Just The Facts…
Written by Mark Harris on April 28th, 2005Krueger Letter Full Text as requested by CRVets
Wow… today I’ve been bombarded with emails so I wanted to take some time for those of you who don’t want to wade through miles of campaign spin on both sides to hammer things out (though as always I think the case speaks decidedly for Davidson or atleast against Gourley, just to put that up front for those who want to get on their high and mighty horses and slash and burn my rep.)
I have obtained a leader from Michael Krueger, former ED of the CRNC, which attempts to rebut some of Michaels claims and I would like to briefly unspin some things.
Kreuger Claim 1: Davidson put up his new site on October 6, 2004, diverting money and resources from people on the ground fighting for the President.
Analysis: Well Kreuger is right, the timing is a bit to be desired in that we wish it was up EARLIER. But his absolutely nonsensical claim that “Not can we afford to have a chairman who diverts critical funds to projects that cannot be utilized when they are most needed” is such blatant spin work that I am dizzy. The fact is that the website as a tool to centralize message and coordinate CRs is invaluable and that surely for the 30-odd days it was up before the election proved probably very helpful. I really am disappointed in Kreuger for this unneeded and down right ignorant attack, which anyone with internet expierence knows is spurious nonsense. STRIKE ONE
Krueger Claim 2: We don’t know that Davidson really raised $150,000 and how much went to Moxie instead of solid grassroots.
Analysis: Come on Michael! This just gets worse, if the people running the CRNC have such a one dimensional view of what “grassroots” is then they all should be fired. I know Mr. Krueger knows better than this, Moxie has won critical acclaim and serves as a great messaging device for the CRs. He’s right in that documentation of the $150k raised would be nice from the Davidson campaign (hint, hint, to the Davidson folks publish what you have). But even so this is a total “attacking a straw man” propaganda point. STRIKE TWO
Krueger Claim 3: Davidson claims he wants to change things, but according to Krueger things couldn’t get any better, blah, blah, blah.
Analysis: Ok who was the Gourley speech writer who wrote this crap, I mean I don’t even support the man but could write a better argument than this. Their major point is that they finally ended RDI. Yet, Krueger fails to mention that it was ended after it hit the press. They didn’t end it cause they had any moral problem with it, they ended it because they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Come on! I will admit that the CRNC did some good things this fall, but clearly it is desperately in need of new leadership when all it can do is speak in platitudes and pat itself on the back. Krueger, you’re a smart guy, why are you writing such pointless jibberish. I mean logically just cause you did some things right doesn’t mean there isn’t a need for fresh blood in the CRNC.
FOUL BALL, He pulls out the RDI crap but still has some point with their field rep program.
Krueger Claim 4: The 50-50 split of fundraising will hurt small state Federations while benefiting big ones like California, Pennsylvania, and others.
Analysis: Ok now maybe Krueger is on to something. I think clearly Davidson will need to flesh out how to make sure that small Feds are not disadvantaged and that money is appropriated wisely. But then Krueger brings up some stuff about chapter materials (ok, those boxes in the begining of the year full of pointless DONATED crap do not count), staffing, etc, is not entirely true. Any decent fundraising program that doesn’t take a 80%+ cut (cough… cough… RDI) will be able to hire some staffers and with the permanent regional reps they could and should develop long term development support networks that will fund their positions. This will help to alleviate alot of these problems. Davidson’s plan does need some hashing out but, I think if one looks at the Gourley plan.
[Brian the talking dog from Family guy interrupts]
Brian: Mark, are you sure it’s a plan, are you sure it isn’t…. NOTHING!
Oh yeah that’s right there is no Gourley plan for fundraising other than “uhh… we’ll send out more letters.”
FOUL BALL DOWN THE LINE, COUNT IS STILL 0-2.
Krueger Claim 5: Ann Coulter never endorsed
Analysis: STRIKE THREE, YOU’RE OUT. Don’t pass go, don’t collect $200. This has been rehashed a million times and in the words of the guy from Billy Madison we’re all dumber from having heard it, may God have mercy on his soul. It was a clear mixup, but no wrong doing. This is just sheer desperation
Krueger Claim 6: Minnesota recieved 64.7% of the total funding going to states is a bald-face lie by the Davidson campaign
Analysis: Well Mr. Krueger, what you say may be true but no effort has been made to explain any of this until it was actually dug up. These arrangements that you are talking about just needed to be explained, but I would like a break down of what was “funneling of funds” and what the actual block grants were. Will that be too much of a problem or does the CRNC mafia-esqe silencing policy prevent this from happening? I mean come on, the threatening that goes down in this race is absolutely hysterical. Its like we got Don Hoplin ready to “make some offers people can’t refuse.” I’ve been even told by folks “its a shame I am throwing away my political career for something like this.” People, including Plecknik’s idiotic statements against CRVets for truth, who make such ignorant and stupid comments don’t deserve a place at the adult table with us.
So we now have an old ED of the CRNC whose letter was obviously written by some very clueless people over at Gourley HQ. I think Krueger is a good guy, but I mean come on surely he can write something better than this piece.
Let me remind folks of the facts of this election: RDI, RDI, RDI, RDI, RDI, oh and… RDI. Yes Davidson has some good plans for the future of the CRNC but the only issue that really matters to me is that Gourley has admitted to willingly signing letters to defraud old folks of their money. ADMITTED!!! Hoplin said it was courageous (translation: Hoplin didn’t want to ruin his future political hopes by signing the letter so he got Gourley to do it for him). I call it disgusting.
28
PM
I am the Kansas Federation state chairman. This letter from Mr. Krueger is an embarrassment to himself, and insulting to any CR. I cannot believe a former national officer would conduct himself in such a biased manner. I sincerely hope Mr. Gourley’s campaign stays clear of any involvement with Mr. Krueger’s ranting. Spin or not, personal attacks like this letter from our leadership cannot be tolerated.
28
PM
Mark,
I understand your Anti-Gourley spin on the Krueger letter, after all this is politics. However if, as you admit, RDI and financial ethics is the central issue in this campaign, then how can you ignore the fact the Davidson campaign is actively and aggressively misleading CRs on the financial picture of the CRNC (and arguably California as well).
Davidson used bloated non IRS numbers that included millions in fake RDI debt (the CRNC is not 4-5 MILLION dollars in debt, in fact they are not in debt at all) to create the dishonest impression that the CRNC only gave 0.28% of its expenditures to states in 2004. In fact the actual number was roughly 50% and none of the money went to Minnesota as Davidson would have us believe. He knew all this and still choose to distort the truth for his own personal advantage- is that the fiscal transparency you want?
Davison has willfully distorted his own record in California as well by using an undocumented $150,000 figure that includes in-kind contributions (his own website says so). This means that if there was a nice $1,000/table dinner in Sacramento and the CCRs got free tickets he could add that to his deceitful fundraising figure. I know if we used this kind of accounting when I was Virginia’s State Chairman I could have claimed to have raised 300 times what I actually did. This is just patently dishonest.
Thus, if unethical finances grounded in RDI are the driving issue in this campaign, Davidson certainly shouldn’t be your knight in shining armor.
Respectfully,
~Brian Mazanec
PS: I humbly suggest your blog posts the Krueger letter so CRs can decide for themselves. Commentary is good but the primary document should be there as well.
28
PM
The California College Republicans website was launched in November, 2003. The claim that it was launched in October, 2004 is laughable and will be rebutted with evidence. The blog on the website goes back to early 2004 anyway.
28
PM
To clarify, the “in-kind” fundraising does not include free tickets to fundraisers, etc. Instead, it refers to, for example, a donor who owns a hotel giving rooms to house the CCRs during a convention. That would constitute a donation, and that is what CCR and YourCRNC was counting.
28
PM
Jay your logic makes no sense. Mike is specifically responding to claims made by davidson (false they turn out) about what Mike himself did during his time as ED. I think what you are really sayign is that you are insulted that a good guy defends himself and in the process makes your canidate look like an idiot.
28
PM
Jay coming from someone who endorsed Davidson, I am not surprised you’d say that. Equally so, as a Gourley supporter, I’d ask why you’re not wondering where is Davidson’s filing for California? Recently he has made this a central tenet of his campaign and if he didn’t file for the money then I am pretty concerned.
28
PM
Bryan, I do think you rise a point worth looking into. Though again, why will no one explain RDI? I mean sure Davidson may have done stupid stuff, but that is still a big MAYBE so far, which at the moment I believe to be more Gourley hot air. That being said… its all about RDI for me, and the defrauding of old folks. On the count its game-set-match anyone but Gourley (and Hoplin)
29
AM
Bryan. Leaders, people that have a responsibility to others, should not be taking cheap parting shots at their opposition, regardless of who they support. There is a level of maturity that is required out of our leaders, something that supporters on each side sorely lack. Stand up for ethical behavior on each side of the debate, expect more out of our leaders, and act the same.