Fellow Tea Party Patriots:
The following is gleaned from the Lynchburg Tea Party website
POSITION STATEMENT OF THE LYNCHBURG TEA PARTY:
“The Lynchburg Tea Party is a group of concerned citizens who are not, as a sanctioned “Tea Party” group, affiliated with any political party. All are welcome. [W]e come from all walks of life, and may disagree on various issues, [but there] are the key principles we agree upon.”
GOALS OF THE LYNCHBURG TEA PARTY:
“We, the people of the Lynchburg Tea Party, set as our goal the education of the citizens of the city of Lynchburg and surrounding areas in the election process for the purpose of effecting change in the governance of our surrounding localities, our State and the United States of America.”
“[We will] remain a non-partisan group that will support effective candidates that stand for our core constitutional values at every step of the election process. Candidate principles trump partisan politics.”
These statements define, at least in part, what the Lynchburg Tea Party is, the purpose for which the Lynchburg Tea Party was founded, and the principles upon which the Lynchburg Tea Party stands.
Yet we have what seems to be an uproar that the Tea Party would dare to stand by its principles in the face of political pressure to jump on the bandwagon. At least the Tea Party is willing to do that which we are afraid Robert Hurt will not do!
A short historical reminder is in order.
In 1994, the conservative revolt against the Clinton occupancy resulted in the GOP takeover of the United States House and Senate. The inauguration of Gingrich as Speaker in January 1995 ushered in the so-called Republican Revolution. At the first the GOP held its ground, and by the Fall of 1995, the federal government was threatened with a shut-down over a budget battle between the GOP Congress and liberal White House. As the days and weeks wore on, the liberal media constantly hammered the GOP for stone-walling, blocking needed legislation, acting unreasonably, killing old folks and starving school kids, and causing hundreds of thousands of federal workers to go without pay and veterans to go without benefits, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.
The budget battle was a critical test as to whether the GOP was serious about returning the federal government to its constitutional constraints, or whether the “Contract with America” and all the conservative rhetoric was just a ploy to garner the support of the voters for the 1994 election cycle. In all fairness, it can be truthfully stated that a good many of the freshman class of 1994, as well as some of the more experienced members of Congress, were serious about their promises to stand their ground.
But not serious enough. The battle between Gingrich & GOP Senate Leader Bob Dole on one side, and Bill Clinton on the other, resembled a staring match – and in the face of withering criticism in the media carrying the water for the Democrats, Bob Dole, and then Newt Gingrich, blinked. The story of what actually occurred will go down in the sorry annals of pretended statesmanship – Dole was concerned the bad media attention would fatally hurt his chances for election as president in 1996. He would not stand on principle if would cost him his chance at the White House. And so he blinked, played like a rubber elephant in Bill Clinton’s hands.
Bill Clinton won the battle, and it was then that the Republican Revolution ended. It was not immediately apparent. But just as a limb severed from the tree trunk is dead but maintains its color for a while, the GOP Revolution then and there died – it took a mere 10-12 years to finally see.
In the Fall of 1995, after the GOP lost the budget battle, the conservative electorate felt scorned and burned. But the GOP leadership told us to stay with them. They assured us they hold to the same ideals and principles. We trusted them and we continued to support them. And at the 1996 GOP presidential nominating convention, Bob Dole told the conservatives that “all” are welcome in the “Big Tent” that was his Republican Party, and he told us that if we were not willing to welcome all comers to the GOP we could leave through the back door of the convention. It was then that many conservatives lost their heart for the GOP. And the GOP lost them. And Bill Clinton sullied the Oval Office another four years.
In 2000, many were enthused with the rise of a young, energetic presidential candidate from Texas unashamed to call himself a conservative and a Christian. And he quickly consolidated the GOP behind him. And many a liberal thanked God it was George Bush in the White House on 9/11 rather than Al Gore. But slowly, subtly, yet surely, we began to see things in George Bush that troubled us. Invitations to Islamic organizations after 9/11 to celebrate Ramadan in the White House, supporting a pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, big government liberal by the name of Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 2003 California governor re-call election. Bush supported the liberal Schwarzenegger over the conservative Tom McClintock. It was starting to become apparent to conservatives that once again we had been boondoggled by a Republican promising a conservative agenda yet compromising on basic conservative principles. In 2004 Mr. Bush endorsed and campaigned for the RINO/DINO socialist, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion monstrosity otherwise known as Arlen Specter in the GOP Senate Primary in Pennsylvania rather than endorse and fight for a known, true-blood conservative named Pat Toomey. (Yes, this is the same Pat Toomey now on the GOP Senate ticket in Pennsylvania in 2010.)
Bush also oversaw passage of the largest entitlement program in recent memory in the Medicare Prescription Drug Program in 2003. This was done with the arm-twisting and all-night voting reminiscent of Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats when they were in power. Did I forget to mention the Republican-controlled Congress failed to roll back the automatic pay increases for members of Congress, failed to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts, failed to eliminate the Department of Education, failed to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (NPR, etc.), failed to …. You get the picture.
When Gingrich became Speaker in 1995, he encouraged his colleagues and the American people to read the Federalist Papers so we could understand the “what and why” of the upcoming GOP reformation of government. When Gingrich stepped down as Speaker in 1998, many Americans re-read George Orwell’s Animal Farm as a reminder of what happens when a person or party takes tiny steps of compromise “for the greater good” only to morph into the very beast we were fighting against in the first place. By 2006 the Republican Majority in the House attempted to cover-up a homosexual harassment scandal by a Florida GOP congressman so the GOP could hold on to the seat in the election. “Greater good” indeed. House GOP Leader John Boehner’s nose had more and more the appearance of a hog’s snout. And Nanny Pillosi has milked the nation ever since.
But whose fault, I ask. Was it Ross Perot’s fault Bill Clinton served two terms, or even one term? Or was it the fault of a compromising, invertebrate GOP so-leadership showing all the ominous signs of detesticulation, that failed to ignite the base because the base was not sure many of the candidates stood for any principle other than their own election? I contend this is the reason for the failure of the GOP to win in 1992, 1996, and 2008. At least George Bush prosecuted the War, and in 2004 the voters refused to turn over the office of Commander-in-Chief to a waffling, so-called veteran who rushed to testify against his fellow soldiers in front of the cameras in Congress during the Vietnam War.
Four more years of George Bush only increased the distastefulness many of us had for him, and for the all-to-easily-led GOP. Our disdain was not because he or they had become too conservative. Not by far. It was not because our troops were still in Iraq and Afghanistan, although many of us felt political considerations played too great a role in some military decisions. Even to this day many conservatives maintain a lingering respect for the man because of his determination to keep America safe, to WIN the War. But his and the GOP’s attempt to save free-market capitalism with socialist government policy capped a sorry run of compromise and capitulation with the liberal media and politicians and crony-capitalists. And our beloved GOP then props up a has-been, super-compromiser in John McCain as our supposed next standard bearer. If not for Sarah Palin, the 2008 presidential election would have been a Democrat landslide. And, thanks to the GOP, we have now installed the most un-American occupant of the Oval Office in our history.
And now, with the primary nomination of Robert Hurt (brought about at least in part by a push from the same damned GOP establishment that ushered in the era of Obama) with a record of voting for tax increases that seems frightful, the Lynchburg Tea Party is supposed to jump in, lock-step, behind the “conservative” candidate. If Hurt was a confirmed conservative candidate he would already have been endorsed by the Tea Party and we would not have had a field of seven candidates in the primary. It was precisely because of Robert Hurt’s voting record that many did not and do not endorse him. I do not pretend to read anyone’s mind, but I doubt McPadden and McKelvey would have run if Hurt was a confirmed conservative. As I have stated before, these were not opportunists. These were the only two candidates who seriously considered dropping out and supporting the other. But they saw a need and decided to fill that need with their own money and time. They have and we have a legitimate concern Robert Hurt is not one of us and will not stand his ground in Washington, D.C. And for a person to withhold support for Hurt because of that concern, while most others are jumping on, is admirable.
Even more so for an organization founded on core principles which the organization is not sure Robert Hurt stands for. I do not doubt that Robert will put forth an effort to convince us he is one of us (I hope he will), but it remains to be seen whether he can convince the more than one-half of the conservatives who voted against him that he will stand strong in Washington. And it is extremely disappointing that folks in the conservative electorate, after the history we have been through with the GOP, would castigate the Lynchburg Tea Party leadership for living up to the principles on which it was founded – an uncompromising adherence to principles that transcend party affiliation, color, age, ethnicity, place of origin, gender, height, eye color, hair color, accent …. These principles transcend all of these because these principles promote the aspiration of all mankind – to live according to the principles of ordered liberty, free and in peace, unencumbered by an authoritarian downward-pressing government intent on becoming the be-all and end-all for our existence. Will the GOP be a bulwark against the tide, or will the GOP, like a sand castle, merely have all the appearance of a fortress and all the fortitude of a wet noodle. Where is Robert Hurt’s place in all of this? What role would he play? For many people this is a troubling prospect.
The Lynchburg Tea Party, as an organization, must, if it is to fulfill its purpose for existing, maintain its independence from any political party. It must uncompromisingly adhere to its founding principles, else it will become a by-word among its enemies who trashed it as astro-turf of the GOP from the inception. If the Tea Party cannot without reservation support a candidate because the Tea Party is not CERTAIN that candidate supports, with words and actions, the principles of the Tea Party, then in that case the Tea Party has stood by its convictions, and is to be applauded.
It is evident from this letter I did not support Robert Hurt in the primary. This does not necessarily mean I will not work for his election against Perrilosi. My family is in serious contemplation of what we should do from here. And if the candidate I supported endorsed Robert Hurt I would not consider it an abandonment of his principles. Nor would I think he wrong if he chose not to endorse Hurt. But if the Lynchburg Tea Party were to endorse Robert Hurt now, after a primary season in which it was stated repeatedly by Tea Party members that they were not certain he stood for the principles of the Tea Party, the damage to the credibility of the Tea Party would, in my opinion, be fatal.
The burden is on Robert Hurt to win the support of a very active portion of the 5th District conservative electorate, because as I heard one little girl say at the Tax Day Tea Party Rally, we will be silent no more! Nor will we be used and abused and taken for granted. Perrilosi has significant funding and a well-oiled machine. Robert Hurt has at the ready a veritable army of volunteers who can dismantle that machine and overcome the funding deficit– if he can convince them of his sincerity.
Montesquieu
“I do not pretend to read anyone’s mind, but I doubt McPadden and McKelvey would have run if Hurt was a confirmed conservative. As I have stated before, these were not opportunists. These were the only two candidates who seriously considered dropping out and supporting the other. But they saw a need and decided to fill that need with their own money and time.”
I don’t understand: if both candidates were willing to drop out to support a confirmed conservative, and both candidates were confirmed conservatives, why were both in the race?
Why didn’t McPadden drop out once it became apparent that McKelvey had substantially more (voter and financial) support?
Why are so many in the fifth willing to give just about every candidate every benefit of the doubt as to their motivations, except for Robert Hurt?
MJ:
Is there a difference between “seriously considered” and “willing”? You have conflated the two. At the end of the primary season, with so much time and money, and without certainty of the results (different polls showed different results), both decided to stay.
I think it would be interesting to know which candidate got into the race first, and whether the candidate who got into the race second made a serious investigation of the first candidate before he (the second candidate) got into the race.
Regarding motivations: Motivations are less important when a candidate’s history of voting is public knowledge. McKelvey and McPadden have no public voting record and so their statements must be analyzed for internal and external consistency. Robert Hurt’s statements can measured for internal and external consistency, as well as being measured against his actual voting record as a representative of the people. It is his voting record that has created the mistrust and doubt, which he MUST overcome if he is to garner the active support of many in the Tea Party.
IMHO, this endorsement business need not cause so much excitement and ill feelings…
The power of the tea party groups is in their members (i.e., educated and motivated voters), so in order for group endorsements, or the lack thereof, to be meaningful, and to have any weight, the endorsements need to be backed by the membership of the group.
Further, the group endorsement decision process should be transparent and documented ahead of time.
For example, support by 60% or 70% of the members could be a criteria (just an example).
Votes should be formally collected (why not use some form of web polling?) and the results published.
Consideration must be given to what happens if there are multiple candidates, and someone does not get 60%. For example, do you have a run-off with lesser candidates…
Further, to support such an endorsement, you need actual membership roles (i.e., people who are members get a vote, those that aren’t members do not).
Note, to be clear, I think this type of process should be used to determined to endorse or to NOT endorse.
So, in the particular case of the LTP and the November race, did the membership decide not to endorse? Or just the leadership?
The former says something more meaningful. The latter, not so much.
Montesquieu:
“McKelvey and McPadden have no public voting record and so their statements must be analyzed for internal and external consistency. Robert Hurt’s statements can measured for internal and external consistency, as well as being measured against his actual voting record as a representative of the people. It is his voting record that has created the mistrust and doubt.”
As to internal and external consistency, one day McKelvey “has kept quiet” and never been in politics, and later he has “worked for conservative candidates and causes his entire life,” all the while when I doubt a single Conservative activist had any clue who he was before he ran for office (as opposed to Feda Morton). Yet nobody within the Tea Party questioned his political beliefs.
McKelvey, McPadden, and Laurence Verga all at some point stated they would “vote the will of the fifth district” on social issues, but nobody ever questioned whether they were truly pro life or opposed to gay marriage.
Robert Hurt said he was pro life and voted pro life 100% of the time; he said he supports gun rights and he voted that way 100% of the time; he said he was against taxes and his voting record is overwhelmingly for lower taxes (with one or two notable blemishes, but several dozen in the right direction).
What about Ken Boyd, is he a confirmed conservative? Nobody bowed out for him.
McKelvey, McPadden, Verga, and the rest- were all equally as opportunistic as anyone else. To believe anything else is not internally and externally consistent.
MJ:
My purpose in the previous post was not to re-hash the positions and statements of the candidates during the primary campaign. I was only commenting on how a person could determine the sincerity of a candidate. I did not and do not want to comment on whether McPadden or McKelvey WERE consistent, only that we know from Hurt’s voting record that his campaign rhetoric is NOT consistent with his voting record.
You state, “[N]obody within the Tea Party questioned [McKelvey's] political beliefs.”!!!!!! Are you kidding? Did you sleep during the primary campaign? You state, “[N]obody ever questioned whether [McKelvey, McPadden, and Verga] were truly pro-life or opposed to gay marriage.” Again, you must have not been involved or not been reading articles or viewing videos or attending meetings and debates, because these type questions were asked of each candidate numerous times. Several times I heard several of the candidates acknowledge that all seven candidates in the primary were soldily pro-life and pro-marriage.
The case against Mr. Hurt, in my opinion, is not that he is a bad person. It is not that he is devious, deceptive, or dishonest. The case against Mr. Hurt lies in the fact that he has voted against the principles on which the Tea Party was founded, on several occasions. The case against Mr. Hurt is that he may be too easily swayed by political pressure. The Tea Party is not only looking for someone who will stand up to Mr. O or Nanny Pelosi and Dingy Harry. We are looking for someone who will also stand up to John Boehner and Eric Cantor as well.
Remember, Boehner was House Republican Leader during the Mark Foley homosexual intern scandal in 2006. Boehner oversaw the Republican demise and sat haplessly by while a doggone congressman was sending sexually suggestive text-messages to teeneage interns. Boehner would not go public with the scandal because he feared losing the seat to Democrats, i.e., the seat was more important than protecting the interns from further harassment. Lost it anyway.
Remember, it was Eric Cantor who was one of the first to throw his support behind the pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-Obamacare, pro-labor union, pro-”stimulus” package Dede Scozzafava in NY 23rd.
Remember, it was Boehner and Cantor who thought it such a good idea to attend the Healthcare Summit with Obama that led the way to passage of Obamacare under the guise of bi-partisanship. (When asked later what he had to eat during the lunch break, Obama was overheard to say he ate elephant nads that day.)
This same establishment GOP supported Hurt in his campaign, many of us understandably feel quite uneasy about the prospects of Hurt being pressured by them and others, to “go-along-get-along”, “for the greater good” that, in the end, causes the congressmen and the Party to lose its way and lose its most principled supporters.
MJ, you are attempting to make the case for Robert Hurt. I recommend you contact Mr. Hurt and ask him to make his own case, to convince us that he can independently stand his ground against the very strong political pressure to follow the Party line.
I will tell you where Mr. Hurt can start. At the LU debate, which Mr. Hurt did not attend, the question was asked of the candidates whether they, consistent with the 10th Amendment, would vote to federally defund the Blue Ridge Thunder Internet Child Predator program run out of Bedford. Law enforcement seems clearly to be a state issue, not federal. Yet the program is very popular. Would Robert Hurt take the painful and less-traveled, yet fiscally conservative, road and vote to defund it and lead the charge to return the federal government to its constitutional restraints?
Admittedly, this is a tough question, but what we are looking for is a tough leader to go to Washington and begin making the tough decisions that will lead our nation back to fiscal soundness.
Mr. Hurt could inform the voters of the 5th how and what steps he will take to LEAD THE CHARGE for defunding and repeal of Obamacare. Let us hear it from him, in a public forum.
Believe me. Many ARE waiting for a passionate case to be made for supporting Robert Hurt. No one cares to have Perrilosi another two (or more) years. But simply “beating Perriello” is not enough. We have got to know, unlike what we fear, that Hurt will be a leader who will stand uncompromisingly on PRINCIPLE. Giving a little here for some greater cause over there on some other day has led us to the precipice of national calamity.
Will you respond, Mr. Hurt?
whatever the rest of your views on Eric Cantor, he stood firm against Obamacare. there was no bi-partisanship.
further, your current Congressman voted for Obamacare not once, but twice. He voted for the House version and the Senate version. This I cannot tolerate. He needs to be defeated. This year.
Kelley in Virginia:
Did Cantor oppose Obamacare because it was wrong (unconstitutional), or did he oppose it because, in his words, “it was unpopular”?
Big difference when it comes to leadership.
Montesquieu:
To clarify, my point was that the Tea Party seemed much more willing to give other candidates the benefit of the doubt when isolated incidents (McPadden’s membership and position in a local union, McKelvey’s previous non-involvement politically) conflicted with the supposed positions the candidates said they supported.
My only other gripe is that many Tea Party folks speak of “Conservatism” and the “ideals of the Tea Party” as if the two are synonymous, when many of the ideals of the Tea Party are completely unrelated to what has traditionally been thought of as Conservative values. For instance, the Blue Ridge Thunder Internet Child Predator program run out of Bedford might conflict with the more limited Government and more Libertarian ideals of the Tea Party, but would be perfectly consistent with the socially Conservative ideals of say James Dobson’s Focus on the Family or Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority.
Similarly, the Anti-Establishment, Term Limits, Citizen Legislator type ideals of the Tea Party have little to do with Conservatism at all- Thomas Jefferson (32 years between VA House of Burgesses and U.S. President), Benjamin Harrison (27 years between VA House of Burgesses and VA Governor), John Hancock (27 years), Benjamin Franklin (36 years), John Adams (26 years) all signed the Declaration of Independence and were all clearly career politicians. Even Ron Paul is running for his 8th(!) term in Congress.
As to Eric Cantor’s Conservatism, compare his American Conservatives Union score (based on actual VOTES, not fill in the blanks) with Ron Paul:
Eric Cantor: 100% (2009), 96.67% (Lifetime)
Ron Paul: 91% (2009), 82.85% (Lifetime)
If you judged Eric Cantor based on his record, you would conclude he opposed Obamacare because it raised taxes:
Eric Cantor received a higher rating from Americans for Tax Reform (again based on actual VOTES) than Virgil Goode every year from 2001-2007 (atr.org).
MJ:
Do you seriously contend that the five Tea Party principles: limited government, fiscal responsibility, free and fair markets, personal liberty with personal responsibility, and constitutional governance, are not consistent with Conservatism? These principles do not embrace all of the ideals or principles that constitute Conservatism, but the principles themselves are consistent with Conservatism.
If James Dobson (who I greatly admire) and Jerry Falwell supported federal funding of Blue Ridge Thunder, they would be acting inconsistent with their call for strict construction of the constitution. It IS socially conservative to fund Blue Ridge Thunder to fight child predators. It IS NOT socially conservative to ask our congressmen to violate their pledge to uphold and defend the constitution by funding these type programs.
Regarding term limits: Term limits are not one of the principles of the Tea Party. Many of the candidates voiced approval for term limits, including the one I supported, as do many members of the Tea Party. But I do not support term limits, probably for the same reasons as you. If term limits were in place, wise and deserving officeholders would automatically have to leave office. I think it would be a disservice to our nation if representatives like Mike Pence, Tom Price, Jim DeMint, and others HAD to leave office. House members are up for re-election every two years and it is our responsibility to follow their tenure in Congress and act accordingly.
The political reality is that incumbency is a very strong indicator of whether a person will be elected. An informed and involved electorate will overcome the incumbency advantage. A faithful representative will lead the fight to dismantle the system that gives such privilage and power to the incumbent. Perhaps term-limts is the proper answer but I am not convinced of it.
MJ, the Tea Party is not “anti-establishment” simply for the sake of going against the grain. We are anti-establishment because of what the establishment has done or failed to do. We would like nothing more than to be able to relax at the thought that our representatives are living up to their oaths. It was while we lived in that delusional state that our national leaders brought us to where we are today – and we have awakened to the terrible reality of what these parties have done to us and our nation and we will not blindly follow anyone again.
MJ:
You are wrong if you think I am a big fan of either Ron Paul or Virgil Goode. Do not put the members of the Tea Party in one big box.
My question regarding Cantor’s motivation comes from his own statements – that Obamacare is unpopular. Suppose Obamacare became popular. Would he then fight to defund and repeal it? It is an open question. But it is exactly because I am unsure, along with his compromise on Scazzafava (I am sure there are others instances, but this is most telling and most egregious to me) that causes me to classify Cantor with Gingrich and Dole and McCain and Lindsey Graham as compromisers of principle.
MJ:
I hope Cantor opposed Obamacare because it is A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
A congressman’s first consideration when deciding whether to support a bill should be whether it is consistent with the language of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders.
Cantor’s first reading of the bill would have revelaed the existence of the individual mandate and he could then oppose the bill on principle without further reading. (Of course, he could have known it came from the Opelarry coalition and not have had to read the bill.)