ron Paul forums. I do not support Ken Buck.

I have some comments to make, but in regards to Luke Korkowski, our group in Northern Colorado had him up for a visit and I really liked his issues. He dropped out of the race a while ago though. Here is one of three videos I put together of his visit.

YouTube - Luke Korkowski, US CO (R) 2010 Senitorial Q&A on 9/10/09 (part 1 of 3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbI1Osjl7sA)

In Northern Colorado we have kept our group together from the Ron Paul meetup days, just moved it over to http://colorado4liberty.ning.com . Local control of groups seemed wise to me. I'm not quitting the C4L, but I'm not given any money right now either.

[idirtify]

It appears C4L has succumbed to the oldest short-sighted political fallacy: sell out some principle in order to gain some power/$/popularity. The trouble is, C4L is supposed to stand for VERY WELL-DEFINED principles. What in the world did they think would result!? How will they ever be able to claim to stand for principle again, and remain credible? OOPS! Let’s hope it’s a mistake attributable to the inexperience of youth and they can somehow regain their integrity. I say fully admitting the mistake is the first step.

Dear C4L,
Do you think we are idiots? It doesn’t take a genius to:
1) read your principles,
2) read Buck’s principles,
3) then WATCH THE AD,
4) and wonder WTF is going on!!
ARE YOU GUYS ON CRACK??

[Brian4Liberty]

I live in Colorado and was not aware of any of this beforehand and found out here on Ron Paul forums. I do not support Ken Buck.

I have some comments to make, but in regards to Luke Korkowski, our group in Northern Colorado had him up for a visit and I really liked his issues. He dropped out of the race a while ago though.

So who will you vote for in the GOP Primary?

[dr. hfn]

i have no problem with what the c4l did now

[InTheoryTV]

Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheoryTV View Post
I live in Colorado and was not aware of any of this beforehand and found out here on Ron Paul forums. I do not support Ken Buck.

I have some comments to make, but in regards to Luke Korkowski, our group in Northern Colorado had him up for a visit and I really liked his issues. He dropped out of the race a while ago though
So who will you vote for in the GOP Primary?

If I had to vote today: no one

[Matthew Zak]

Possibly. We don't know because CFL has not been forthcoming with the NAMES and donation amounts of the mysterious "CO new donors." Further, the "CO new donors" would have had to direct the funds straight to national - and unless CFL kept their donations in a separate account.....



See above.



No, that is NOT what CFL did. CFL allowed its logo, name, and therefore by extention the name of Ron Paul and all his supporters to be used by an avowed pro war candidate. The spin of "oh, gosh golly, we were JUST trying to get candidates to fill out the survey" is exactly that: SPIN.

Further, because CFL has been SOOOOOO protective of its logo when ITS OWN DUES PAYING MEMBERS wanted to use it - their action of allowing a PRO WAR CANDIDATE to USE THE NAME AND LOGO in exchange for being the conduit for these funds represents their having SOLD OUT.



NO. TATE HIMSELF, in his statement, indicates that HE WAS FULLY AWARE that candidate Buck had been outspoken in support of auditing the fed and limited government. IT IS MY CONTENTION THAT TATE ALSO KNEW BUCK TO BE A PRO WAR CANDIDATE. And this was okie dokey with Tate. After all, CFL was just a FUNNEL for a HUGE campaign donation.

To believe otherwise means TATE IS INCOMPETENT.




See above. TATE KNEW what this candidate's positions were PRIOR TO THE SURVEY. That is clear from his statement that BUCK HAD BEEN AN OUTSPOKEN ADVOCATE of a couple of things.

The SURVEY was nothing but a conduit for that hefty CAMPAIGN DONATION. I suspect someone got paid off. And since TATE and a few CFL people have worked in Colorado politics in the past, I suspect the person(s) wishing to pay off candidate Buck for past favors knew EXACTLY who to call to get their payoff accomplished.



Like I said here yesterday - telling the TRUTH could have been done QUICKLY. It takes a little longer when you have to figure out how to cover your ass.



I've HAVE examined this issue.

You can take your insinuation that the members of this forum are just too stupid to understand and shove it.

First of all, I appreciate the response. You gave me an opinion that I hadn't seen from anyone else after hours of browsing.

I wasn't trying to be rude. I just want to manage my time.

Now I suppose we wait and see how this unfolds. I won't make a strong assumption about anything until I hear from Dr. Paul.

[rancher89]

don't hold your breath

[Knightskye]

I'm just wondering how a "small number of people" came up with $350,000.

[dr. hfn]

I'm just wondering how a "small number of people" came up with $350,000.

It was a rich gay rights activist.

[Austin]

It was a rich gay rights activist.

This is not confirmed, albeit likely.

[dr. hfn]

This is not confirmed, albeit likely.

it's probably true.

[LittleLightShining]

I live in Colorado and was not aware of any of this beforehand and found out here on Ron Paul forums. I do not support Ken Buck.

I have some comments to make, but in regards to Luke Korkowski, our group in Northern Colorado had him up for a visit and I really liked his issues. He dropped out of the race a while ago though. Here is one of three videos I put together of his visit.

YouTube - Luke Korkowski, US CO (R) 2010 Senitorial Q&A on 9/10/09 (part 1 of 3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbI1Osjl7sA)

In Northern Colorado we have kept our group together from the Ron Paul meetup days, just moved it over to http://colorado4liberty.ning.com . Local control of groups seemed wise to me. I'm not quitting the C4L, but I'm not given any money right now either.Thanks for checking in. I've been waiting to hear from somebody on the ground in CO with their take.


i have no problem with what the c4l did nowWhat changed your mind?

[Liberty Star]

The candidate featured in the Colorado ad answered 19 out of 20 questions correctly on our C4L candidate survey, and he has been publicly outspoken on Audit the Fed and an out of control federal government. He also answered the Foreign Policy questions and warrantless search question on our survey correctly.

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.

That being said, there is an even more important fact: 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.

The 20th Q that he answered "incorrectly" related to his advocacy of 10 year long occupation of foreign countries?

Do they have separarte sub-accounts where they keep funds from neocons and libertarians separate? What assurance is there that the two funds are in separate lock boxes?

[LittleLightShining]

The 20th Q that he answered "incorrectly" related to his advocacy of 10 year long occupation of foreign countries?

Do they have separarte sub-accounts where they keep funds from neocons and libertarians separate? What assurance is there that the two funds are in separate lock boxes?

That hasn't been confirmed. We don't know what question it was.

[Liberty Star]

That hasn't been confirmed. We don't know what question it was.

I don't really need to know that survey answer, knowing that they funded a candidate who advocates decades long foreign occupations on his website is plenty.

[werdd]

Sorry, i have not had time to keep up with this issue.

Does anyone have the questionarre survey given to the colorado canidate? I have seen the one for illinois, and i am interested to see how buck answered on the questionarre.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/candidatesurvey.php?state=IL#questions

I think if he answered fairly poor, it's a safe bet we will never see it.

[LibertyEagle]

The survey definitely needs work. Believing in a declaration of war is not enough, with regard to foreign policy.

[LibertyEagle]

Sorry, i have not had time to keep up with this issue.

Does anyone have the questionarre survey given to the colorado canidate? I have seen the one for illinois, and i am interested to see how buck answered on the questionarre.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/candidatesurvey.php?state=IL#questions

I think if he answered fairly poor, it's a safe bet we will never see it.

Allison knows we want to see it. Supposedly, it's the same survey. But, even if we see his answers, I'm not sure if that is going to tell us that much. Because, at least in my opinion, the survey needs work in the foreign policy area.

[pacelli]

When 98% of the dollar's purchasing power is gone, all we're really arguing about now is the last 2%.

[pcosmar]

Allison knows we want to see it. Supposedly, it's the same survey. But, even if we see his answers, I'm not sure if that is going to tell us that much. Because, at least in my opinion, the survey needs work in the foreign policy area.

The survey is only a side issue. Yes, it could be more definitive, but what is to prevent someone from just lying.
Research needs to be done on candidates positions. Prior writings, speeches, votes etc.

What bothers me is not the survey, but that the C4L logo/brand is associated with someone that is in NO WAY a Liberty Candidate.

This was a total failure at least,,,( sellout, and back-stab come to mind) :(

[LibertyEagle]

The survey is only a side issue. Yes, it could be more definitive, but what is to prevent someone from just lying.
Research needs to be done on candidates positions. Prior writings, speeches, votes etc.

What bothers me is not the survey, but that the C4L logo/brand is associated with someone that is in NO WAY a Liberty Candidate.

This was a total failure at least,,,( sellout, and back-stab come to mind) :(

Yes, it was a total failure. I agree totally. It was an extremely stupid move on their part. One, that they damn well better not ever repeat.

Do we do our best to bury the entire organization over it, or is it worth salvaging?

[pcosmar]

Yes, it was a total failure. I agree totally. It was an extremely stupid move on their part. One, that they damn well better not ever repeat.

Do we do our best to bury the entire organization over it, or is it worth salvaging?

Yet to be seen. I have had a "wait and see" attitude for a while. I had hopes when it was started, however, I have a strong distrust for some of the personalities involved. (from past experience)
I have neither been impressed nor inspired.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The survey definitely needs work. Believing in a declaration of war is not enough, with regard to foreign policy.

I am going to insert a comment out of context for me but in line with the constitution, which many Ron Paul supporters advocate. I haven't read the survey or anything and am mainly a spectator in this controversy but:

It is a valid constitutional position to only hold a view that congress should declare war. Just war theory is not part of the constitution. In some ways congress is empowered by the constitution to ignore just war theories.



To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

[MsDoodahs]

Do we do our best to bury the entire organization over it, or is it worth salvaging?

It is not worth salvaging.

CFL has asked us to give them time, they were going to roll out this FANTASTIC grassroots tool.

Pfft.

NEVER HAPPENED.

We kept waiting...and waiting....and waiting.....

And LOOK AT WHAT THEY'VE DONE!

They've damaged/destroyed the very brand that they asked LIBERTY ACTIVISTS to work their asses off to establish as THE premier brand for the liberty movement!

DONE IN ONE FELL SWOOP at the hand of their TOP LEVEL PEOPLE.

Then rather than TELL THE TRUTH IMMEDIATELY, they LEAVE THE GRASSROOTS HANGING FOR TWO DAYS.

Then - they come out with that pathetic NON EXPLANATION.

And you have to ASK if that org is worth salvaging?

Seriously. Do you really not know the answer?

[Brian4Liberty]

Do they have separarte sub-accounts where they keep funds from neocons and libertarians separate? What assurance is there that the two funds are in separate lock boxes?

Lol! That's a can of worms!

I have some real world experience in this. Donations (and endowments) to Universities often come with criteria on how they want the money spent. Some of the criteria are pretty unusual. Keeping them all straight is quite a task. Standard accounting software does not do a good job at this. Lets just say that some Universities have gotten into trouble for not keeping funds separate...

[pacelli]

Do we do our best to bury the entire organization over it, or is it worth salvaging?

I think a distinction should be made between the decision-makers at the CFL vs the dues-paying membership of the CFL (i.e. the grassroots who hold no positions). I don't think a single member of the grassroots CFL members should be kicked out.

However, I can remember when the CFL was first formed, particularly during the reports of various people here who attended the leadership conference. Even at the initial leadership conference, we were reading reports of CFL leaders discouraging questions. Wasn't it promised that there would be some form of elections or appointments so that potentially any member could replace CFL leadership?

I think if the entire organization is going to be salvaged, then the people making the real decisions need to be replaced. Otherwise, the membership will continue to have zero control over future decisions, potentially enabling similar situations.

Any salvaging job requires a cleaning of big, dirty parts. Some of those parts can be cleaned, and some of them are beyond repair and should be hauled off to the scrap yard. If that salvaging is not possible due to the extent of the job, or legalities involved, then sometimes it is more efficient to walk away and start working on a new building foundation that involves better planning.

[purplechoe]

I have just gone through this whole thread and agree with MsDoodahs completely. There are a lot of things that need to be answered regarding the leadership of C4L as well as just how this whole thing came about. The initial statement sounded like nothing more than just some legal talk and spin. If they want to keep it a top down organization with the current leadership than I will just simply not support them financially as I have done in the past. That doesn't mean that I'm giving up the fight of restoring a constitutional republic...

[qwerty]

Just one question,

If you want new leadership. WHY DON`T YOU DEMAND IT ?

Why you are leaving the ship, not demanding to change the crew ?

Is your motivation to improve C4L or destroy it ?

[Pauls' Revere]

Well, I'm not upset about the money if it came from a group of people from Colorado to survey the candidates in that state.

I do wish that we could have had a heads up about what was happening. Did anyone get a whiff of this?

I do wish that the questions were better developed or better yet input from the grassroots (you and I) into what those questions could be. But again why should my input from my state have an impact on a candidate in a completely different state? What issues they have there are different than what we have here. Unless these candidates are prospects for federal or national offices.

I feel that if a CFL group in California wants to spend $750,000,000,000 of thier money they pooled outside of national donations than so be it. What if your CFL meetup got a boat load of money and put out a survey. Would that be wrong?

The SCOTUS just ruled on a free speech measure...

I do agree the questions suck and wouldn't the candidates voting record answer most of those questions? or at least determine how they would vote?

[purplechoe]

I feel that if a CFL group in California wants to spend $750,000,000,000 of thier money they pooled outside of national donations than so be it. What if your CFL meetup got a boat load of money and put out a survey. Would that be wrong?

This has been said probably more than 2 dozen times already, the money did not come from C4L in Colorado. Some donor gave the money to national to run the ad in Colorado.

[hugolp]

This has been said probably more than 2 dozen times already, the money did not come from C4L in Colorado. Some donor gave the money to national to run the ad in Colorado.

And actually nobody has real prove of this, because C4L books are closed. So believing the money came from a "secret" donor instead of donations is a matter of faith. In reality nobody here knows that for sure. That is only C4L version.

[qwerty]

Don´t let fanatics derail you! :)

Michael is AWESOME!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229059

[hugolp]

Don´t let fanatics derail you! :)

Michael is AWESOME!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=229059

qwerty there is only one fanatic here. Can you please stop being a cheerleader and try to be constructive? I am telling you again and again that name calling wont work to bring back the people that are decieved. Name calling might work in a politic framework, but here we are all working for the same.