Statement from Ronnie Paul about the Campaign for Liberty Advertisement + Reaction

[MRoCkEd]

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=32090

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

 

[brandon]

This is a step in the right direction.

Now they just need to come out with a stong statement supporting non-intervention and clarifying that it is one of the most important principles of the organization.

 

[cybloo]

This is a step in the right direction.

Now they just need to come out with a stong statement supporting non-intervention and clarifying that it is one of the most important principles of the organization.

Ditto.

 

[Matt Collins]

Ron has a brother named Ronnie? Gee, that has to get confusing.

 

[rancher89]

A small but vocal minority has decided to wage cruel and vicious personal attacks against our president, John Tate.


1. I do not recall anything really bad being said about him as a person. I remember various people calling him a neocon, party hack, incompetent regarding his position within the C4L and so forth, but nobody, (and I'm not perfect I might have missed a post somewhere,) got personal with him. (A few of us on here did get personal with each other.... )

2. He sat on this for two days and issued a statement that did not please most of those paying attention.
3. He had an active role in crafting the survey and the ad
4. He has way more "experience" at the political "game" than I do and he's "still learning"????

Do not forget, that a "small but vocal minority" caused them to pull the ad and state they would not do this again. That, and who knows how many canceled their membership..... sigh.

I'm sticking with 'em for a while folks, like I said before, we chose to carry Ron's message, if we have to be the conscience of the C4L, so be it. We can do it better from within than on the outside.

 

[dean.engelhardt]

"...the messaging of the commercial did not fit with C4L's principles."

This is a step in the right direction, but not nearly enough. I'm still shocked that a small group/large donation is allowed to manipulate the logo to support pro-war candiate. The Tate explanation and further support from Ronnie is troubling because there seems to no no repercussions.

Anti-war is the single most important issue to me and the reason I joined C4L. My take away from this is, I'm better off supporting candidates directly that work to end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. C4L is not the right vehicle for my position.

C4L may be the right vehicle for others. Just not for me.

 

[newbitech]

people have been calling for Tate's resignation long before this mistake. The list is getting pretty long.

I have no doubt the man is a nice guy.

I would love to know what was learned. I'd love to hear how things are going to change and what these checks and balances are. I'd also like to know why these checks and balances weren't already in place.

How about we have a little vote and see if there is a difference between the small vocal minority that bash the man vs an election that would smooth the curve between hateful dissent and thoughtful process.

I am sure that if Tate is a great guy, then the election will reflect that, and I am sure that if he has the proper credentials, then he will be able to overcome the character criticisms and stand on the merits of his work.

Vote.

 

[LittleLightShining]

A small but vocal minority has decided to wage cruel and vicious personal attacks against our president, John Tate.


1. I do not recall anything really bad being said about him as a person. I remember various people calling him a neocon, party hack, incompetent regarding his position within the C4L and so forth, but nobody, (and I'm not perfect I might have missed a post somewhere,) got personal with him. (A few of us on here did get personal with each other.... )

2. He sat on this for two days and issued a statement that did not please most of those paying attention.
3. He had an active role in crafting the survey and the ad
4. He has way more "experience" at the political "game" than I do and he's "still learning"????

Do not forget, that a "small but vocal minority" caused them to pull the ad and state they would not do this again. That, and who knows how many canceled their membership..... sigh.

I'm sticking with 'em for a while folks, like I said before, we chose to carry Ron's message, if we have to be the conscience of the C4L, so be it. We can do it better from within than on the outside.

Thanks for posting this. That line got me, too, since I'm sure I'm one of the vocal minority. I can't help but wonder if he's been privy to any of the criticism or if he's being fed bits and pieces.

 

[erowe1]

So now Ronnie is also continuing to insist that the real purpose of the ad was to promote those surveys, and that it was only because of poor execution that it looked like an ad for Ken Buck?

I'm sorry, but that's not plausible. And the more they repeat that line, the more disappointed I am.

Was this ad the result of a backroom deal where some Ken Buck supporters put up the money for it and used CFL as their front group, and made the survey thing a pretext for the ad so that they could claim it was not an endorsement of the candidate? Until CFL leaders clearly and explicitly address this charge and explain exactly what really happened, this won't be over.

 

[idirtify]

So now Ronnie is also continuing to insist that the real purpose of the ad was to promote those surveys, and that it was only because of poor execution that it looked like an ad for Ken Buck?

I'm sorry, but that's not plausible. And the more they repeat that line, the more disappointed I am.

Was this ad the result of a backroom deal where some Ken Buck supporters put up the money for it and used CFL as their front group, and made the survey thing a pretext for the ad so that they could claim it was not an endorsement of the candidate? Until CFL leaders clearly and explicitly address this charge and explain exactly what really happened, this won't be over.

“Poor execution”? No, they didn’t even admit that much. They only confessed that “WE had poor COMMUNICATION”, and in a way that could put half the blame on us for misunderstanding (“had” could either be active or passive - or both).

Although they state that “we made mistakes”, there’s no real apology. Not only that, but then they turn it around and scold some of their donators for overreacting. Of course they don’t specifically explain what is and is not “constructive criticism” – because to do that they would have to specifically explain their “mistakes” and how/why they made them (your last paragraph is probably a very good guess).

 

[__27__]

Who is Ronnie Paul?

 

[JamesButabi]

Transparency. It has none.

 

[RCA]

For some reason, this letter pisses me off more than Tate's, though I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because even more time has passed with a repeat of nearly the same response as Tate.

 

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

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.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
- Samuel Adams

I disagree with personal attacks, but I do think the C4L needs better leadership.

 

[jmdrake]

Ron has a brother named Ronnie? Gee, that has to get confusing.

I'm pretty sure Ronnie is his son as in "Ron Paul Jr."

http://www.biography.com/articles/Ron-Paul-265881

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Hate to say it, but this is a joke. A "kind and decent family man" Tate may be, but it has zero bearing on what has happened in this organization.

I'm also inclined to agree with others who said this looks like more spin. There's no way you spend several hundred thousand on an ad just to get a candidate's positions on record. That's absolute nonsense.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

I have met both Ronnie Paul and John Tate. I can't say I know them very well, but they are certainly likable sorts. I'd appreciate if discussions on this situation remains as respectful as possible...

"cruel and vicious personal attacks"

While I saw plenty of angry and impassioned responses, I don't recall anything warranting the above. I am sure there must have been trolls (who never let a good crisis go to waste) and imagine I just missed/scanned past the worst of it.

Others are raising valid points. I'd like to address why I think all of the outrage is directed at John Tate.

Our movement strives for individual liberty, which requires individual responsibility. At the end of the day, the buck has to stop somewhere. It stops at John Tate.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Really sad.

I've continued to look for info confirming political connections between CFL upper level staffers and Colorado GOPers. I am not posting the stuff until after the money bombs (today and tomorrow), but I have every intention of posting what I've found (with links) so that OUR members - regardless of whether they're members of CFL or not - have more information and can make up their own minds.

If I happen to come across personal attacks on Tate, I won't post those.

And for the record, so far, I've not seen anything negative to him personally.

The story has been picked up in various places.

 

[jmdrake]

So now Ronnie is also continuing to insist that the real purpose of the ad was to promote those surveys, and that it was only because of poor execution that it looked like an ad for Ken Buck?

I'm sorry, but that's not plausible. And the more they repeat that line, the more disappointed I am.

Was this ad the result of a backroom deal where some Ken Buck supporters put up the money for it and used CFL as their front group, and made the survey thing a pretext for the ad so that they could claim it was not an endorsement of the candidate? Until CFL leaders clearly and explicitly address this charge and explain exactly what really happened, this won't be over.

I think the idea was to get to a "ratings" system like other organizations such as the NRA. Let's say the same ad ran, but at the end it said "The Campaign for Liberty gave Ken Buck and 95% freedom rating*" and then said "paid for by friends of Ken Buck"? That may have ticked a few less people off. And it probably wouldn't have had the same effect on other candidates "clamoring for surveys". After all, the CFL has nowhere near the clout of the NRA and similar organizations. So yeah, I think a "back room deal" was struck, but at this point I don't think it was nefarious, just short sighted. The ad was supposed to help Ken Buck and the CFL gain clout at the same time. Win / win if Buck hadn't been so bad on foreign policy. Many GOP candidates have nothing on their website about the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. And Buck's is the only one I've seen that gives any specific length of time.

The CFL still has a need for their surveys to be taken seriously. But it needs to use a different approach. 1) The survey itself is no good. Too much wiggle room on foreign policy. 2) They need to use a different approach to get politicians to take it.


* I'm still curious about the question he answered wrong and I also think the survey is poorly done.

 

[idirtify]

And for the record, so far, I've not seen anything negative to him personally.

Maybe there was. But it doesn’t matter. For them to scold ANY of their donors in this way is stupid AND suspect, no matter if the worst is true. ANY mistake of such magnitude will evoke overreactions from donors; but if the mistake was theirs, they shouldn’t minimize it and maximize members’ overreactions. That’s the kind of behavior typical of more traditional political establishments and psychotic personality disorders (blame others for, and/or distract attention away from, YOUR mistakes).