http://www.dailypaul.com/node/123275
Submitted by Michael Nystrom on Fri, 01/29/2010 - 16:57
in * Daily Paul Liberty Forum
John Tate's statement can be read on the C4L's site via this link.
The numerous comments on the linked article, as well as comment threads on Ron Paul Forums and the Daily Paul indicate overwhelming dissatisfaction with the vaguely worded explanation, and call for more answers.
Questions that come to my mind when reading the statement include:
Tate:
The candidate featured in the Colorado ad answered 19 out of 20 questions correctly on our C4L candidate survey
We have seen the questions. Where are Buck's answers?
Regardless of how he answered, it is clear from his own website that he is a pro-war, pro-interventionist candidate:
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.
Anyone with even the slightest familiarity with grassroots supporters knows that, while we are a diverse bunch, there are a few issues upon which we are in total agreement. One of these uniting issues is the principle of NON-INTERVENTIONISM. The fact that Buck answered 19 questions "correctly" is irrelevant.
THIS IS AN ISSUE ON WHICH WE NEVER COMPROMISE.
Tate:
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.
How sweet. If these are "personal promises," how exactly do you intend to hold these candidates responsible once they become elected officials, and view themselves as above the law? Do you intend to bring lawsuits against the individuals should they break them? What is the plan here? I'm curious, since breaking campaign promises is a routine event in American politics.
If you are making a "guarantee," how will those of us who trusted your judgement be compensated for being duped?
Tate:
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.
This sounds like a side pool of money. Who is this "small number of Colorado activists?" Does the group have a name, or formal organization? Is the group's mission consistent with that of C4L? What other type of influence, if any, have they purchased within the C4L with this money?
Furthermore, what is the criteria for other groups who wish to channel side pools through the C4L? Did any of the money go to the C4L, or was it all used to fund the ad? Did any members of the C4L personally benefit from this transaction?
Tate:
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
Really? When? Because 2010 primaries are coming up very, very quick. We've got a slew of REAL liberty candidates who have emerged from the grassroots movement started by Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. So far there has been no action on the part of the C4L to support these candidates. Candidates like: Rand Paul, RJ Harris Jake Towne, John Dennis, Adam Kokesh, and Debra Medina. As far as I understand, none of these candidates have heard a peep for C4L.
If your answer is:
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,
I'm afraid that just answer doesn't cut it - not after the Buck ad. While the ad may be consistent with the letter of the law, it is not consistent with its spirit.
Among the local grassroots, asking for help from the C4L has become a running joke. Such a suggestion is met with the roll of eyes and a sarcastic scoff: "Right, like that is ever going to happen."
In the end, this event has been very disappointing to everyone in the community who has steadfastly supported Ron Paul. My understanding of the C4L is that it was to work with the grassroots community toward common goals. That hasn't happened.
This response did very little to satisfy the growing dissatisfaction within C4L membership and grassroots Ron Paul supporters. We got no new information - nothing we hadn't already figured out on our own via the Forums.
We do not appreciate being treated like ignorant jackasses.
