rancher89
02-03-2010, 12:38 PM
I have been a C4L State Coordinator and feel that the C4L is a valuable tool for the grassroots Liberty effort. The recent Buck ad in CO has raised a flurry of questions from several different forums on the interwebs. Some of these questions have been around for a while, others deal specifically with the Buck ad. This is a compilation of questions from various sources, some questions have been reworded or combined for clarity.
If you have not seen the ad, here's the link:
YouTube - CO pro buck ad.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87D8DCgJcA)
Article from local CO writer, dated 1-26-2010 @ 2:34 am
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/01/26/big-bucks-for-ken-bucks/
Article is posted to rpf's on 1-27-2010 @ 3:30 PM.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228504
Mr. Tate's response, dated 1-29-2010 @ 2:03 PM and updated on 1-29-2010 @ 2:22 PM
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=31963&cpg=2
Statement from Ronnie Paul, Ron's brother, dated 2-1-2010 @ 4:18 PM:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=32090
Jesse Benton's interview 2-2-2010:
http://libertypulse.com/article/4009
Michael Nystrom's comments about his conversation with Ron Paul posted 2/02/2010 @ 21:06:
http://dailypaul.com/node/123735
C4L page where you can find information on the survey:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/candidatesurvey.php?state=CO
Some feel that all of the questions have been answered to their satisfaction. If you feel that all of your questions have been answered, that's great, but please respect my (and others who feel the same way) right to ask questions and expect answers.
Others, myself included, feel that the questions we have asked have not only not been answered, but have been replied to with deflection and in some cases outright lies, intended or not.
It has been stated, several times, by several people, that if the C4L had issued a statement early in this dustup, stating that they were looking into the situation and would be issuing a formal statement soon, many people would have been more patient.
Please do not feel that I am attacking the C4L as an organization or any particular member of the board of the C4L, or for that matter any member who feels that all their questions have been asked and answered. I'm not. I just want a few answers from the organization I joined and worked so hard to help it grow.
I will post answers to these questions, if they come from other forums /sites /private emails /pms when they come in.
1) I sat in on Mike Rothfeld's seminars in MN and in Atlanta, the seminars in Atlanta were much more confrontational than the ones in MN. Please tell me why someone who is so obviously anti-third party and is openly pro war is the best the C4L can find to teach us about how to target voters for money and support? Who brought him in to teach us? (**Note Deb H. has begun to answer this question. **)
2) There are some that do not feel that John Tate fully subscribes to Ron's message, does he?
---A) Why do the mailings (signed by John Tate,) asking for donations, citing that one or more inititive may need to be dropped from the list of important C4L missions, not include "non-interventionalist wars" anymore?
---B) Why did it take so long for any word from Mr. Tate on the ad/survey and why was his response so off-target?
---C) Why were we made to feel disloyal if we questioned the actions of the C4L or Mr. Tate?
3) Will you please explain how the C4L board got involved with the ad/survey situation in CO?
---A) Who watched the ad before it was aired? Which lawyers reviewed the ad?
---B) Can we please see the FULL survey as a scanned copy with the answers by Ken Buck, including the written portion?
---C) In what manner, and employing what behaviors, will the C4L hold candidates who answer the survey accountable?
---D) How/why did the board think that the ad was a good idea and not expect to receive criticism?
---E) Did anyone dissent, and if so, who?
---F) If the Buck ad was tactical (in regard to C4L being a POLITICAL organization), then it was NOT misworded or mismade. IOW, we seem to have two conflicting excuses here. One excuse says that the ad was made wrong and did not actually intend to come off like that – and actually intended to mean something else. The other one says that the ad was a tactical maneuver. The two excuses are mutually exclusive - by nature. IOW it can’t be both. If it was a tactical maneuver, its surface appearance was intentional. So which explanation is the right one?
---G) How did a group of unknown people (to the state and national C4L organizations) manage to organize and quietly raise more than a quarter of a million dollars to buy and make a TV ad in support of a survey (more specifically a specific candidate's response to the survey) that none of the older members or CO state leadership had even heard about?
------a) What is the connection between these donors and the National C4L?
------b) Why did they choose to funnel the money through an organization that they have practically no relationship with?
------c) Why wasn't the CO state leadership included?
4) What is the National C4L's EIN? Where are the 990's?
5) Can we please have a list of all of the corporations across the country which are affiliated with the C4L and have permission to use the C4L logo including those corps EIN's, the board of directors, and the city and state in which their HQ is located?
6) Will C4L please consider appointing a grassroots liaison on the board of directors that is selected by the grassroots? We understand that Debra Medina was our grassroots representative until she resigned to run for Govenor of Texas. (go Medina!) We would like to choose the next grassroots representative.
7) Re: Jesse Benton's statement--what exactly are the specific details of the customs, usages, practices, policies, procedures, and people involved with this checks & balances system he mentions? In what manner will the existence of this particular checks & balances system prevent these mistakes from ever happening again?
8) Why should people support the C4L and give it money?
---A) Of what specific benefit to my local community and state effort is sending money to CFL national?
---B) If the C4L is now supporting candidates, and I have limited resources to use for candidate support, how can I be sure that money sent to CFL will be used to support the candidates *I* want to support?
I thank everyone who contributed to this list of questions and I look forward to a civil and rational discussion of the answers we receive. Again, if you feel that all of your questions have been answered, that's great, but respect my (and others who feel the same way) right to ask questions and expect answers.
If you have not seen the ad, here's the link:
YouTube - CO pro buck ad.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87D8DCgJcA)
Article from local CO writer, dated 1-26-2010 @ 2:34 am
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/01/26/big-bucks-for-ken-bucks/
Article is posted to rpf's on 1-27-2010 @ 3:30 PM.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228504
Mr. Tate's response, dated 1-29-2010 @ 2:03 PM and updated on 1-29-2010 @ 2:22 PM
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=31963&cpg=2
Statement from Ronnie Paul, Ron's brother, dated 2-1-2010 @ 4:18 PM:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=32090
Jesse Benton's interview 2-2-2010:
http://libertypulse.com/article/4009
Michael Nystrom's comments about his conversation with Ron Paul posted 2/02/2010 @ 21:06:
http://dailypaul.com/node/123735
C4L page where you can find information on the survey:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/candidatesurvey.php?state=CO
Some feel that all of the questions have been answered to their satisfaction. If you feel that all of your questions have been answered, that's great, but please respect my (and others who feel the same way) right to ask questions and expect answers.
Others, myself included, feel that the questions we have asked have not only not been answered, but have been replied to with deflection and in some cases outright lies, intended or not.
It has been stated, several times, by several people, that if the C4L had issued a statement early in this dustup, stating that they were looking into the situation and would be issuing a formal statement soon, many people would have been more patient.
Please do not feel that I am attacking the C4L as an organization or any particular member of the board of the C4L, or for that matter any member who feels that all their questions have been asked and answered. I'm not. I just want a few answers from the organization I joined and worked so hard to help it grow.
I will post answers to these questions, if they come from other forums /sites /private emails /pms when they come in.
1) I sat in on Mike Rothfeld's seminars in MN and in Atlanta, the seminars in Atlanta were much more confrontational than the ones in MN. Please tell me why someone who is so obviously anti-third party and is openly pro war is the best the C4L can find to teach us about how to target voters for money and support? Who brought him in to teach us? (**Note Deb H. has begun to answer this question. **)
2) There are some that do not feel that John Tate fully subscribes to Ron's message, does he?
---A) Why do the mailings (signed by John Tate,) asking for donations, citing that one or more inititive may need to be dropped from the list of important C4L missions, not include "non-interventionalist wars" anymore?
---B) Why did it take so long for any word from Mr. Tate on the ad/survey and why was his response so off-target?
---C) Why were we made to feel disloyal if we questioned the actions of the C4L or Mr. Tate?
3) Will you please explain how the C4L board got involved with the ad/survey situation in CO?
---A) Who watched the ad before it was aired? Which lawyers reviewed the ad?
---B) Can we please see the FULL survey as a scanned copy with the answers by Ken Buck, including the written portion?
---C) In what manner, and employing what behaviors, will the C4L hold candidates who answer the survey accountable?
---D) How/why did the board think that the ad was a good idea and not expect to receive criticism?
---E) Did anyone dissent, and if so, who?
---F) If the Buck ad was tactical (in regard to C4L being a POLITICAL organization), then it was NOT misworded or mismade. IOW, we seem to have two conflicting excuses here. One excuse says that the ad was made wrong and did not actually intend to come off like that – and actually intended to mean something else. The other one says that the ad was a tactical maneuver. The two excuses are mutually exclusive - by nature. IOW it can’t be both. If it was a tactical maneuver, its surface appearance was intentional. So which explanation is the right one?
---G) How did a group of unknown people (to the state and national C4L organizations) manage to organize and quietly raise more than a quarter of a million dollars to buy and make a TV ad in support of a survey (more specifically a specific candidate's response to the survey) that none of the older members or CO state leadership had even heard about?
------a) What is the connection between these donors and the National C4L?
------b) Why did they choose to funnel the money through an organization that they have practically no relationship with?
------c) Why wasn't the CO state leadership included?
4) What is the National C4L's EIN? Where are the 990's?
5) Can we please have a list of all of the corporations across the country which are affiliated with the C4L and have permission to use the C4L logo including those corps EIN's, the board of directors, and the city and state in which their HQ is located?
6) Will C4L please consider appointing a grassroots liaison on the board of directors that is selected by the grassroots? We understand that Debra Medina was our grassroots representative until she resigned to run for Govenor of Texas. (go Medina!) We would like to choose the next grassroots representative.
7) Re: Jesse Benton's statement--what exactly are the specific details of the customs, usages, practices, policies, procedures, and people involved with this checks & balances system he mentions? In what manner will the existence of this particular checks & balances system prevent these mistakes from ever happening again?
8) Why should people support the C4L and give it money?
---A) Of what specific benefit to my local community and state effort is sending money to CFL national?
---B) If the C4L is now supporting candidates, and I have limited resources to use for candidate support, how can I be sure that money sent to CFL will be used to support the candidates *I* want to support?
I thank everyone who contributed to this list of questions and I look forward to a civil and rational discussion of the answers we receive. Again, if you feel that all of your questions have been answered, that's great, but respect my (and others who feel the same way) right to ask questions and expect answers.