By James Stringfield
Mark Lloyd has endorsed a candidate for the 5th Congressional District Republican nomination, but in his endorsement he did not make it crystal clear whether his endorsement comes as an individual or as leader of the Lynchburg Tea Party. I have heard it said plainly and often from leaders and participants in the Lynchburg Tea Party that the one thing we have going for us as conservatives and as Patriots is that we have on our side the one essential characteristic before which all other principles and slogans must bow – truth. Seeing that Mark has made an endorsement of a candidate for the 5th District Republican congressional nomination, and in so doing has invoked his position as leader of the local Lynchburg Tea Party and as Vice-Chairman of the VFTPP, I would expect him in his endorsement to state clearly and uncategorically (to clear any misunderstanding) that his endorsement comes not from him as chairman of the Lynchburg Tea Party but from him as an individual. Approximately half of the Lynchburg Tea Party does not share in Mark’s endorsement and this fact needs to be made abundantly clear.
Of Truth: In his endorsement Mark Lloyd states he spent one day with Jim McKelvey traveling the 5th District. In the interest of truth, I think it incumbent upon Mark to disclose to readers of the blog and all other interested persons the actual amount of time he has spent with Jim McKelvey: grooming McKelvey, training McKelvey, making contacts for McKelvey, introducing McKelvey to folks around the District and in Washington, D.C., all before he made public his endorsement of McKelvey. I think it incumbent upon Mark to disclose whether, in his work for the McKelvey campaign prior to this endorsement, he made representations to these other persons and groups that his work for the McKelvey campaign was done as an individual, or as leader of the Lynchburg Tea Party. When Mark Lloyd rode alone with McKelvey to Washington, D.C., last month, was this done individually or as leader of the Lynchburg Tea Party? Did Mark obtain these Washington contacts as an individual or as leader of the Lynchburg Tea Party? If these actions of Mark Lloyd are not problematic, and in the interest of maintaining transparency and impartiality, why did he not invite all the other candidates to Washington? Why did he not, in the interest of transparency and impartiality, spend a day with all the campaigns before making an endorsement? When Mark Lloyd got off “that bus” of McKelvey’s at the first campaign stop May 18, I wonder, did he already proudly sport that “button”?
The waters of the 5th District Republican nomination are muddied, no doubt by the shear number of candidates vying for one seat. But they are also no doubt muddied by the vacillation of Virgil Goode as to whether or not he will run as an independent, and Goode’s appearances at Lynchburg Tea Party meetings at the invitation of Mark Lloyd have been with much fanfare and media attention. Goode has addressed the Lynchburg Tea Party two times, and both times Mark represented to the Lynchburg Tea Party that the purpose of his invitation to Goode was to “educate” us on a pressing political issue. But both times Goode wound up merely giving what can be characterized as nothing more than campaign speeches – further muddying the waters by adding to the speculation that he would enter the foray. It is interesting, and more so in light of Mark’s endorsement, that Goode has made many glowing, just-so statements about McKelvey, one of which is posted on the Watchdog website. In the interest of truth, I think it incumbent upon Mark to disclose the level of collaboration between he, Goode, and McKelvey, whether personally or as leader of the Lynchburg Tea Party, including the number of times he has spoken with Virgil Goode about the McKelvey campaign or met together with Goode and McKelvey. I think it incumbent upon Mark to disclose why he invited Goode to address the Lynchburg Tea Party not once but twice, tantalizing the electorate, when Mark himself had previously complained about the muddied waters of the Republican campaigns due to the number of candidates and the uncertainty of Goode’s intentions.
It should be noted, and it is telling, that after Goode’s first appearance at a Lynchburg Tea Party meeting, during which he set out an elementary-school-style “plan” for reducing the federal deficit in “2010”, McKelvey’s campaign immediately adopted Goode’s “plan” almost verbatim and presented it as his own at the subsequent Tea Party-sponsored debate in Danville. (Is this also plagiarism or merely collusion between Goode and McKelvey?)
Goode made his second appearance at a Lynchburg Tea Party meeting May 6, 2010, a mere month from the date of the June 8 primary. The Lynchburg Tea Party had already announced the week prior to the May 6 meeting that several CANDIDATES would address the meeting, but on May 5, one day before the meeting, Mark Lloyd further muddied the waters by making the decision to also invite Goode, supposedly to “educate” the Lynchburg Tea Party on immigration. But all Goode did was quote from a few headlines and give a few self-evident statements. There was no education – merely campaign stumping. After his campaign speech Goode announced he will not run in this campaign. If Goode was not running but was giving a campaign speech, for whom was he campaigning? It is now clear he was there to bolster his own status in the eyes of the Tea Party in order to bolster the status of one candidate over the others in this race (see the aforementioned statement of Goode on this website). Although Goode told me immediately after the May 6 meeting he would not endorse any candidate in this race, I do not know any other way to characterize the words of Goode in the aforementioned statement other than as a de facto endorsement. It seems that the invitations of Mark Lloyd to Goode has worked to McKelvey’s advantage. Hmm. Makes one wonder, does it not?
Attempting to put things together from my limited vantage point, it appears Mark Lloyd actively assisted the McKelvey campaign, grooming and training him, making contacts for him, introducing McKelvey to folks around the District and in Washington, D.C., all before he made public his endorsement. I think it important for folks in the Lynchburg Tea Party and others to know the amount of time Mark Lloyd spent with the McKelvey campaign. I think Mark needs to, if he can, dispel the creeping notion that he has acted as an unofficial manager for the McKelvey campaign and has used his position and contacts as leader of the Lynchburg Tea Party to further the interests of one campaign over all the others – thereby furthering his own.
I believe the concerns I have raised here need to be addressed for the sake of the future of the Lynchburg Tea Party.
Besides the issues presented above, I find it strange Mark Lloyd would support Jim McKelvey. I find it strange because, in my many conversations with Mark, he has admitted to me that McKelvey is not the strongest candidate to face Perriello this fall. Mark has admitted to me his concerns for McKelvey’s weakness on family values issues, his weak stand on abortion, and especially the fact that McKelvey is not well-versed on our Constitution. This endorsement is more astonishing in light of the fact that the Lynchburg Tea Party, of which Mark is Chairman, has as its foundational, core principle, a return to constitutionally limited government. Yet, paradoxically, he endorses a person whom he admits has a weak grasp of the Constitution. The only positive comment I have heard Mark say about McKelvey is that McKelvey is sincere and is personable; now we hear that McKelvey sheds tears over the state of our country. But is this now the measure of sincerity? Is this now the measure of a good candidate? What about showing sincerity by taking a lifetime, or at least a year or two, to learn not only the language of the Constitution but the principles undergirding the Constitution, before jumping into a political battle for the heart and soul of CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT!!
I do not doubt McKelvey’s sincerity of concern – but I do doubt his ability to lead. Accordingly, I have put my money and my time behind the candidate whom Mark Lloyd admitted to me many times was the strongest candidate in this race to unseat George Soros’ boy, Perriello. Mark Lloyd stated to me, before I chose any candidate to support, that Mike McPadden has a solid grasp on the Constitution and constitutional issues; that McPadden is “deep and wide” in his understanding of the financial and regulatory issues now facing our nation; that McPadden has the best record on family values because he is unashamedly pro-life and is time-tested in his marriage of 30 years with solid, stable, Christian, now-adult children as a product of that marriage, and with his wife one-hundred percent on board; that McPadden is the only military veteran in the race – and we are talking a 22-year military career as a navy pilot – which speaks highly of his ability to lead and stand his ground; that McPadden has the debating ability and stage presence that will be formidable against the New York lawyer from Ivy. Mind you, these are things Mark Lloyd told me about Mike McPadden before I made my decision whom to support, and once I verified these statements by grilling McPadden on several issues, I became and remain convinced that Mike McPadden deserves our support because of his abilities and needs our support so conservatives can take back this seat lost by Virgil Goode.
I appreciate this column but it may be too late for this since it seems up north the endorsement seems to be made by the Lynchburg TEA party. Mark needs to full address his involved as you have stated here.
BTW I’m laughing here because in the picture provided it appears like “Mike McPadd..” is trying to crawl up Mark’s..oh never mind
*applause*
Thank you, James, for addressing these issues. As much as Mark and I have worked together on the Lynchburg Tea Party, I can’t help but admit, that for the same reasons as you have stated, that I was highly surprised at Mark’s endorsement, which is NOT an endorsement from the Lynchburg Tea Party. As one of the Vice Chairs, this endorsement does not represent my personal views on who is the best candidate.
1. My endorsement of Jim is personal.
2. I have spent one on one time with EVERY candidate that has requested it.
3. At one point I was leaning Mike McPadden, and he is a very close #2 for me. For a long time I wanted to blend them into what I would see as the perfect candidate. I have teatered back and forth for weeks.
4. Over the last few months I have received calls from groups and individuals asking about candidates. I have put those people in touch with the candidates they wanted to meet, or speak to. I did drive to DC with Jim and introduced him to a personal friend who liked him and wanted to meet him. I would have done the same for any of the candidates. I think you can ask any candidate or campaign if I have refused any reasonable request, and I would still do the same.
James, I will finish answering your questions, now I am sitting in Northern VA traffic typing on my Blackberry
alot of McP supporters on this blog. But I will say this anyway because I think it needs to be said. McPadden has made comments about the US Constitution that I do not believe can be supported by current case law. for example: are earmarks Constitutional? McP would lead us to believe (& hey, we all WANT to believe) that they are not. But I have not seen the case law that confirms that statement.
the average person might not like lawyers, but these spend much time studying the law & the Constitution. and very few of them could claim to have an expertise on the Constitution that they would lay out to the public, the press & to Perriello to pick apart.
that being said, I think given the field of Republican candidates & the jerk currently sitting in DC, Mike McPadden could certainly claim expertise on all aviation interests.
Kelley,
There are a lot of McPadden supporters across the district and especially within the Tea Party, so it shouldn’t be of any surprise to see them on this site. Regardless, your comment seems to be a really weird response to this post. What does it have to do with the issue at hand?
perhaps I should have started my comment with “O/T”.
What makes you Kelley support Hurt other than him being young ?
Will, mr. red herring just said that my comment re: McP’s claim of expertise on Constitution was not germane to the McK v. McP & who endorsed whom thread.
i will try to be quiet.
I have not heard Mike McPadden state earmarks are unconstitutional, but I would surmise that what McPadden said or meant is that while the Constituion clearly lays the spending power in the Congress, and hence earmarks per se are theoretically allowed, many if not most of the earmarks are directed towards spending for projects that are themselves an unconstitutional exercise of the spending power because the spending is not conducive to the general welfare or common defense.
For example, spending on air force fighters jets is clearly an example of constitutional spending. A congressional decision to utilize a Boeing plant in, say Georgia, rather than a Lockheed Martin plant in Texas, is also properly left to the discretion of the Congress. But for Congress to designate money for the building of a water fountain in St. Louis or a bridge from the mainland to a small island in Alaska is unconstitutional, because these projects only benefit local interests. If the expenditure does not benefit the national interest, that spending by definition is not conducive to the common defense or general welfare, and therefore not constitutional.
Please keep in mind much of what the Congress has done or is doing and much of the federal cases interpreting constitutional law are very far beyond and outside the vision and plan set out by the Founders in the clear language of the Constitution. Because we have broken away from the essential constraints put in place by the Constitution, we have a government unmoored from its legitimate basis for respect and obedience. To this point our society has been able to be held together and in check due to our natural inclination to obey authorities. But once the authorities lose their legitimacy, societal break-up or revolution will follow. As many have said, let us hope the revolution will take place with ballots and not bullets.
All of which, again, speaks to the need to nominate a person for Congress with a level of understanding of the constitution and a secure enough background that shows an ability to stake his claim and stand his ground. Which is why I support Mike McPadden.
Kelly, Normally you make sense…in your own way. Your not right now. You must be responding from your phone or something. Come back when you can devote the time needed to make a coherent argument.
The difference between a lawyer and Mike McPadden is that he can read plain English and is not bound by absurd case law. That same ‘case law” that made slavery ok. That made segregation ok, etc etc. The plain language of our founding documents clearly said “ALL MEN are created equal, and endowed by our creator with certain…” Unlike the judges and lawyers that made black people into property.
Most lawyers interpret the constitution in an organic fashion that lets them bend it to suit their agenda. Most politicians are lawyers. Hmmmmm.
Mike McPadden will OBEY the oath he will take to “UPHOLD AND DEFEND” it because he understands it. Not just the language but the history of it.
the oath of office requires upholding the Constitution. that is very true, watch dog. But what happens to the 200+ years of judicial interpretation of the Constitution? are you supposed to uphold that, too?
separate but equal was allowed by case law. then overruled. the 4th amendment is molded by case law everyday–very heavily litigated. George W. Bush was made POTUS by the Supreme Court. Courts were made a separate, but co-equal branch of the government by the same Constitution we are discussing.
take the current debate on the Constitutionality of Obamacare. some parts of it might be ruled unconstitutional, but it depends on how the issue is framed. and who frames it. who has standing to sue on which issue.
i do not claim to be an expert on the Constitution. My point is that if one does claim to “know” its language & history, then that person will need to be able to debate its finer points to Perriello.
I think Mike interprets the Constitution the same way I do, although he has a deeper knowledge of it than I. I believe he will take this straightforward interpretation and apply it to his Congressional votes. That’s the kind of representation I want. However, Jim is getting name recognition out there with his media campaign and is also an excellent candidate and may have enough recognition outside our little bubble to beat Sen. Hurt. But then, which of the two, Jim or Mike, can better battle Tom in a debate? I’m pulling out my remaining hairs over this.
“But what happens to the 200+ years of judicial interpretation of the Constitution? are you supposed to uphold that, too?” Isn’t that the excuse for politicians that love to violate the constitution? “We’ll, the courts have held that the commerce clause lets us regulate that” is an excuse I often hear from some totalitarian jerk that wants to further restrict liberty. In fact that would be one of Tom Perriello’s lame excuses. But even under the broadest interpretation of those rulings you can’t find a defense for Obamacare.
Kelly I think you make my point for me. When we rely on the courts to inform us of our rights we then become subservient to those courts. I don’t need the court to tell me I have a right to keep and bear arms, to free speech, to assemble, etc. GOD gave me those rights and I shouldn’t need to ask the state for permission to exercise my sovereignty.
The courts are one of the major problems we have in this nation because they are legislating from the bench. They were meant to be a check on legislative power not a legislative power unto themselves. Further that “check” was meant to stop at the constitution. Mike McPadden understands that. I worry that Robert Hurt doesn’t.
“My point is that if one does claim to “know” its language & history, then that person will need to be able to debate its finer points to Perriello.” Mike will run circles around “the constitution is a living document” Perriello.
Nice essay, JS ! The first one of yours that I have read that I agree with mostly. So, rather than spoil our “first”, I’ll hold my rebuttals for another opportunity!
Maybe it’s because I’m in the Burg and hear from Mark at the meetings, but to me it was absolutely clear that the endorsement was personal. It also seems that the Lynchburg Tea Party hasn’t decided how, or whether, to issue endorsements. I hope that we will, as that will be a valuable service to the area — once we figure out how.
watchdog: yes you do need the courts to tell you when you can keep & bear arms. concealed weapon permits? The law is written by the legislature & is pretty liberal, but a judge still has to grant the request.
do you have freedom of speech? yes, but not to scream “FIRE” in a movie theater. whether this is codified or not, i do not know. but it is a court decision.
freedom of association? yes, unless you are with your best friend who is driving drunk.
are you advocating that we ignore the legislature or the courts? or both?
Watch dog, case law didn’t make slavery ok. The constitution said slaves equalled 3/5ths of a person. There was also a fugitive slave clause, as well as article 1 section 9. When you say it was judges and lawyers who made people into property, that’s somewhat absurd when it was the very men who wrote the “All Men are created equal” parts of the Declaration who were slave owners. While today we view all men as meaning women, men, black white etc, at the time of that writing it meant white, property owning man. I feel like your comment demonizes lawyers and judges while pretending the Founding Fathers were faultless men. It’s easy to say that every constitutional case is easy until you actually read the arguments that both sides present. Many supreme court cases are not black and white, and are incredibly complex regarding interpretations of what the words mean.
JS- well said. I will refrain from further comment on the article itself until Mark is able to make his points for himself.
However, there are some serious flaws in several comments here that I simply cannot remain silent on.
First off, I REALLY wish people would stop using the line regarding ballots vs. bullets. It does *nothing* to further our cause. Quite the contrary, in fact, as it plants the seed of suggestion in the fertile soil of angry (rightly so) and, perhaps, desperate minds.
Secondly, the notion of being an “expert” on the Constitution is ridiculous on its face. The Founders weren’t even “experts” on the Constitution, for God’s sake (nor did they claim to be), and they WROTE it. There is a reason that the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers exist, after all. The bitter disputes over the Constitution’s content, & meanings thereof, in no way ended when Independence Hall was vacated
… apologies. Accidently hit the “submit” button prematurely. (The perils of working from a touch-screen phone after being so used to a standard BlackBerry.)
Picking up from my previous comment, then:
The point is, the Founders expressly told us to look to their writings to determine their intentions for the Constitution. Many good resources exist for doing just that, and, Kelley, your “200+ years of case law” does not fit the bill.
I have a few other matters to attend to at the moment, but I’ll return in a bit to address some of Chris’ asinine comments regarding slavery.
Let me finish addressing these issues that have been brought up.
James has brought up many questions. I know that understands, he is an attorney, that some conversations are private, and it needs to be understood that I have had PRIVATE conversations with EACH AND EVERY campaign, and CANDIDATE on a wide variety of issues. I am not going to go into those since they were then and will remain private and confidential. I have joked that I have enough dirt on all our candidates to start the Fifth District Enquirer, and I will not play that game. Most, if not all of that dirt came from campaigns attempting to destroy their opponents in my eyes. There were a couple exceptions, but that is just politics and something to be expected.
I have stated my support for Jim McKelvey as a personal choice, but that is NO different than your choice to support McPadden along with other LTP members. I have said for weeks that the LTP is almost evenly split between the Mc’s and no one can deny that. It has been like that for a long time.
I hope my comments will settle this. But, I doubt it will.
Yes, as the chairman of the Lynchburg Tea Party, I have been a conduit to some campaigns, and several groups that support the Tea Party movement has asked me directly about how things were shaking out in VA5, I have always given them my honest opinion. Now you can call my integrity into question, that is fair, and I do accept the fact that people are going to read into, and believe whatever they want, and there are some who will NOT accept anything I say as the truth because they are looking for something to discredit me. You accuse me of attempting to muddy the waters. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have railed against people intentionally doing that. I have made every effort to do the opposite, but sometimes things just don’t work the way you hope they will. If I have muddied any waters it was not on purpose.
On the subject of Virgil Goode, he has been the wildcard in the minds of potential conservative as a potential Indy candidate. I do know Virgil, and I consider he and Lucy my friends, as so many many people in VA5 do. I have invited him to speak a couple times and it did draw the media hoping that he would announce a run. I knew that he was not going to announce anything, the first time he did give a VERY elementary presentation of the federal budget, and after the Arizona law he offered to do a similar presentation on immigration, but it didn’t quite pass muster with many of the Tea Party members, and James, you did a great job calling him out on the problem you were so concerned with. I must admit it had the tone of a campaign speech to me as well. This was NOT my intent. I told you that then, and obviously you didn’t believe me. I have NEVER been in any meetings with Jim McKelvey and Virgil Goode, and I have never co-ordinated any appearances between Goode and McKelvey. I’m sure Goode has spoken with all the candidates on multiple occasions, but I can’t speak to that at all. You will have to ask Virgil or whichever candidate.
The Lynchburg Tea Party has offered all candidates the opportunity to speak to us for 5 minutes IF they show up, and choose to speak. McKelvey has taken the opportunity to do this, once or twice more than the others. The fact that he did think enough to come to our meeting on multiple occasions might be one reason he does have the support he does in LTP. I don’t know that it had that much to do with my endorsement, but it might have been a minor factor. You asked why I didn’t spend a day with all the candidates. That is REALLY simple; I was NOT INVITED by any other candidates. I did not, and do not now, think it would have been appropriate for me to invite myself. Did this move me toward McKelvey? I think maybe, but it was NOT the invitation that did it, but rather how I saw him interact personally with the potential voters. I saw something there that moved me his direction.
James, also thank you for your confidence in my abilities, but I do not have the skills to “train” any political candidate. I have never run for office, I do not have a degree, much less one in poli-sci, I have sat down with MANY candidates and discussed the Tea Party focus and our principles. I have discussed those with Mckelvey, and several other candidates as well. If you would like to tie me to any specific candidate based on number of one on one visits, then it would be Ron Ferrin.
As far as introducing Jim McKelvey “around” Washington. I introduced him to one friend in DC, who met before I was elected chairman of LTP. I did that long after the last debate. About the same time I sent another group contact info for another candidate, and that will remain private as well.
When I first met you, yes, I did say those things about Mike. I still think Mike would be a great candidate, I’m going to take some heat for that statement as well for some that HATE him. That’s OK too. However, after considering several factors, one being the improvements in McKelvey’s campaign skills, I have changed my mind. Am I allowed to change my mind?
Let me also say, for the record, there are TWO candidates I can proudly support, The two Mc’s, there are THREE I will vote for, but with FAR less enthusiasm, and TWO that I just could NOT support.
As the chairman of the LTP I have taken great care to be fair to all. I never gave ANY candidate any advantage during our “debate season” as promised, and I also promised NO endorsement until after the last Tea Party debate, and I waited two months.
James, in one of the first meeting you attended, I believe you asked me “who are we going to vote for,” and my response to you was “I’m not going to tell you who to vote for,” then I said it was your responsibility to figure that out. We discussed some time later what I thought about Mike and some other candidates. I would hope that you and any other interested Tea Party member would allow me the opportunity to change my position and opinion based on my personal observation and experience.
You have chosen to support Mike, and it looks like your post questioning me is an endorsement of Mike, and I congratulate you for taking advantage of your First Amendment right. I’m sure, being an attorney, you will certainly want to ask me more questions. You have my phone number. I would certainly hope that you and I can have a private conversation again.
The Tea Party movement teaches folks to get involved and to tie the hands of leaders to do exactly what we stress to others makes no sense to me. Anything I do on behalf of LTP should be discussed with our leadership board at a minimum. One time I made a decision on my own by assuming the leadership group would be behind me. I was wrong in making that assumption, once we discussed the situation it was settled with no bloodshed.
My fellow conservatives – I would hope all of us would unite – once the 5th District candidate is selected – victory is very possible! This definitely is no time for one to let their ego get the best of them – this election is way too important for in-fighting games about who endorses who
- we must keep our eyes on the prize. Let’s mend the fences and quick.
Thanks to all!
George. I don’t think there is a unity problem here. The problem with the written word is that anger and strife can easily be “read” into it. I don’t think there are any issues that Mark has not adequately dealt with.
For any that see a conspiracy around every corner there is nothing that can be done for you. People Like the “Rev” are delusional and you can’t fix that.
Like the founders we can disagree on the issues that surround us. But on the Core issues I think we are all on the same page.
Brad. On the scale of “expert” I think most of us would be experts compared to the idiots in D.C. and most lawyers that graduate schools these days.
I would also disagree with you on your statement that the disagreements on the constitution by the founders ” In no way ended when Independence hall was vacated” as it was ratified meaning that 2/3ds of the nation agreed with it. Unfortunately the 2/3ds fell asleep and the 1/3 took over and has been wrecking the thing ever since.
The author of this blog can assert his personal preference for Mike McPadden, but excoriates Lloyd for his? The problem that appears systematic with McPadden supporters is their equal distaste for both our great former congressman Virgil Goode, as well as anyone who might favor a candidate such as Jim McKelvey over their boy McPadden….ask yourselves this question, why does McPadden not like Virgil, could it be that Virgil sees right through him and finds him not to be a true conservative? Intolerance has no place in politics. We all have opinions, we all have preferences– just because Lloyd has determined for himself that he personally prefers McKelvey over any other candidate should not be discounted; rather, it is merely a part of the political process, of which the author of this blog post has no TOLERANCE for, unless you agree with him that Mike McPadden is your boy too. Mr. Stringfield, I see you as part of the problem; your intolerance for another’s personal choice is untenable in a free society. Viva La Mark Lloyd…at least he is honest about it…hey Stringfield, why don’t you ask your boy about the “dirty politics” he has been playing? Or would that be too “intolerant” for your little pea-pickin’ heart to consider?
Let’s try to keep civility in this primary race, if at all possible, we only have a couple more weeks to go.
Stay on the porch with the puppies, Stringfield, until you know how to play nicely with others.
I don’t think it’s relevant whether Mark made his endorsement as the chairman of the LTP or “personally”. Either way, I think it is inappropriate. You can’t separate the person from the leadership position they hold. Think of other examples…Do you think it would be appropriate for Bill Stanley to endorse a candidate in the race? Either in his position a 5th district chairman or personally? How about if the unit chairs each endorsed a candidate. Would that be appropriate? How about if the district and unit chairs actively campaigned for the candidate they endorsed, and when asked about it, they said “I am doing this personally, and not in my capacity as chairman”?
What endorsements can be made? Well I think the tea party organizations as a whole could endorse candidates, but this would need to be done carefully, formally, with transparency, and with rules agreed to by the members ahead of time (what candidates are to be included on the endorsement ballot?, who is eligible to vote for the endorsement?, how would the tally be made (mail-in vote?, email?web-poll?, in a meeting,…)? when will the vote be held? what is the criteria for a run-off?, once an endorsement is made, how it it released to the public?, …).
@Red Blanket
Hey RB I have been following McPadden’s campaign for a while now. At what point does McPadden even intimate that he does not like VG. Was it written or spoken, do you have any evidence? Nope you are just another bottom feeder from an otherwise dead campaign.
Where is the evidence of McPaddens dirty tricks? Is it written do you have anything on tape or do you just have that very special connection with God and he tells you these things.
I do have emails from the Feda campaign where she lies about McPadden’s positions on issues, contrary to his public statements and written word. I watched one of Feda’s hand picked goons trash McPadden personally, question his faith, and go after his family in Campbell County. I heard that he did it again in Bedford later that week.
What I do not have RB is evidence of any sort that McPadden has gone after anyone in any way shape or form. What I do not have RB is any evidence that McPadden dislikes VG. What I do see here is a smear campaign started by an otherwise dead campaign to smear the front runner. The problem RB is that now that your candidate is done you forgot that all these lies were made up by your bunch to begin with. So unless you can come up with something concrete why don’t you crawl back under the slimy rock that you came out from under and keep your muckraking to yourself.
And remember plagiarizing is stealing.
@Stephen, I’m not sure we share the same perception of what the Tea Party really is, at least IMO. WE are NOT a political party. If the LTP were holding elections for officers in our organization, I would certainly NOT endorse a candidate. However, we teach our folks to be involved, and take part in the process. FYI-Dana Hale, one of LTP’s vice chairman, is the VA5th District Libertarian Party Chairman. I am so proud of her for that. She is doing what she should do. Should she be restricted from endorsing someone personally? NO.
If Bill Stanley came out with an endorsement of any one of the seven he would be TOTALLY in the wrong about that. At that point his position comes into play. If others in the LTP come out with PERSONAL endorsements. GOOD! This is NOT a card game, any other personal endorsement does NOT trump mine. I will respect them, and will continue to work with them, and support them in voicing their opinions. They are my friends, and we might not agree totally on who is the best candidate, but we agree on most of the important principles. That is the beauty of it all. At least from what I see so far.
The Tea Party movement is a unique thing. As one honored to be a “leader” I understand I am NO more important than any other member of the Tea Party. I will only be a leader so long as people choose to follow me. I think there is a real problem in our nation that we think that a “leadership” position gives a person some sort of authority. We look at it wrong. The LAW gives the position responsibility and authority, and those positions can be changed at regular intervals. “Leadership” however, is different. It is NOT a position. You cease to be a leader when no one follows you.
In my elected position I am accountable to those that have elected me. James has EVERY right to question me. I have EVERY responsibility to attempt to give him answers. I have done my best, and it is up to him to choose to be satisfied or not. I’ve done the best I can.
Let me repeat myself AGAIN. The Lynchburg Tea Party has been almost evenly split between the Mc’s for MONTHS. Therefore, without a clear majority, it becomes impossible to give a single endorsement. Looking at this, I think individual endorsements are fine, and the larger group might give a “LTP Stamp of Approval.” If an endorsement is impossible. Just a thought.
@ RB – More baseless attacks. Great. You disgust me. If you have issue with his political stances, please state them. If you have evidence above mere slander, please state it. Otherwise, please leave this conversation for more honest and upfront men.
Speaking of honest and upfront, Mark, thank you for your openness to questioning. I personally never had a problem with your endorsement of McKelvey. I think you had every right to make it, and I think you chose the candidate you believe in. Thank you for your hard work.
Mark: As head of the LTP, your word carries more weight then the that of the other members. Would anybody really care who you endorsed, if it were not for your position as the head of the LTP? Also, if the LTP members are split as you suggest, then it seems appropriate for your organization to not offer any endorsement, and even more so, for you, as its head, to not “personally” endorse anyone.
The one thing that I find most disingenuous about Jim McKelvey is that one of his main stances is fiscal responsibility yet he borrows money for his campaign. He establishes a $500,000.00 line of credit to fund his run for office and then stumps on the fact that our federal government does the same thing and needs to be stopped. Can you say hypocrite.
With the exception of Ron Ferrin, McKelvey has the lowest fund raising total of all the candidates. It seems that McKelvey is no different than the politicians that already inhabit DC he does not practice what he preaches. I have no problem with self funding but to borrow money to so so is utterly irresponsible.
I am very disappointed in Mark Lloyd in that he has fallen for someone whose pie in the sky rhetoric is just populist B.S. that has no foundation in moral principals.
Bill Hay are you the kettle calling the pot black? Your candidate gave his campaign over $200,000. Your candidate Verga has tried to be the TEA party candidate and he would be lucky to finish 5th in a TEA party poll. You just sound envious that you couldn’t put more of Verga money in the race. Self financing is self financing.
He’s not going to win – Verga should save his money, get out of the race and concentrate on getting his health back
@Bill, sorry to disappoint you. I suppose I see some things you don’t, and vice versa. I bet you would have also been disappointed if I would have endorsed some others as well. You’re a good man, and I appreciate all you do, and have done. Maybe sometime we can sit down and discuss what it is that I see in McKelvey that makes me disagree with your assessment. Tell Laurence I said hello, and I wish you and yours all the best.
@Stephen, you’re absolutely right. No one would pay any attention to anything I said if it were not for my Tea Party activism, and my position as LTP chairman. And, that means what? Should I be silent? Should I tell all our members to get out and get involved and get to know the candidates, and then find ways to be effective and make sure their voices are heard, and then not do that myself?
There are members of the Tea Party in leadership positions that have been working actively in campaigns, and openly supporting candidates, having fund raisers and meet and greets. They are doing what they think is best as individuals. But, I should sit silent. Because the LTP can’t all get behind a single person.
Who are you supporting Steve? Would it have been appropriate for me to endorse YOUR candidate?
Steve, if you would like to step up and take a leadership role in any Tea Party your assistance would be greatly welcomed. But, let me tell you that you are going to be attacked and maligned for every word that comes out of your mouth. By friends and foes alike. At least half the people who know you will be upset with you for one reason or another. You will actually have some your friends quit speaking to you all together. And, oh, don’t let me forget to throw in the death threats when things get weird. Yep, jump on in here and get you some of this, Steve. Then sit back quietly, and have no opinion.
Mark: Well yes, that is what I am saying, because you are chairman, you should remain neutral. Note, I am not singling you out, but rather speaking in general. I know Nigel Coleman endorsed Feda, and Bill Hay endorsed Lawrence long before he stepped down. Isn’t it ironic that each of you endorsed a different candidate, and none of you endorsed the most likely tea party candidate to get the nomination, McPadden. Has that helped the movement?
Yes, I am supporting McPadden, and no, I don’t think it would have been appropriate for you to personally endorse him.
I don’t envy your position. I have never followed politics as closely as I have this cycle, and I am really surprised the lengths to which like-minded people will say anything to try and prop their guy up by bringing the other guys down. The only other thing I can say is perhaps if you had remained neutral, you would not have made so many people upset with you.
Stephen, I had people upset with me because I had NOT endorsed a candidate. But, that doesn’t matter. It does surprise me how like minded people will do or say almost anything to destroy another person with very similar beliefs. Now, I don’t know if I have met you or not. I don’t know if you are a member of LTP or another Tea Party. But, I challenge you to find a single time that I have EVER publicly bashed any of the 7 candidates. If you are accusing me of that you are very mistaken. Now, those who know me best have heard me say many things I would never say in public.
I endorsed Jim McKelvey, but I never said a bad word about Mike McPadden, nor would I, or any other publicly for that matter. Sadly though, that my have to change.
If you are looking for irony, then why do six people who claim to be the antithesis of the GOP establishment candidate, the dreaded Robert Hurt, who some eviscerate publicly at every opportunity, refuse to do the math. Is it ego, is it delusion, is it irrational ambition? I think it is actually an aversion to reality in some instances.
If I were worried about people being angry at me then I would not be involved as I am. We have a country to save! I am a proud Navy veteran, my father is a marine, I have one son who served in Iraq and spent much time in Sadr City when things were ugly. Someone being a upset with me is not important. Anyone telling me to be silent and not move as my conscience dictates is part of the problem.
CJ.
Pay attention Verga loaned his campaign money out of his savings, he did not go out and borrow it. BIG DIFFERENCE, especially when you are preaching fiscal responsibility.
Mark: Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean to suggest YOU had knocked any of the candidates. I was just talking about the overall climate, especially what gets said in web forums like this. I mentioned it in the context of your comment about tea party leadership being attacked and maligned, even by friends.
Bill Hay on June 9th Verga will wake up and think why wasn’t someone honest enough to tell me my support was so low across the 5th district. Bill you attack anyone that you think is ahead of your candidate well thats every candidate except Ferrin.
WOW Bill! I am astonished! McKelvey is a hypocrite b/c he took out a loan? Who is paying that loan back? Is he taking money from you to pay back his loan? He isn’t taking any from me. Sometimes, I take out a loan as opposed to paying from my savings account – for many reasons. Quite often, it’s for tax purposes – Or b/c my money may be tied up where I am making more on it than the interest I would be paying on the loan.
Really sad that is what you are going after. Maybe Bill, you should tell Verga that he needs to bow out. I don’t see any scenario where he wins and you aren’t helping his cause.
My primary concern, and the primary motive for my questions put to Mark Lloyd, revolves around what appears to be misuse of the name and prestige of the Lynchburg Tea Party to favor one candidate over the others.
Since the inception of the Tea Party movement, many folks have determined that they also will join this battle to push back against despotism and to put that evil being back in the bottle. So many of our local citizens have become involved by assisting with organizing and attending meetings and protests and rallies, and in the process devoting who-knows how many hours of volunteer time to make the Lynchburg Tea Party a success. We have taken courage in knowing that 25 or 30 years from now our posterity will look back on this time and draw inspiration from our actions today and say that it was in our time that the American love of liberty was revived. We accept these sacrifices because this is our duty. This is our country, and it is our honor to fight the good fight to preserve it. This invigorating dynamic has been multiplied hundreds of times across the nation – patriotic Americans sacrificing their time, money, and resources to join the battle for defense of our liberties.
And yet, in all the excitement and bustle, we sometimes take the sacrifices of others for granted. But these sacrifices are a precious commodity. It is of the same quality as the sacrifices which initially won our freedoms and by which they have been defended these hundreds of years. Misuse or abuse of these sacrifices constitutes the violation of a sacred vow. And when I saw what appeared to me a violation of that vow, I had to speak out. And because the violation occurred publicly, my response had to be made publicly.
When a leader of an organization speaks out on an issue directly related to the purpose for which the organization was formed, that leader speaks for the organization whether he likes it or not, despite whatever disclaimers he may place on his statement, because a leader holds the “ship of state” in his hands. It is the expectation of a leader that he recognizes the potential effects of his public acts or statements, and he must accept this fact as a limitation on what he can say or do. For this reason I disagree with any leader of the Lynchburg Tea Party publicly endorsing a candidate unless the entire leadership is in agreement. The leadership should speak corporately or not at all.
Does Mark have a constitutional right to do work for the election of a candidate? Of course. But should he invoke his position as chairman of the Lynchburg Tea Party, with its name recognition and influence, to support one candidate? Absolutely not. THIS is the issue. I think this is what was done, intentionally or not. This is partly what I attempted to address, and I think the statements of Ms. Dana Hale, Vice-Chairman of the Lynchburg Tea Party, at the beginning of this thread vindicates my concerns.
George Taylor appeals for unity, and rightly so. Disunity results, not from disagreement, but from dissembling. But the deed has been done. Going forward in unity will require a realization of the issue and dealing with it effectively. Mark and I have spoken over the last few days and it is agreed the Tea Party needs some type of board for executive decision-making and a policy regarding endorsements. The wound to the Lynchburg Tea Party is not deadly and the relationships will heal. We are politically young and we are all learning. We will overcome our disagreements and we will all be the wiser for it. I am certain.
At my first Tea Party meeting I asked, “Is the Tea Party as an organization going to endorse a candidate?” The reason for my question was two-fold: 1) I wanted to ensure I would not be involved in an organization that, at the end of the day, would simply endorse the least odious of the candidates, i.e., a RINO; and, 2) I wanted to ensure there would be an organizational endorsement so that the Tea Party and its candidate would receive the maximum firepower and have the maximum effect on the outcome of the primary campaign. I did not ask who I should vote for. I have always committed myself to studying the issues and the candidates before making a decision – and not rely on what someone else tells me. This is our duty as responsible citizens.
After studying the issues and the candidates, I have settled on Mike McPadden. And I note that Mark has settled on Jim McKelvey because, in his words, McKelvey has improved in his “campaign skills.” So are we to now choose a candidate not because he has improved in his knowledge of the Constitution and the issues but because he has become what that candidate rails against – a politician? Wow. By the way, my contention Mike McPadden knows the Constitution better than any other candidate does not mean I think McPadden is a constitutional expert. But I do contend it shows in McPadden a seriousness, a level of commitment, and an intellectual capacity that will serve him, and us, well in Washington.