I am actually not sure what to think of John Tate’s statement. He starts out by rejecting the notion that C4L in any way endorses Ken Buck. Fine. He points out that no existing C4L donor funds were used. OK. He also points out that he takes “our message of peace, freedom, and prosperity as well as the responsibility entrusted to [him] to run this organization very seriously”. Great!
So then, after raising all these valid points, all conceding that C4L has no business supporting in any way a war mongerer, he sneaks in this:
“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.”
Why did he add this sentence? Is he trying to prep us for a watering down of our message of peace and freedom?? Excuse me, but what does he mean by “occasional topics”. The issue of opposing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is not an occasional topic. It is based on fundamental C4L principles!
Yes, we may have our disagreements on certain things, like what the best strategies are to spread our message, or whether we should abolish the Fed or simply legalize competition with it. But there can’t be any discussion on whether or not we support shooting people (who have never posed an imminent threat to us) in foreign countries.
So, this section of his statement I found rather confusing and disturbing …