CFL Spent $350,000 on a pro-war Colorado candidate

[Knightskye]

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.

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.

A group called Campaign for Liberty is spending almost $350,000 on ads touting Ken Buck’s GOP Senate campaign.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/...for-ken-bucks/

WTF? That's where my money is going?

[brandon]

You gotta be kidding me.

Edit: Confirmed

[dr. hfn]

Is this our CFL? Our CFL can't endorse or spend money on candidates.

[MRoCkEd]

The following note is from Ronnie Paul, chairman of C4L's Board of Directors:

Dear C4L Member,


Last week, Campaign for Liberty bought airtime in Colorado as part of our candidate survey program. Our purpose was to get candidates for office on the record about their position on issues like undeclared war, abolishing the IRS, supporting competing currencies and rescinding the Patriot Act.

Our intentions were good, but we made mistakes. We had poor communication with you about the program and the messaging of the commercial did not fit with C4L's principles. Many of you have spoken out and offered constructive criticism. We have learned some important lessons, and will be stronger as a result. We will implement checks and balances to prevent anything like this from happening again.

A small but vocal minority has decided to wage cruel and vicious personal attacks against our president, John Tate. This is unfortunate. John is a kind and decent family man who has worked unbelievably hard and has always tried to do the right thing. There should be no place for this in our movement and simply wastes the time and energy we should be using to fight for Liberty.

Looking at the big picture, C4L has achieved tremendous success over the past year. We have been instrumental in passing Audit the Fed in the House. We have trained thousands of activists so they have the tools to win. We have set up independent state chapters across the country. And, our numbers have grown to over a quarter million strong, forming a grassroots army to take our freedoms back. Our successes greatly outweigh our mistakes, and we WILL stay the course.

C4L is playing a leading role in the Liberty Movement. I am convinced that our efforts, along with those of many others, will continue the Ron Paul Revolution. C4L's successes are many, and as we progress into our second year, I see many more ahead. We deeply appreciate your support.


In Liberty,


Ronnie Paul

Chairman of the Board

[Brian4Liberty]

YouTube - CO pro buck ad.wmv

If the purpose of that ad is to promote CFL or their survey it is a major fail. Can we say "too subtle"? Is anyone with any knowledge at all about marketing involved there?

I will reserve any more negativity until more information comes out.

[newbitech]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/ken-buck/

YouTube - CO pro buck ad.wmv

[newbitech]

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/pr...er=Gary_Howard

CFL Profile on Gary Howard

[dr. hfn]

motherfuckers!

[MRoCkEd]

edit: big misunderstanding

[newbitech]

They are promoting "the survey", using Buck as motivation for other candidates to sign it.
I want to know why they didn't do this with one of our liberty candidates though?

Well is this survey online? Cause I am sure it would be nice if the CFL "leaked" this survey to the grassroots we'd be able to generate more of a buzz than endorsing "unelectable candidates".

I mean hell, I have already looked up this candidate, that's gonna get him PR and more exposure. That is the ancillary benefit for the candidate and I understand that, but with out more circulation of the idea of these candidate surveys, I see the potential of hooking other pols as being stunted.

Hell, national money was spent, why not make a national effort?

[Liberty Star]

Well is this survey online? Cause I am sure it would be nice if the CFL "leaked" this survey to the grassroots we'd be able to generate more of a buzz than endorsing "unelectable candidates".

I mean hell, I have already looked up this candidate, that's gonna get him PR and more exposure. That is the ancillary benefit for the candidate and I understand that, but with out more circulation of the idea of these candidate surveys, I see the potential of hooking other pols as being stunted.

Hell, national money was spent, why not make a national effort?

Can you imagine the media buzz and free coverage it would generate if they nominated and funded son of NY , Rudy Giuliani.

[LittleLightShining]

Well is this survey online? Cause I am sure it would be nice if the CFL "leaked" this survey to the grassroots we'd be able to generate more of a buzz than endorsing "unelectable candidates".

I mean hell, I have already looked up this candidate, that's gonna get him PR and more exposure. That is the ancillary benefit for the candidate and I understand that, but with out more circulation of the idea of these candidate surveys, I see the potential of hooking other pols as being stunted.

Hell, national money was spent, why not make a national effort?

Good question.

[dean.engelhardt]

I am no longer a member of C4L. Deleted my account minutes ago. The political ad for Ken Buck was bad. Tate telling me I'm stupid is worse.

I use to love that site. I smell special interests now. I'm very disappointed.

[Bman]

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.

No. The critical question is whether or not you will take money to advance the objectives or non-liberty candidates.

Principle before party. You should know your base and support. Either admit your mistake, make the right changes or fund yourself.

[LittleLightShining]

No. The critical question is whether or not you will take money to advance the objectives or non-liberty candidates.

Principle before party. You should know your base and support. Either admit your mistake, make the right changes or fund yourself.

No no no... don't you see, we have to work with the GOP. Forget education. It's all about party politics and the GOP is the place for us

Seriously, though, I agree with you.

[smashysmashy]

I am no longer a member of C4L. Deleted my account minutes ago. The political ad for Ken Buck was bad. Tate telling me I'm stupid is worse.

I use to love that site. I smell special interests now. I'm very disappointed.

Hey Dean! I am in the same boat as you. Used to love C4L... but I think this is a better place for me to mobilize my support for liberty.

This one particular issue isn't even my biggest quarrel but it is certainly the nail in the coffin. If C4L decides to be a leading model in transparency and liberty then I will gladly contribute, no grudges held... but over 48 hours for that explanation is very telling and extremely opaque.

[newbitech]

So I did a google search for "candidate surveys" in the CFL website.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...&aql=&aqi=&oq=

Not sure who would authorize dropping 350k to promote some surveys over the boob tube. However, there doesn't seem to be much buzz about the survey's at the website.

This doesn't even look like a local Colorado group, its coming from national. And if giving a candidate media praise and spending over a third of a million on the ad isn't a tacit endorsement...

sheesh. Why not drop that cash on Rand's campaign or any of the other liberty polls out there. I don't get it. Also, why not run a fundraiser for this instead of pulling it out of the "old money coffers" aka Tea Party (the real one) or Vendetta (remember remember the 5th of Nov.) money bombs.

eesshhh.. this sounds like a stretch to me.

[brandon]

Looks like CFL has gone the way of the tea parties.

RIP CFL.

[MRoCkEd]

I would like a strategy explanation from C4L before making judgment on this

[newbitech]

I would like a strategy explanation from C4L before making judgment on this

yeah no doubt there has to be something behind this other than we are promoting our surveys.

[brandon]

I would like a strategy explanation from C4L before making judgment on this

Does it matter? Do the ends justify the means? Is spending $350,000 of donated money on promoting a pro-war neocon really something you could consider being okay?

[dr. hfn]

I demand transparency from C4L!

[Elm]

I demand transparency from C4L!

Good luck with that.

At the national convention when it formed we were promised the ability to vote and ratify the bylaws. When we got there we were given no bylaws. Has anyone seen bylaws - has the grassroots ever ratified any?

[brandon]

Good luck with that.

At the national convention when it formed we were promised the ability to vote and ratify the bylaws. When we got there we were given no bylaws. Has anyone seen bylaws - has the grassroots ever ratified any?

Nope. I was at the original national convention in MN as well. The whole thing seemed kind of fishy to begin with. I've never trusted John Tate.

[Elm]

Nope. I was at the original national convention in MN as well. The whole thing seemed kind of fishy to begin with. I've never trusted John Tate.

They even cut off the mic of that guy Frank when he asked about the bylaws.

[MsDoodahs]

I am sitting on my hands here.

I am really REALLY angry.

[Brian4Liberty]

Here's another candidate in that Primary, Jane Norton. Her official issues page makes zero mention of foreign policy or terrorism, but there is a Google cache of an old interview.

She doesn't mention TARP, and her association with McCain would make a person guess she supported it, and that's why she doesn't mention it.

It seems that McCain's support has rubbed some people the wrong way (Bay Buchanan, Tom Tancredo).

Her issues page:
http://www.janenortonforcolorado.com/issues

Here's the "missing" answer on foreign policy from Google cache. Seems she doesn't want to address this issue any more (no doubt McCain and Bill Kristol can fill her in at a later time).

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

13. What do you think is the most pressing foreign policy problem facing this country and what do you think the federal government should do about it?

There is no shortage of problems facing our Nation internationally, from the struggle for democracy in Honduras to the emergence of a nuclear Iran. But I believe the most compelling foreign policy issue we face right now is the war in Afghanistan. Our ultimate goal is to defeat the Taliban, suppress al Qaeda, and foster stability in Pakistan. We cannot pull out prematurely, forsake our allies, and allow a terrorist haven to once again flourish. We must listen to our commanders on the ground and not pursue a half-hearted strategy that makes political expediency rather than military victory the goal.

Apparently Tom Tancredo wasn't thrilled about McCain coming in and "sponsoring" a candidate:

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword...rton_--_an.php

In an article by ace Denver Post reporter Lynn Bartels, former Congressman Tom Tancredo unloads on fellow Republican (and former Colorado Lieutenant Governor) Jane Norton, saying the only reason she'll be announcing a Senate run later today is because she was talked into it by Arizona Senator and recent presidential nominee John McCain. "Does John McCain have a right to do that? Sure. Do I have a right to bitch about it? You bet," Tancredo told Bartels. "Jane Norton is a nice lady who I like. End of story. But I fear she is not ready for prime time."

[Elwar]

They should have "promoted their surveys" in Kentucky with Rand Paul.

[dr. hfn]

C4L National has lost touch with the grassroots

[UtahApocalypse]

Looks like I will be dropping from C4L