PDA

View Full Version : Campaign for Liberty posts Ken Buck's candidate survey results




MRoCkEd
02-01-2010, 07:35 PM
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=32100

For those who are interested, we've posted Ken Buck's Colorado survey results in the same format as those already posted from Illinois. We'll continue to update the results as more candidates respond.

Click here to view the results. (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/candidatesurvey.php?state=CO)

UtahApocalypse
02-01-2010, 07:37 PM
So he skipped a question and lied on another one.

fisharmor
02-01-2010, 07:43 PM
Well, questions 5 and 10 seem to mitigate what everyone here is talking about, don't they?
I'm disturbed that he chose not to answer the IRS question, and I'm kind of miffed at C4L for not putting in anything about commodity money or the drug war... but unless this guy is lying (which is entirely possible) I understand the point of supporting him.

Now, $350k... I would want to know what the breakdown of that money is, and why it cost so blasted much to push a survey. Maybe it's out there somewhere already. All I know is that our state gun rights group manages to have a similar survey filled out by all statewide candidates, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't cost more than a house to do it every year.

Liberty Star
02-01-2010, 07:43 PM
Unbelievable, he completely skipped question about blowbacks and tax payers funding 40 year old occupation and war crimes in Gaza?

idirtify
02-01-2010, 07:53 PM
I'm disturbed that he chose not to answer the IRS question, and I'm kind of miffed at C4L for not putting in anything about commodity money or the drug war...



good points. me too.




but unless this guy is lying (which is entirely possible) I understand the point of supporting him.



To find out if he was lying, all C4L had to do was go to his website. That would have cost ONE employee maybe a minute of time.

He lied and left a key point blank he should NOT have been supported!!!!

MsDoodahs
02-01-2010, 08:39 PM
If CFL didn't check the candidate's survey responses against his website, then CFL's staff is incompetent.

If CFL did check the candidate's survey responses against his website and supported him anyway, CFL is worse than incompetent.

I would LIKE to think that the reality is the former; however, I do not believe that is the case, in light of the multiple connections and amount of work done in Colorado in the past by CFL top tier staff.

The whole sorry episode smacks of a backroom deal cut by top level CFL staff, utilizing their Colorado connections. Politics as USUAL.

In the process, CFL not only sold out the grassroots by way of prostituting the brand that the grassroots built, but also CFL destroyed trust in the competence of top level staff, and destroyed confidence in their principled adherance to the message.

All around, a miserable failure.

Treating the grassroots like ignorant children only makes the whole thing WORSE.

idirtify
02-01-2010, 09:07 PM
If CFL didn't check the candidate's survey responses against his website, then CFL's staff is incompetent.

If CFL did check the candidate's survey responses against his website and supported him anyway, CFL is worse than incompetent.

I would LIKE to think that the reality is the former; however, I do not believe that is the case, in light of the multiple connections and amount of work done in Colorado in the past by CFL top tier staff.

The whole sorry episode smacks of a backroom deal cut by top level CFL staff, utilizing their Colorado connections. Politics as USUAL.

In the process, CFL not only sold out the grassroots by way of prostituting the brand that the grassroots built, but also CFL destroyed trust in the competence of top level staff, and destroyed confidence in their principled adherance to the message.

All around, a miserable failure.

Treating the grassroots like ignorant children only makes the whole thing WORSE.

qft!!!

jmdrake
02-01-2010, 09:15 PM
Unbelievable, he completely skipped question about blowbacks and tax payers funding 40 year old occupation and war crimes in Gaza?

I don't see a blowback or Israel or Gaza question anywhere on the survey. :confused:

idirtify
02-01-2010, 09:18 PM
Whether C4L currently admits it or not, they are firmly between a rock and a hard place. If they do not fully and readily admit and explain their giant blunder, they will never be able to live it down. If they are complaining about confrontational friends now, what do they expect their enemies will do with it in the future??

jmdrake
02-01-2010, 09:26 PM
Well, questions 5 and 10 seem to mitigate what everyone here is talking about, don't they?
I'm disturbed that he chose not to answer the IRS question, and I'm kind of miffed at C4L for not putting in anything about commodity money or the drug war... but unless this guy is lying (which is entirely possible) I understand the point of supporting him.



If CFL didn't check the candidate's survey responses against his website, then CFL's staff is incompetent.

If CFL did check the candidate's survey responses against his website and supported him anyway, CFL is worse than incompetent.


The $350,000 question is how to square question 10 with staying in Afghanistan for 10 years if necessary to finish the job. Maybe Buck believes there should be a proper declaration of war after the fact? Maybe he's just saying he wouldn't agree to future deployments without a proper declaration of war? Afghanistan has been seen by many as the "justified war" based on the 9/11. (A lot of people know how I feel about that so I won't go into it here.) I noticed just know on Ron Paul's 2008 "Third Party Press Conference (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ron-Paul-Press-Conference-by-Kevin-Zeese-080910-177.html)" statement of principles that he said nothing about Afghanistan. It did call for bringing troops home from Europe, Asia and the Middle East.

As for the IRS, in his interview at "LibertyPulse.com", Jesse Benton said that Buck wrote a long statement about why he abstained. Basically while he dislikes the IRS, he's afraid of what might replace it. (i.e. the "Fair Tax")

Anyway, all I'd like to hear at this point is how the to disparate positions on the occupation of Afghanistan square up. Beyond that, I'm personally prepared to move on. (Nothing against those who aren't. Just saying where I am.)