Just a couple of things when reading your response. I don't want to come of as riding a wave of insanity or flipping out about neocons. To be quite frank, if this money was spent on say a Rand Paul ad for the same given reason, I'd raise the same question.
The money would be wasted or Rand at this point in the game and frankly it may backfire if Rand were associated with us right now. He is in the lead. When that happens you keep your mouth closed and let the machine that is working continue to work unmolested.
Specifically, you said the ad is not about him (the candidate Buck). I understand the statement made by Gary Howard is a way of preserving the status of the 501c4 corp in not being allowed to endorse specific candidates. So, to me, it looks like that little survey qualifier was thrown in there to stay out of trouble with the IRS. So I think to say that the ad was not about the candidate is a shady excuse at best.
On your reasoning behind the surveys, assuming that is the real reason this money was spent, what evidence do you have that these types of methods are effective? Why are these survey's not being promoted at the C4L guest or subscriber levels? Certainly surveying is no secret strategy that needs to be protected. I get GOP surveys ALL the time. But, no C4L surveys. What's up with that? A search at the C4L website for "candidate survey" turns up one hit. One. As a coordinator, will you stipulate to the fact that this particular strategy has not been openly discussed to the point where the leadership at all levels has determined that general funds to the tune of THREE HUNDRED and FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS should be spent on a survey for ONE primary for ONE district? You want to add that up? That's a pretty big carrot on the stick gimmick to get a politician to fill out your form.
When you combine political candidates surveys and the voting histories of candidates in office, you create what is called a "
scorecard". You print this out and put it in the hands of voters.
This is a great way to leverage organization in order to educate people as to who the liberty candidates are. For those of you that can't decipher that statement I'll say it bluntly - it is one of the best ways to influence voting toward our candidates. All activist organizations use this tactic. You can
see for yourself. At the
March on Annapolis, which the
Baltimore Campaign for Liberty helped organize a few weeks ago, people went rabid for these scorecards.
This way of promoting the scorecards may sound iffy and the cost certainly sounds like a bit much to me. However, it is necessary in activist politics to praise someone when they do what you want and club them when they don't. I know this is Rothfeld's style because I heard him say it first hand at
Valley Forge. And why would C4L promote this at a subscriber level? That is a great way for a Socialist or Neocon plant to get one step ahead of our initiative.
Yes it appears that we are establishing as fact that C4L sent 350k to fund a neocon campaign. One which I might add did have a Ron Paul supporter from the grassroots involved in who happened to tie for 3rd place with Tancredo in an early straw poll. I don't find that laughable at all. Why the hell would I want to become more involved with politics when the only organization who would ever get my political donation would go ahead and fund ads for my opponents? Seems to counter the whole idea of getting involved, no?
While I am sympathetic to your questions, I really don't know the details of this. I am giving John Tate the benefit of the doubt because I have been to meetings with this guy and I know he is faithful to the cause. My problem with all of this is comments like yours above. No, we do not know for a fact "that C4L sent 350k to fund a neocon campaign". As I have said before, you have to club people when they don't do what you want and praise them when you do. You have to rub shoulders with people you don't totally agree with in this game. That may bother some of you, but if you are committed to playing the game it is a reality you will have to come to understand.
Again, I don't know much about this initiative. The cost does sound suspect. My point is that you can't call for the guillotine when something happens that you don't understand or disagree with. Falling into this trap provides the "other side" easy ways to incite chaos within the movement. And just because we don't have all the facts doesn't mean Tate is in the wrong.
If this spending is raising concerns, what do you find so laughable? Is it because the guy who benefited from the infusion of liberty cash is being labeled a neocon?
Hey, maybe the guy deserves our support? BUT, that is not what you are saying. He is an unknown in the liberty movement, until now. He has a very suspect agenda. He could be appropriately labeled a neocon if people want to label, but looking at his issues (and hopefully reading his survey if C4L decides to make them public) should tell us where he stands.
In the mean time, my donations were supposed to go to candidates with the Ron Paul platform. I am almost offended by you saying that the reason for the reaction to this news is people being on the forum. Look, you sure didn't waste your time responding. How can you judge someone's activity from behind your computer screen lurking the site? Do you understand that the research that is done openly on this forum is a HUGE contribution to the cause? Do you understand that its not the politicians that you spend all your time shaking hands with that are going to change our country? Its the faceless nameless people in the crowd that are doing whatever they can, and whatever they do best?
My problem here is that there are quite a large number of people who are willing to dump all over candidates, organizations or initiatives without thinking twice. We are working our asses off in Baltimore to build a powerful group and a powerful brand. This is the hard, dirty work that requires time and money that is hard to come by. Last night at the Ron Paul speaking event in Baltimore, we put some serious work in. When
an article is put out, here is what we get:
spongessuck
Glen Mills, PA
C4L:
Please answer the question about alleged C4L contributions to Ken Buck's campaign.
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME. Shit like this is a quick way to shit on the efforts other people are putting forth. If my memory serves correct, I have seen spongessuck quite a bit around this forum and haven't seen much of him at all at campaignforliberty.com. That is not to say that he isn't putting in work in PA, but I would more then likely see him organize there or at events that other PA members are at. The point is, there is a large disconnect with the "online" supporters and the people working in the trenches for hours every day.
A real movement does not happen on the internet. It happens in the districts. In the restaurants, political meetings, churches. It happens shaking hands and sharing ideas. It happens sharing a coffee or a burger or a beer. There are a lot of people that need to understand this. If you are truly devoted to the cause you need to elevate yourself beyond internet forum drama.
Maybe some people like me are dog spit ugly and have no social skills (not true I just like to degrade myself to make points sometimes). Do you want a jackass who can network representing you in public? OR do you want him on the back end digging up information that you undoubtedly lurk for and then take out to the field with you?
Anyways. Look I appreciate what you are saying and doing. All I ask is that my money be spent wisely. That's it. I really don't even care so much about transparency as some other folks, but when it comes time to be accountable, like right now, I don't want to get fed the same crap that is going to get fed to the IRS.
"It wasn't and endorsement, we are promoting our surveys".
BWWWAHHHAHHAHAHAHAAAA!11
I said it before and I will say it again - this isn't productive. If you are really concerned about this issue, here is what you need to do:
Organize a resolution by:
1. Someone writing a resolution
2. Having people print it, sign it and mail it to someone.
3. Find a way to put it in the hands of John Tate.
If everyone here is sincere about pressing this issue, then you need to organize this. I have contacts within the national C4L and I would be willing to try to speak with John personally and deliver the signatures to him next month at CPAC.
You are correct - everyone's contribution does count. However, if you aren't "in the trenches" the only thing you all have accomplished so far is discouraging the people who are. If you are sincere about pushing this issue send me a message and I will volunteer to make items 2 and 3 happen.
