Caskey hit by shockingly dishonest political attack


This is one of the most unfair, unwarranted attacks on a political candidate I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen a lot of trash in my day.

And in terms of showing contempt for the intelligence of voters, I’m sure it’s the worst. I’m insulted that it came to my home, because it is aimed at idiots. And in keeping with the times, at a particular variety of idiot — the kind that will believe a painfully obvious liar when he accuses someone else of “lyin’.” There are obviously some of those about, but most people know I’m not one of them.

To be anything other than insulted by this mailer, a person would have to be completely ignorant of the following:

  • That Micah Caskey didn’t somehow pass this long-overdue measure alone. When he voted for the gas tax increase — our state’s first in three decades, which came as part of legislation that also reformed the unaccountable Department of Transportation — he was doing so as part of an overwhelming Republican, conservative majority. He was supporting something that only unprincipled political cowards, such as our feckless governor, opposed.
  • That the gas tax increase is to be phased in over six years, and the first one-sixth of it was implemented less than a year ago.
  • That even if the entire amount had magically been raised at once, it’s far too early for anyone to expect the work it was meant to pay for to have been completed.
  • That NO ONE has ever said anything to suggest that Lexington County roads would be first in line to be fixed, and even if they had been, again, this would be awfully early to expect the work to be done.
  • That Micah Caskey has never said, to my knowledge, a false word about roads or taxes or anything else that’s come up since he’s been in office.
  • More specifically, that he has not only never said, he has never even hinted, anything that anyone, even the biggest idiot in the world (this mailer’s intended audience), could possibly interpret as suggesting that within 11 months of the first sliver of the tax increase being implemented, the road problems of his district would be solved.

Yeah, that last sentence was kind of involved. It got away from me a little and got kinda repetitive. Chalk it up to the fact that I am really ticked off to see this.

It’s not just that no candidate, even a bad one, deserves to have this kind of scurrilous crud flung at him.

It’s not just that Micah Caskey is about as far as you can get from being a bad candidate. In fact, he may be the best representative I’ve ever had. He’s one of only two political candidates whose signs I have put up in my yard ever.

No, my fury has an added edge because these out-of-state sleazebags (the organization is based in Virginia) had the unmitigated gall to cite ME as a source. They quote something Micah said that was perfectly true and reasonable, and follow it with this transparent, pernicious, entirely unsupported falsehood: “Look around… he lied.”

This is beyond disgusting.

At this point I could use a laugh, so let’s end with this: The group claims that it “does not endorse, support or oppose candidates for elected office.”

So I guess they just do things like this to good people, a couple of weeks before the primary, for the sheer fun of it…

scan 2

67 thoughts on “Caskey hit by shockingly dishonest political attack

  1. Brad Warthen Post author

    Note that these people don’t argue that our roads don’t need fixing.

    Nor do they claim or suggest that there was anyone to fix them other than raising the gas tax.

    No, the whole thing is based in suggesting that Micah Caskey did something he did not do — suggest that, less than a year after the first sixth of the tax increase was implemented, the roads in his county would be fixed.

    It just boggles the mind that anyone would have this kind of nerve, to suggest something like this and then assert that it’s the OTHER person who’s lying…

  2. Doug Ross

    Why don’t you use your connections to find out which political consultant is responsible for this and then name and shame him? Caskey probably knows or can find out. If you want to change the system, you have to hold PEOPLE responsible.

    Although the gas tax was implemented in a very stupid way.. With people paying in and then having to track receipts to get a refund on income taxes next year. One of the dumbest ideas yet.

    As for the DOT, we are seeing how effective they are with the bridge closing in Wando. Warned repeatedly for years about the stability, they ignored it.. and now are covering up their incompetence. Why do we give more money to these people?

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Actually, Doug, this is from an organization founded by your guy Ron Paul.

      Which frankly surprises me. I really wouldn’t expect him to be in any way affiliated with anything this scurrilous, this dishonest. I expect to disagree with Paul, but I thought more highly of him than this…

      1. Doug Ross

        Are you positive it is them? What would their purpose be? Are they supporting someone else? Seems fishy.

        1. bud

          Why would it seem fishy? The libertarians are really just a cult peddling snake oil.

          As for the DOT. That is a really unfair comment. Of course the people at DOT knew the Wando bridge was a problem. What are they supposed to do, waive a magic wand and fix the thing. Again, libertarian thinking people are the problem.

          1. Doug Ross

            They knew about it for years. And now they are going into full bunker mode to avoid accountability. Typical government oligarchs.

            1. bud

              Seriously Doug you and your libertarian nonsense are the problem. The DOT knows about lots and lots and lots of problems and fixes the ones they have money for. It sounds like you’re suggesting some type of conspiracy to intentionally allow the roads to decline. For what purposes. That’s ridiculous. Why would anyone do such a thing. It’s sort of like the guy who kills his parents then asks for leniency because he’s an orphan. We need to fund the DOT. Fund it generously. Fund it quickly. Having driven through NC and TX recently it is clear we don’t have the resources to fix roads properly but that it can be done.

        2. Scout

          Their purpose would appear to be to malign any tax increase – period.

          I don’t think it’s personal to Micah Caskey – they appear to have made similar ads targeting any legislator who voted for the tax increase across the state with the same tag line..”look around….he lied.” I don’t know if they were all mailers, but I’ve found similar facebook ads against Bill Crosby and Samuel Rivers with the same tagline from the SC Campaign for Liberty.

          1. Brad Warthen Post author

            “I don’t think it’s personal to Micah Caskey.”

            And that’s the problem with ideologues — especially lying scuzzball ideologues such as these, who despise facts.

            They don’t distinguish whether their target is one of the brightest new lawmakers on the scene or some slacker who should never have been elected. They look at ONE vote that THEY don’t like and that’s it — they reach out with their lies to do as much harm as they can to that individual…

        3. Brad Warthen Post author

          Yes, Doug, I’m as positive as I can be.

          The “website” for “South Carolina Campaign for Liberty” is just a state PAGE on the website of the national organization. The sort of thing you create to con people into thinking all this was somehow the idea of South Carolinians. You get some local people to be your local faces and set up a local address, and your facade is complete.

          I go straight to the “Contact Us” page, and this is what I get:

          Campaign for Liberty
          5211 Port Royal Road, Suite 310
          Springfield, VA 22151

          And then I go to Wikipedia, and I see the same logo and this description:

          The Campaign for Liberty (C4L) is a political organization founded by twelve-term United States Congressman Ron Paul. Campaign for Liberty focuses on educating elected officials and the general public about constitutional issues, and currently provides a membership program. Its legal status is that of a 501(c)(4) nonprofit.

          The Campaign for Liberty was announced on June 12, 2008 as a way of continuing the grassroots support involved in Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential run, and corresponded with the suspension of that campaign.[citation needed] Paul formally announced during the Texas Republican Convention that he had created this new organization known as the “Campaign for Liberty”….

          One hopes Ron Paul doesn’t know what his organization is doing these days…

          1. Brad Warthen Post author

            Or perhaps it’s the other way around. Perhaps you have some local extremists who wanted to do something outrageous, and they put it out under the auspices of a national organization to look “respectable.”…

          2. Doug Ross

            Here you go:


            Phone: (703) 865-7162

            Heather Danielowski
            Director of State Operations
            Heather Danielowski oversees all of Campaign for Liberty’s State Operations program, including recruitment and training of state leaders.

            Call her up and express your outrage.

            And, cynic that I am, just because a postcard has the name of an organization on it doesn’t mean that organization sent it.. especially in the state of South Carolina where dirty tricks are the standard m.o, for political operatives, Why not confirm that the CFL did this? Wouldn’t that be what a reporter would do?

            1. Brad Warthen Post author

              I’m not a reporter — I haven’t been one since 1980 — and I HAVE expressed my outrage.

              Do you harbor some belief that I can make such people see the error of their ways with a phone call?

              1. Doug Ross

                I harbor the idea that posting a rant on your blog won’t likely change anything. I mean you were grievously injured by the post card, right? Enough to write a blog post but apparently not enough to dial a phone number and express your outrage. Words vs. Action.

                1. Brad Warthen Post author

                  I’m interested to hear what good would come of me yelling at that person.

                  I see y’all as susceptible to reason. I don’t think anyone who is so far gone as to be associated with that mailer is going to go, “Golly, you’re right?”

                  Do you harbor the belief that that is possible?

                  Anyway, I’m not interested in playing the “If you really care, I double-dog dare you to do this!” game.

                  As you say, when I was an editor in a newsroom, I would have instructed a reporter to call that number in the course of reporting the news story.

                  This is not a news blog. As I’ve said so many times, I don’t have the resources to publish a news blog.

                  This is commentary…

                2. Doug Ross

                  Why do you need to yell at the person? Why not first confirm that your anger is not misplaced? Then ask for an explanation. Nah… better to be outraged and direct your anger at Ron Paul.

                  This is reminiscent of when John McCain was smeared with all sorts of terrible lies in South Carolina in 2000 and never fought back. He let Karl Rove destroy his campaign and just took it like a good Republican.

                  1. Brad Warthen Post author

                    I didn’t direct anger at Ron Paul. I said that I was surprised that anything this scurrilous came from a group with which he was associated. Look back. That’s what I said…

                  2. Brad Warthen Post author

                    You and I sort of take veering approaches toward some things.

                    For instance, I’ve never understood how you somehow blame McCain for what was done to him South Carolina. I lose that train of thought completely….

                3. Doug Ross

                  I blame him for not fighting a terrible action taken against him. He rolled over and supported Bush in the end. He put his part loyalty ahead of his family. That was the beginning of the end for me in regards to him.

                  1. Brad Warthen Post author

                    Yeah. None of that makes any sense to me. I remember being taught at a very young age not to be a sore loser. It stuck with me. So I see accepting defeat gracefully as a good thing rather than a bad one, or at the very least a neutral one.

                    It leaves me mad at the people who attacked McCain, but it doesn’t leave me mad at HIM. That would make no sense to me…

  3. Karen Pearson

    Until we stop accepting ad hominem attacks as legitimate campaigning and come up with some way to limit funding from out of state groups we can forget reasonable ads. Don’t people realize that out of state groups don’t have our best interests in mind and have probably bought the candidate who most benefits from their attacks?

    1. Harry Harris

      This comment is spot on target. The title of this thread using the word “shockingly dishonest” makes me think “Brad, where have you been lately.” Far from shocking, this is right where political tactics have been for decades. I’d be shocked to hear a reasoned, straight-shooting attack on a local politician even from the mouth of his opponent in a Republican primary. When the shadow groups start firing their powder, you can bet it’s going to be deceptive, dishonest, and often timed to prevent retort before the voting. If a group uses 501c status to hide their donor’s identities, that’s one big clue to their veracity.
      I still despise the way the Obama administration allowed a hatchet job done on the IRS for trying to do their job enforcing the law with regard to TEA party and other groups. They tried to scrutinize unlawful spending by all groups, but ineptly profiled conservative outfits. The big reason is the number of right-oriented groups with shadow funding that violate the law. Your taxes should not subsidize the Koch brothers political speech and activity by allowing advocacy groups to claim to be “educational” or eleemosynary. I want to see some legal action by the Democrats to bring the sham nature of those groups to light. The rules that let the Heritage foundation advocate politically while enabling their donors to deduct their funding should be tightened significantly. They are promoting their agenda subsidized by your tax dollars.

      1. Brad Warthen Post author

        I went through several modifiers on that. In retrospect, maybe “grossly” is better than “shockingly”…

        The thing that made it feel so bad to me, so scurrilous, is that this was a case of courageous leadership — leadership unusual in a freshman such as himself — on Micah’s part. This was a very GOOD thing he did, showing far more leadership than our governor. To have it thus twisted into a BAD thing is profoundly disgusting.

        You’d think, with a group founded by Paul, they’d go after him on philosophical grounds. They would just say, openly and honestly (from their perspective), that raising this or any other tax is a bad thing. It would be a stupid argument, but an honest one.

        But again, they didn’t do that. They didn’t say we don’t need to fix the roads. They didn’t say there was a way to fix the roads other than raising the tax. No, they accused him of raising the tax and not fixing the roads. That’s what made it so gross — and yeah, a little shocking, to me.

        There’s just an extra unnecessary level of dishonesty here, that I don’t expect from this group.

        It’s sort of like… starting with Ronald Reagan, I had grown accustomed to people on the right resenting having to pay taxes for government services. It was childish and stupid, but understandable, on a certain base level. By the early part of the last decade, I accepted it as a given.

        But then, Mark Sanford managed to shock me. He was the first politico I remember encountering who didn’t care where the money came from — it could come raining down for free out of a clear blue sky. It wasn’t about the taxes. He just didn’t want the money to be spent on government, no matter where it came from. Hence his opposition to SC receiving stimulus money that had already been appropriated, and was going to be spent SOMEWHERE — he just didn’t want it spent on government services in his state.

        THAT shocked me. Now, the woods are full of extremists like him. But when he came along, that was a shock…

        1. Harry Harris

          I would agree. I think that Sanford’s picture is in the dictionary as part of the definition of “ideologue.”

  4. Richard

    So you’re one of those people who read these things… mine, regardless of the candidate on the card, goes from the mailbox straight to the trash.

  5. Bart

    Roads and bridges in South Carolina have been in terrible condition for decades yet the expectation that once the tax was implemented somehow in a magical wave of a wand all of the roads and bridges would be repaired or replaced overnight? It does take a while for the funds to come in and to establish a priority for roads and bridges to be repaired or replaced or are some too misinformed and ignorant of how these things actually work? Given the snails pace and history of the way South Carolina politicians and state agencies address problems, the fact that any roads or bridges have been fixed is a surprise.

    Attacking Caskey is the epitome of ignorance and lack of judgment.

    1. Barry

      I drove to Spartanburg a few times last week. The interstate through malfunction junction and up past Chapin was entirely substandard. I have a new sedan that rides very comfortably on decent roads.

      It felt like I was going to lose control a few times because the road is so pitted and the asphalt is so damaged.

  6. Doug Ross

    So apparently the head of the SC Campaign for Liberty is Talbert Black. Do you know him, Brad? Why not contact him directly and express your outrage? Here is a perfect opportunity to hold someone accountable for his actions.

    1. Doug Ross

      His Twitter handle is @talbertjrsc. Maybe call him out publicly to defend his organization’s statements.

      1. Doug Ross

        Also wondering why you said this came from out of state sleazebags when the card clearly has a Columbia address for the SC based organization? If it does have a local source, that eliminates that part of your outrage, right?

      2. Barry

        Talbert Black hasn’t tweeted for months. An individual would have better luck throwing a bottle in the ocean with a return phone number than tweeting a political campaign operative who hasn’t tweeted for months.

        Their Facebook page is not active with only a few posts this year. Talbert does have a personal page where he repeatedly reposts messages from other groups which are mostly anti tax messages (which are mindnumbimgly dumb as Brad pointed out).

        The guy is only followed by 114 people on Facebook. My 15 year old son has 4 times more followers than does Talbert.

        His organization is against any tax.

        The guy is goofy.

        1. Doug Ross

          What’s your point? If he was responsible for sending out the cards, surely Brad would want to confront him about it since his name was used. I’m pretty sure Talbert isn’t reading this blog. Or is this blog post just to rant about the system and not do anything about it? Words versus actions… Sort of like posting anonymously.

            1. Doug Ross

              There are two options in this case: ignore or confront. Or I guess write more blog posts about how mad you are.

              1. Scout

                There are more options. Research, education, diplomacy to name a few. For one thing, determine if the source was Talbert Black or was he just the conduit? Educate the public on why it’s an inappropriate claim. Be strategic and diplomatic in how you confront. There are more options.

          1. Barry

            My point was to point out how inconsequential this Talbert fellow happens to be.

            If Brad wants to ignore hm, call him, camp out on his doorstep,or raid his house, I’d assume he can decide on his own.

            We know you don’t like anonymous posters like me. No one cares.

            1. Doug Ross

              I don’t know you so I can’t dislike you. I’m just baffled by an ( I assume) adult who is willing to post an opinion but not attach his name to it. I don’t understand the fear that requires someone to be anonymous. What’s the downside? It’s not like we are discussing state secrets.

              1. Barry

                I don’t care if you understand it or not. You don’t get to make that decision. Get over it.

                You being baffled is irrelevant.

              2. Scout

                There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Doug.

                You assume that it is a decision based out of fear and that there would be no downside. You assume alot.

                I’m baffled by a person who sees so few possibilities.

                1. Barry

                  Doing considers his limited options and no more. It’s a bad habit. It’s also intellectually dishonest.

                2. Doug Ross

                  Give me an idea of what the downside could be, please. There are at least a dozen people on this blog who use their full name and, as far as I know, none of us have experienced any negative impact. But I’m open to hearing what they might be.

                  As far as I know, there has only been one person who suffered for posting on this blog — and he uses a nickname. And the problem apparently was due to WHEN he posted, not WHAT he posted.

                  Think about how it comes across that you and “Barry” spend time criticizing me anonymously. You, Scout, can’t seem to help yourself from trying to educate me on how to think and improve myself. I’m not interested in what an anonymous person thinks of me and you’ll save yourself a lot of time and energy by finding another student.

                  I’d invite you both to show up in person the next time Brad has a blog get together. Let’s see if your anonymous personality is the same in public.

                  1. Brad Warthen Post author


                    What on Earth has Scout done to you? She’s always so measured in her responses. I don’t mean to insult Barry by just mentioning Scout, but she is particularly mild in the way she disagrees. She stands out in that regard…

                3. Doug Ross

                  There have been several occasions where Scout has attempted to treat me like one of her 4 year olds.. telling me how to “behave”. at this point in my life, I don’t need a teacher.

                4. Scout

                  I don’t know how to communicate with you apparently. I’ve been trying to figure out the best way to actually try and answer your questions above, but then I read things like you think I’m “trying to educate (you) on how to think and improve (yourself)” and you think I “treat (you) like one of (my) 4 year olds.. telling (you) how to “behave”.…….. and I realize you clearly have never understood me if that’s how you’ve perceived what I’ve said before. I’m not trying to change your behavior. I’m usually trying to show you that another perspective exists. But you don’t seem to ever acknowledge that anyone else’s perspective besides your own is valid. Or at least that is how you come across to me most of the time.

                  We are such incredibly different people, you will probably just not understand me. I accept that.

                  But I will briefly try to say two things to your points.

                  A downside to using your real name for me personally is that I work with people with very different opinions from me. I don’t want differing opinions to get in the way of me working well with them because helping children is far more important to me. I tend to be fairly private at work except for with a few people; I tend to be fairly focused – work is about work. That’s just my personality. There are enough issues within the school environment to deal with when managing relationships anyway; I don’t need other distractions. I want the focus to be on the kids. I could say more but that is crux of it, really.

                  I will also tell you straight up that my in-person personality is way muted compared to my written one. But that has nothing to do with being anonymous. That is just how I’m wired. I can always write more than I can say.

  7. JesseS

    I’m more amazed that this didn’t break the 3 font rule. Too bad there isn’t a rule against present participle contraction followed by a proper noun.

    When Trump came into office, I heard a lot of the left repeat the word “normalization” over and over again. What’s weird is the stuff that has been normalized. You really don’t see grown men groping women on the street, but you do see “Describin’ So-and-so” and I’ve noticed that some commentators are more inclined to use 4 letter words than before. Shouldn’t we be a little worried about the little foxes that spoil the vine –er **** Spoilin’ Foxes?

    If I saw this in my mailbox, I’d chuckle for a half second at the sheer silliness of it, and then toss it on the burn pile with the rest of the garbage. Not that it isn’t, oh Lord, deplorable.

    1. bud

      You really don’t see grown men groping women on the street, but you do see “Describin’ So-and-so” and I’ve noticed that some commentators are more inclined to use 4 letter words than before.


      1. Scout

        I think he’s saying that Trump’s habit of creating a derogatory nick name for people that fits the format of “adjective – name” has been imitated and come into common usage more than other irritating stuff that Trump has done. On the flyer they call him “lyin’ Micah Caskey”.

  8. Bart

    Like many, I have been following and posting on this blog for years. And like many, when asked by Brad to provide a profile with full disclosure, I complied. Over the years, many have posted without supplying credentials the way bud, Doug, Scout, and other have. Others have remained hidden behind a screen name and refuse to provide the same information several of us have. And when confronted by the anonymous commenters, it is irritating and IMHO, a rather cowardly way to participate.

    We may have our differences and that is not a bad thing. I disagree with some of what bud posts but in the end, I would really enjoy meeting bud when or if Brad has another blog get-together. When I met Kathryn, Doug, and others at the last one, it was one of the highlights of the year for me. The conversation, exchanges, and getting to know each other went a long way to dispel any misconceptions we may have formed about each other. Phillip was a total delight to meet and he gained my respect more than he will ever know, same with Kathryn and the everyone else at the get-together. Doug is the real thing, no dishonesty, he is who he is in person as he is on the blog. Of course, Kathryn nailed me after a few minutes of a great conversation. And the point is that even with some of our social and economic ideological differences, we found common ground and for me, respect for everyone who took time to engage.

    It is much easier to be an anonymous ass on the keyboard and posting than to be one in person, face to face.

    1. Barry

      Brad knows my name and we have communicated by email quite a few times.

      I don’t care if anyone else on here knows me or not. I’ll stick to the status quo regardless if it pleases you or Doug.

          1. Doug Ross

            At least you have the name of the pot. I don’t make it my objective to criticize you… You seem to find it a life mission to track my activity.

            1. Barry

              Nah, just in your mind. You comment on virtually everything and I almost always enthusiastically disagree so I chime in

              Otherwise, I don’t care.

              1. Doug Ross

                Re-read that last post. You apparently care enough to comment on many of my posts. Who needs to ignore whom? What purpose does it serve for you to reply to me when it a) won’t change my mind and b) doesn’t offer anything substantial in terms of content?

                1. Barry

                  It’s fun to reply to you at this point since it obviously gets you worked up.

                  And you always reply.

      1. Bart

        So? When asked to supply our identities the ones who replied did so and posted it on the blog for ALL to see. See the difference and understand why your comments are actually not relevant if you cannot stand by them as who you are? Remain anonymous if you wish, that is between you and Brad. As for me, when “Barry” appears on a post will skip over it and count it as meaningless and faceless.

        1. Brad Warthen Post author


          You know I prefer that you use your real names, and full names when I can get you to.

          Many years ago, I asked Doug to use his full name and he complied and I appreciate that.

          But I don’t hold it against people if they don’t feel like they can comply.

          Does anyone really think the blog would be better off if, for instance, I barred Scout for failing to use her real name (yeah, I mean you, Miss Jean Louise). I think we’d lose out on a lot of thoughtful input.

          There are people who abuse anonymity. There are others who, while remaining anonymous, enrich the blog. I think it’s important to make room for them.

          For me, it’s ultimately about the value of the ideas…

          1. Scout

            Oh alright then.

            Sorry I’ve been very busy wrapping up end of school year paperwork and room packing etc. Just now seeing all this is still going on.

            Hi, my name is Shannon Cotham, aka Scout. And the kitty in my picture is Sadie.

            Doug what is your doggie’s name 🙂 If we are going to fight like cats and dogs we might as well know their names too.

            I think you probably think I single you out to criticize but I promise it’s not personal. We just really seem to disagree on a lot of things that are important to me. We are just really very different people.

            But Hi, I’m Shannon. Nice to meet you.

          1. Doug Ross

            You care enough to respond three times to tell me to ignore you. Seems like you should follow your own advice.

            1. Barry

              If I choose to do so, I’ll do it.

              I think I’ll make my own decision though regardless of what you say.

  9. Doug Ross

    I don’t have as a problem with anonymous commenters until they start trying to either directly criticize me or try to engage in a dialogue specifically with me. Be adult enough to identify yourself in that case.

  10. Edward B

    It’s sad that C4L has come to this – negative mailers, and such, that are beyond-the-pale. It is disgustingly true, negative campaigning works (in a world of Universal Suffrage). I do not believe Ron Paul is specifically aware of this and if he is aware, it is only in the most general sense. Some actors take advantage of his name ID.

    In the early days of C4L, as it’s membership was growing, there came an internal struggle. I was there.
    On one hand, the many , the “grassroots,” that saw Ron’s vision for a bottom-up organization of boots-on-the-ground volunteers, an army of the politically active acting locally and coordinating with other member groups – a decentralized membership organization advocating for issues and supporting like-minded candidates and candidate’s campaigns. To have a positive impact.
    On the other hand, the few that wanted, and taught, to “make politicians hurt” – “hold their feet to fire” the closest – make them “feel the pain” – “punish them” – “make them fear us” etc. They were top-down, centralized, controlling and wanted to make maximum use of negative efforts.
    The few won control. They were the Bashers. The many left. We were the Builders. What you see there today is a shadow of what it once was. The web site retains the grassroots structure but it’s population is inactive. Today the C4L isn’t but a handful of people. But they, like so many Power Centers (as Political Scientists call them), do collect money.

    My advice has been and still is, when you receive mailers like this that are not even remotely true, send it with a letter outlining the truth (as you have done above) to Ron Paul. He needs to know what’s being done with his good name.

    ~a Constitutional Conservative (sad that a modifier has to be used these days)

Comments are closed.