Fellow Coordinators:
There is a proposal before the Common Sense Texans Board to amend our event rules to eliminate the current rule against hosting politicians elected officials and political candidates as speakers at tea party rallies.
By way of clarification, the current event rules allow elected officials and political candidates to engage in the following tea party activities:
1. Elected officials and political candidates may, under the current rules, address the crowd from the main microphone during town hall meetings.
2. Elected officials and political candidates may, under the current rules, address the crowd from the main microphone during candidate forums.
3. Elected officials and political candidates may, under the current rules, address the crowd from the main microphone during debates.
4. Elected officials and political candidates may also, under the current rules:
- attend tea party rallies
- host booths on the premises of tea party rallies
- interact with the attendees at tea party rallies on either an individual or group basis.
- give speeches on the premises of tea party rallies (away from the main stage)
- be officially recognized from the main stage at a tea party rally
- distribute materials at tea party rallies
Our current event rules do, however, place a specific restriction on politicians elected officials and political candidates at tea party rallies, specifically:
5. Elected officials and political candidates (other than precinct chairs and precinct chair candidates) may not be hosted as speakers from the main microphone and stage during a tea party rally.
The proposal under consideration would remove this restriction, so that politicians elected officials and political candidates could be hosted as speakers from the main microphone at tea party rallies.
Proponents of the proposed rule change argue that the current rule is unnecessary, outdated and overly restrictive, and that tea party rallies should support those politicians elected officials and political candidates who are willing to express support for our principles. They point out that many politicians elected officials and political candidates are gifted orators, and featuring them would tend to improve the overall quality of the event. They also point out that the politicians elected officials and political candidates tend to be more knowledgeable and informed than the members of the regular public, and bring that special knowledge for the benefit of the attendees.
Opponents of the proposed rule change argue that one very unique quality of the tea party rallies is that they are an opportunity for the people to speak to the politicians elected officials and political candidates, rather than vice versa. They also point out that the public has many opportunities to hear from politicians elected officials and political candidates, but few opportunities to hear from people who are not politicians elected officials or political candidates. They also argue that elimination of the rule and hosting of politicians elected officials and political candidates as speakers will have the effect of converting tea party rallies into Republican Party rallies dominated by politicians elected officials and political candidates .
Please share your opinions below.
If we don't know what they have to say, how will we know how to vote. Because of the growing influence, this also gives us an opportunity to help them form their platforms.
We should not support either party, though we will probably tend to lean Republican. If any Democrats decide to actually represent we the people, and genuinely support, defend and obey the Constitution I would like to give them the opportunity to do so and have their say.
Best regards,
Gail Spurlock
Our objective should be to use the Republican Party as our lever to roll back government powers. We must not become controlled by the Republicans; we must control them.
The Democrat party is totally corrupted and not salvageable. My hope is that we can relegate them to insignificance and then have to choose between conservative Republicans and Limited-Government Libertarians.
They believe they are there. Let's hope they are wrong.
He is not a true conservative and I woudl not mind seeing him replaced with someone better. We are detached from the politicians and their scandals. Let's stay that way.
The Tea Party movement is sufficiently organized and matured now so that I don't think we need to worry about politicians taking over. And, I believe that was probably the initial concern.
At this point, I believe that the political parties are best served to NOT exercise any authority over the Tea Party. We serve our nation best exactly as we are, independent groups of grass roots organizations ANSWERABLE TO NO ONE!!!
I do not see any possible threat in removing this restriction, though I appreciate it's value during our first year of existence.
Best wishes,
Gail Spurlock
Stay fiercly independent. Make the politicians work to prove they are worthy. Don't give them cheap photo ops.
I would allow elected and candidates to be elected; to take questions from the Tea Party attendees.
I would allow elected and candidates to be elected; to take questions from the Tea Party attendees.
That will turn the tea party movement into a wing of the Republican party and allow the GOP, particularly the Country club RINOs, to use us, like they have been using conservatives for the last 100 years.
Candidates are absolutely welcome to speak at those events where they can be questioned and challenged by the attendees.
Rallies do not present an opportunity for the attendees to question or challenge the candidates, which is why candidates are not allowed to speak at rallies.
We could have had Stephen Broden speak at the upcoming rally and he even agreed not to mention his candidacy. But, Katrina and Ken voted against it.
Why not invite Pelosi, Reid, Obama and/or any other liberal dems. Offer them 20 minutes of speaking time, and require an hour of debate with a local Tea Party representative of your choosing.
Personally, I'm tired of all of the gotcha questions. Anyone can be caught off guard.
I recommend 3 possible topics, with 3 questions for each topic. The questions will be delivered to the debaters 1-2 weeks in advance of the debate so both sides have equal time to prepare thoughtful comments and arguments, and can even solicit recommendations from advisors and colleagues. Not only does this mean that we get to see these people at their best; but this is a more accurate model of governance. Very seldom do we need legislators to be able to react without forethought to events. Let's help our pr
We have to be informed about or elected officials and people running for offices so that we can make informed decisions, but not at this forum. This is for standing up, showing others that we are making a stand, shairng info, and motivating others.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!!
it will almost always turn into a campaign, by slight of words or innuendos
I would be in favor of letting Politicians speak provide they address questions directly from the people. Questions could be submitted in advance in order that duplicate questions be eliminated prior to the event. Candidates/Politicians could address the questions within given time constrains according to the events scheduled timetable. Much like a debate but specifically responding to the Tea Party Citizens, similar to Town Hall Meetings.
Everyone who has signed up to be a coordinator has done so under our rules. Every group which has joined Common Sense Texans has EXPRESSLY AGREED to conform to the rule.
We believe in LIBERTY. Every group or individual joining has done so under certain rules. Everyone who has joined has the liberty to leave at any time. Everyone who has joined has the liberty to lobby for a change in the rules. What they DON'T have the liberty to do is to remain in the group but ignore the rules.
The TEA Party cannot become a mouthpiece for any established political party. The goal of a smaller, less intrusive government is not shared by many elected Republicans nor by the vast majority of Democrat officials. Keep them from becoming the defacto leaders of the TEA Party.
To actually SPEAK? If there's a clarity on a point needed, (a law, or proposed law / bill) sure, let them provide clarity.
NO CAMPAIGN or stump speeches!!! Period!
Steve H. hit the nail on the head, even DJs and pundits have a political agenda. They tend to say what the people want to hear, but actually support the establishment in reality.
I'm sorry but any "tea party' event that pays big buck for big names isn't real grassroots in my book. Especially for speakers like Sarah Palin who has endorsed and stumped for anti-tea party candidates like McCain and Perry.
And I keep reading D and R parties in the comments, we need to be open and supportive of ALL parties and Independents as well.
We have a lot more in common with people from other parties than you might think. We should seek to unite wherever we can and not perpetuate the left/right divide the PTB like to distract us with. Divide and conquer is their stra
I think the best way to do this is to allow speakers on the main stage as long as the candidate has a history of fighting for smaller govt. The TEA parties are about less taxes and spending, just limit the main stage to those speakers.
If you start to prevent speakers from ever speaking on the main stage, then we will have politicians just waiting to officially announce they are running for office until after they have spoken at the tea party. Or we will have campaign managers speaking, etc.
If politicians want talk to us they
can set up a booth. We're here for
them to hear us. Why should I spend my time going to a rally only
to hear another political commercial? This proposal may divide the Tea Party!
That said, we need to stay away from allowing it to appear that we are Republican-Lite, because far too many Repubs are as bad as the morally-defunct Dems now. We are a grass roots and need to make it CLEAR to BOTH major political parties that we will REMAIN a grass roots, supporting those candidates who represent OUR values - and the candidate must have a PROVEN track record - regardless of which political party they belong to. But as stated earlier, let's face it! Our group is geared conservative, not necessarily ultra, but conservative. And we believe in our Constitution.
Guest speakers would be ok, with maybe 5-10 minutes of speaking. But make an effort to locate like-minded candidates of EACH party as we go throughout the process, lest we become donned Rep
This rule refers to all sorts of elected positions. Not just the big names that everyone knows.
There are many gifted knowledgeble political orators who are not candidates or politicians we can listen to at rallies
to put us in a category. If we allow politicians to speak we risk loosing our independence.
We are in phase two of our mission, and that is to elect conservative, constitutionalists who believe in limited government. Let's stay on target and not let little things get in our way.
We are in phase two of our mission, and that is to elect conservative, constitutionalists who believe in limited government. Let's stay on target and not let little things get in our way.
It is about education. We need to put together a better arm of the network that asks the tough questions of each candidate and reports back on what they are doing in Congress or at the State level.
I agree there has to be a better way to discern each candidate and their views on certain issues that matter to us.
How we go about doing that I am not sure. I like what the Free Market Foundation puts out! It helps me alot.
Opening rallies to participation by these folks might open the Tea Party movement up to charges of favoritism. The mainstream media already do their utmost to paint the movement as racist, and other ridiculous characterizations. Let's not give them another issue.
Booths on the side? Yes. Let the politicians sell themselves individually to attendees.
Maybe we put together a "candidate fair" where politicians are invited to set up tables, booths, group them by county, and let everyone come interview them on their own.
Perhaps we do conference calls like we did for the website training; or we keep doing virtual interviews.
I don't want someone telling me why I should vote for them. Perhaps they have an opportunity to say their name and the race for which they are running but that's it (like the Miss America pageant). Then we can find them.
Thanks for checking the temperature on this!
The danger of letting career politicians speak at events is that the media will call them the tea party candidate. Example: "Fox News last night the suggestion that Palin was going to run as the Tea Party candidate."
Aren't we supposed to be returning to the constitution? The document our forefathers created to protect us from politicians and the government. We need a nation run by people, not politicians. People who volunteer to serve the country for a few years and then move on. Politicians only server themselves and not the people. Sarah Palin is highjacking the tea party in the glory of her own name. There could be nothing worse than the name of Sarah Palin, a corrupt, big spending career politician, being known as the Tea Party candidate. How are we any better than the democrats who support corrupt politicians if we support them ourselves?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8wozf7XPPo
First, 501(c)(4)'s are not restricted from political activity as long as it fits with the core function or cause. This includes candidates speaking.
Secondly, 501(c)(3)'s are even more restricted regarding political activity -- but still allow candidates to speak at their events.
Thirdly, churches operate at even a higher level of restriction but are still allowed to have candidates to speak.
Lastly, Common Sense Citizens has banned all. More than the IRS requires for 501(c)(4), 501(c)(3) and churches.
Beginning with early last year, we were very put out with the established politicians and it may have made sense at the time. Now after 1 year, we have some really great folks of our like minds that are running for and elected office. Specifica
I totally disagree. These politicians have ample opportunity to speak to the people gathered at events and are offered plenty of time and space to assist them in their bids for election.
We are a grass roots organization whose fundamental principles remove any doubt about what we need to do going forward. We need for these politicians to hear our voices,our concerns, our suggestions. We do not need politicians to tell us what we should or should not be doing and by giving them the bully pulpit at our rallies we send a very clear message that we are just an extension of the Republican Party which is the tag line we are doing our very best to stay away from!
We can not be seen as having a back door deal with any politician and allowing them a platform to speak at our rallies does just that, leaving the perception that we are all about back room deals, por
I believe we can provide a forum in which we can get informaton straight from 'the horses mouth'--whether via a speech, a debate or a town hall forum. If we limit our sources of information, we have limited our ability to make informed decisions about the candidates.
Our general platform tends to be conservative and Republican. How will we shed our perceived affiliation with the republican party if we don't allow those with different opinions to share their insights?
Perhaps Obama felt like the
Constitution was 'outdated'. Your alingment with chaning the rules to benefit you sounds like the people on the team we are supposed to be fighting against.
First, we are not a 4.
Second, candidates do speak at events, just not rallies.
Thirdly, we are no wher near being a church.
Lastly, everone knew this up front so I'm not sure why there is so much confusion.
Steadfast, people. This too will pass!
Keep the rule.
Our Congressmen must learn to select conservative candidates in line with Tea Party values. i.e. Sessions and Hensarlings influence in the race in N.Y. supporting that crazy Republican woman. Because of poor selection of a candidate by Republicans, the race went to the d
I would rather listen to another dumbo like me, and let the mound of clay in my mind remain a bit misshapen. We can "meld and weld" amongst ourselves.
Sarah should talk to us until she declares a candidacy that would relate to a political subdivision wherein that Tea Party in question is taking place. For instance, if she declares for United States Senator from Alaska, she could still talk to us in Texas.
Thank you for your time and forum.
Everyone please remember the Tea Part is about mainting this courty's conservative values and holding the politican's accountable to adhearing to our Constitution and not political party affiliation. The Tea Party is for all Americans who share in these beliefs, no matter what their party affiliation is. In fact the more we can encourage conservative Democrats and Independents to join the stronger our voice will become.
who are conservative and LOVE our
freedoms and our Nation.Having po-
litical candidates or Office holders would weaken our effect and
just be hawking. I am proud of our GOP leaders,but don't feel they need to reign over the TEA Parties.
It is the exposure of the will of
the people,all people . Don't cloud
its mission.
As a limited guest speaker with the understanding they are not representing us could be benificial. Stated as the Tea Party has invited X as a speaker with questions to follow.
*Limit the speech length-- maybe 30minutes max.
*Candidate stays within broad Teaparty objectives -- smaller govt, less spending & less taxing.
*No berating other likeminded candidates.
*Encourage candidates' suggestions on how to further the Teaparty movemnt.
1. Repeal EVERYTHING obama has done since taking office
2. Proposes to begin the impeachment process of obama
It then just becomes another venue for them to campaign.
There are a number of different ways to get in touch with candidates.
Tea Parties should not turn into political rallies.
We as a group have shown the professional politician that %u201CWe the People%u201D are not standing by individuals. We are organized on principles alone. This scares most of them as their records do not reflect the principles on which this organization was formed. Ladies and Gentlemen, do not diviate from the core of the Tea Party. We need to stand firm in who the Tea Party is and not in who wants to ride the wave of impact the Tea Party has made and will continue to make as long as we stay true to the principles.
As long as the Tea Party doesn't endorse, whatever happened to the Tea Party enjoying First Amendment Rights? Or does the Tea Party only want certain U S Constitutional Rights? Food for thought!
the information, I will process it.
The danger is getting involved in the inevitable practice of favors and paybacks associated with all politics. The Sarah Palin thing in Arizona is a good example. Many of us prefer Hayworth, and it is hard to imagine that Palin would not also prefer him in different circumstances.
But when all is said and done we must succeed in defeating the present government, and the only way to do that is through GOP political candidates. It may be time to recognize that the movement is mature enough to t
I'M GLAD TO SEE MOST OF US ON THE SAME PAGE!!!!
WE ARE THE PEOPLE!!!!
You have created a fantastic net work that must be used to bring in more information not shut it out. I trust your members to stand on their own two feet. They know by now what they believe.
Drop the 5th rule and TRUST!
Where we don't want to make division within any TEA group is the 'who' - the 'committee' who determines YES he/she meets the criteria or 'NO' he/she does not. Hate to see any TEA leadership group split if say 3 of them say 'YES' politician meets criteria and 2 say 'No' does not... then what? Politicians should come secondary to the solidarity of any TEA group. Part II: the lobbying and posturing by the politicians in backlog for 'pick me'. I say all need to be invited.
If, however, they are electioneering, then I don't really see the difference between a tea party event that IS a "townhall" vs. one that is not.
Last April 15th at the Ft Worth rally, Rick Perry showed up. In fact, the whole thing pretty much turned into an Republican party rally. It was highjacked by the Republican party. This really damaged the strength of the movement here in Fort Worth and caused a good bit of resentment towards the Republican party. IMHO Even though I am a Republican it really pissed me off that the republican party found a way to co-opt a movement that wouldn't have even been necessary if the Republicans actually stood on the principals in the party platform. Perry talks big but doesn't act in accordance with his rhetoric at these events. He is full of hot air. IMHO... BTW I wouldn't welcome Palin either because she has thrown her support behind the big government Republicans.
Regardless of how I feel personally, I would just say; IF WE LET POLITICIANS SPEAK AT THESE EVENTS, THEY SHOULD HAVE TO PASS CERTAIN TESTS TO QUALIFY. They need to have proven they ac
Supporters of the current rule argue that one very unique quality of the tea party rallies is that they are an opportunity for the people to speak to the politicians, rather than vice versa. They also point out that the public has many opportunities to hear from politicians, but few opportunities to hear from people who are not politicians. They also argue that elimination of the rule and hosting of politicians as speakers will have the effect of converting tea party rallies into Republican Party rallies dominated by politicians.
It could happen where you have 72 candidates lined up to speak at an event, and no 'real people'. That would be bad.
Please allow the board to use common sense when determining who is and is not appropriate given each particular situation.
The problem with this rule is that is does not allow for COMMON SENSE exceptions.
An open mike should be provided for anyone to speak who wants to. I've been disappointed that only the hand picked "professional" talkers spoke at the two rallies I went to.
If this is a movement of the people, as I think it is, then WE should talk. Certainly there is the risk of plants moving to mike to discredit us, but if we shout them down it is an opportunity as well.
This rule prohibits ANYONE for any position ANYWHERE from speaking on ANY topic.
This is an opportunity to teach people about relevant topics. If the Constitutional expert on Second Amendment legislation has decided to run for Mayor in Timbuktu, what does it matter?
We have the opportunity to express ourselves all day long on forums just like this. If all we are going to hear is each other complain about how awful everything is, then we might as well stay home.
We as Tea Party members we are already taking a lot criticism for being the radical arm of the Republican Party. I think that it is important that we portray ourselves as conservative but independent voters.
Quite frankly I am tired of being dismissed as a radical or a racist and I think that since we would never be able to present both sides of the political spectrum at a rally that we should stand with the current policy to avoid additional criticism.
My opinion and thanks,
Steve
Say, we have a city council man in the little community of Benbrook who worked in Austin for a number of years, is a strict constitutional conservative, is a great speaker and has some very interesting things to share with us about how the political process works and how we can better game the system.
Under this stupid rule, he is not allow to speak at the rally.
We also had a "meet and greet" day where we invited all candidates for state office and all candidates for federal office. It was in a school building (charter school) and each candidate was provided a room and people could go meet and question any of the candidates all day. It worked out very good for everyone.
Adrian Murray is President of the Fort Worth 912. Because we have learned about the corruption and negligent spending habits of our local water board, we encouraged him to run for a position. Only one in ten people in Tarrant County will be able to vote for him. But, this stupid rule prevents him from being able to speak at the upcoming rally!
If you are not familiar with Adrian Murray, please look up his speeches on Youtube. He will not be speaking about his candidacy. Please ask that an exception be made or simply trust that the leadership is bright enough and conservative enough to be able to make a determination as to whether a
Allow political speakers to be followed by open questions from the attendees?
Speakers could be made available to talk with the people off stage. Most would attend an after party function and that would be a great time to converse with them.
The county clerk from Nobody Cares is not going to show up at your town hall meeting.
Perhaps the Tea Party will evolve into a viable 3rd party.
Wait!! I finally figured it out! That is precisely why Ken wrote the rule. He doesn't WANT the tea party movement to be able to elect candidates. The rule was an attempt to make the tea parties as impotent as possible. If the tea parties aren't supporting and promoting grassroots candidates, then the Republicrats may continue deciding who our choices are.
See, I knew you were too smart to write such a stupid rule! What a clever boy.
If we become a party ourselves, we will soon have all the infighting and competing factions within ourselves. Remember, we are human also. we are not immune from corruption and ambition. What keeps us pure is NOT having power directly; but having INFLUENCE.
I am a slow learner!!!
The question has never been should we allow politicians to speak at events. The question has been whether we should squelch the opportunities to promote candidates who have arisen from within our ranks, including prohibiting them from speaking at our events.
That's the matter that is at stake here, folks, not whether we should allow politicians to speak.
To me, they're the same thing.
As noted, the two are interchangeable to me, but to the extent they're not, the revised post leaves no ambiguity.
When politicians are given the floor, they tend to monopolize it and control the dialogue--or try to, at least.
Ed Sutton, Plano, Texas
also.... I think the tea party is good/excellent as is.. ALL PARTIES ARE INVITED TO JOIN OR JUST COME AND LISTEN TO A PARTICULAR POINT OF VIEW.. The conservative.
also.... I think the tea party is good/excellent as is.. ALL PARTIES ARE INVITED TO JOIN OR JUST COME AND LISTEN TO A PARTICULAR POINT OF VIEW.. The conservative.
Until we get term limits and no special pensions, the people will continue as serfs. So what if an elected official has special speaking talents? Which one of them doesn%u2019t? Isn%u2019t that how they get themselves elected in the first place? Out of 23 million Texans, don%u2019t we have just as many serfs that can speak as well?
If politicians are allowed to address constituents in the crowd, away from the main stage, that is considered a liberal enough policy in my book.
I%u2019ve been a staunch GOP supporter for decades. I support the GOP platform in mind and actions. If the elected GOP officials would do the same, I%u2019d be a happier camper.
I vote NO to allowing candidates and elected politicians on the ma
You said "featured speakers". How do you define that? If she is not well known but can tell everybody about the debate concerning textbooks and we favor her position, why shouldn't she be allowed to speak.
This rule refers to all sorts of elected positions. Not just the big names that everyone knows.
We need to help conservatives in other State get elected also.
I did not like to see Palin and some of the Arizona group supporting McCain. The man running against him is a lot more conservative and I feel would represent more of what the Tea Party stands for.
By the way, we have tried to be all inclusive as to members, but at the last rally I did not hear anyone extend a hand out to Democrats. I believe there are a lot of them frustrated with how things are going in their party as well.
Thanks
We need all the FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE we can obtain.
Or, count attendance at a rally under the old rules, and then count attendance at rally under the new rule. If political speakers are running off members or negatively impacting core unity, the old rule stays.
setting is as close as I would like
to get to that. It must be discussion based: not speach based.
First: In my opinion the "TEA PARTY" is NOT a political party. It is "A GROUP OF CITIZENS" that share a feeling of betrayal on the part of their elected officials.
Second: I belong to the "TEA PARTY" as a way to have my voice heard by the politicians' who are more interested in getting re-elected than doing what is fair and right. We can and should as responsible citizens, support the candidates that truly represent their constituents and support, defend and obey the Constitution regardless of political party. Personally, I would like to hear first-hand, where they stand on the important i
Let's not ignore the highest primary turn out in Texas history. Let's not ignore the fact that the TP was only involved in the elections for 3 months. Through trial and error the Tea Party has managed to have huge impact in the short period of time they have been involved.
I don't appreciate the dismissive tone in these comments. Many people have worked very hard and continue to take time away from their familes for this cause.
The Mesquite group had all the Supreme Court candidates in a forum. That is a state wide race and they pulled it off flawlessly with little man power and little to no time.
FYI - There is no such thing as a Tea Party Candidate.
Check him out on Youtube if you are not familiar with him.
I love Adrian dearly. I respect him and I will do whatever I can to help him, as an individual. The rule is the rule.
This post was to get opinions from members, not for them banter and to have to defend their opinions.
Adian Murray: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbWeRq-uC_c
To change the rule would, in my opinion, put the organizers of the rallies in a position to suck up to politicians of their choice and dominate the rally. I believe this would eventually lead to a situation where hearing from citizens would be eliminated in order to cater to the professional politician. At that point the Tea Party rally would be another useless political event rather than representing th
And if they are full of Pelosi, the new politaclly incorrect term for BULL SHIT, then we have the opportunity to shout them down, tar and feather the RHINOs and runnem out on a RAIL!
Bring em on!
He has decided to run against Eddie Bernice Johnson. Someone I'm sure everyone here would like to see kicked out of office. But, because of rule number 4, he will not be allowed to speak even though he has agreed not to speak about his candidacy.
This rule prevents your organizers from using COMMON SENSE when selecting speakers. School board member, candidates for sheriff, city council, county clerk, and even the local water board are not allowed to speak on ANY subject as it now stands.
Please trust that the organizers are not going to invite any speaker who does not reflect our common principles and values. Get rid of Rule 4 to allow some flexibility.
Because of Rule 4, he will not be invited to speak because he is an elected official
The organizers could use COMMON SENSE when selecting speakers. They can have them agree not to speak about their campaigns and to focus on some relevant topic about which they have an expertise or special knowledge about. But, as Rule 4 stands, the local dogcatcher couldn't speak if he decided to run for a city council position.
What doesn't make sense is changing the rules to meet your personal needs.
OK, I NEED to help get good grassroots candidates elected. Allowing them to speak at a big rally would go a long way toward this goal.
They don't have the money or exposure that the big party candidates have. Your RULE may very well be the difference between replacing the incumbents or NOT.
So, in an effort to prevent evil politicians from speaking, you are preventing our own tea party candidates from having a voice at your microphone.... I still don't see any common sense!
Rule 4 prevents any tea party member who decides to run for any elected position from being able to speak. Is that fair?
Is it fair to cherry pick who the rule applies to?
not for the damn politians.
I whole-heartedly support them being at the rallies, and I strongly encourage them to be there. I like to have the chance to visit their booths and gather the information available there. If I want to hear their rhetoric, I can make arrangements to see them speak elsewhere, or simply visit their website for talking points.
Please don't let this become a rubber stamp for R
I appreciate that there will be candidates out there wanting to have - and to declare that they have - the support of Tea Parties. But I foresee that there will be more than one conservative candidate - both vieing for the rights to say they have our support.
This is where their place at a debate comes in; or a candidate fair/forum; or town hall meetings. But RALLIES pull larger crowds and I don't want a candidate to have the photo op of such a venue if I or others are not supportive of their candidacy.
The beauty of the Tea Party thus far is that we are individuals that may support different conservative candidates. It has happened already in the primaries here in TX. And its not only okay - its right.
I like that they can speak outside the main stage and have booths, but as for main speakers, absolutely not!
Whoever made thse rules was right the first time.
Elected officials and candidates who actively support us (and demonstrate that commitment by the way they VOTE) should be invited.
How long they should speak and on what is very valid as well. More to the point, I would like to see a LOT of them show up, introduce themselves and then sit on the dais so that we have a collection of them as a backdrop for our own speakers and an unavoidable "can't miss" for media cameras.
The key element has been repeated many times by many contributors. That is, maintaining our independence and avoid alignment with ANY party other than our own!
when we star changing the liars will take over the movement... bad news
I don't care to be lectured by politicians. Egads - don't we hear enough on our illustrious news outlets 24x7?
Thank you for letting us express our thoughts.rb
I believe that, as a condition to being given a TP audience, the politician should be required to hold a question and answer period following their speech. The time allotments should allow the majority of time to the TP audience and not the politician. The politician needs to hear what we want them to do, not what they might do.
No more than 10% of the time should be for the speech. Of the remaining 90% which would be for questions from the TP audience and response from the politician, about 60% s
Why on earth would you allow such a precious stage to be defiled by politics. The very poison that has destroyed this country.
This movement is only chance we have to save our country. The last chance to save what is left of the Constitution.
And are we really going to inject politicians, a known cause of death, into the movement? For what reason?
Politicians should reach out and work to the community. The community should not have to work to the politician.
This is not about one or two candidates. This about the purity of the movement. And, if a candidate cannot understand that perhaps they have already fall victim to their politics.
Thank you for your comment, but it is not true that the Libertarian Party leader spoke on July 4th at Southfork. No party leaders spoke at that event or at any of our other rallies.
it is the only purpose of the 'Tea Party' - not a party at all, of course, but we owe our fellow citizens who are volunteering to give their lives to public service to speak to us. The voting booth is still private. As long as the 'Tea Party' is not endorsing a candidate, I do not see a problem. It is clear to everyone by now the Democrat party has transcended the Constitution and in fact believe they are above us and the rule of law. By default, the only way we can hope to offset what is taking place is to find candidates (Republicans) who we can trust to stand up for principles we espouse which I won't repeat here. 100% of Democrat incumbents have proven they ar
we need to use every available thinking person to help us get rid of Barack Husain, Let the leaders and the people running for office speak! Save our country!
I would like to see even a conservative Democrat or Libertarian be allowed to speak at our rallies to point out that we are not committed only to the Republican party.
I believe the Tea Party represents "We The People"... Let "We The People" keep speaking out!!! :p
http://www.alternet.org/news/146184/naomi_wolf_thinks_the_tea_parties_help_fight_fascism_--_is_she_on_to_something_or_in_fantasy_land__?page=1
What we desperately need is for genuine journalist types to research candidates, attend TPP meetings and speak. We need to be as certain as we can be about who we back for elections. We need the accurate "condensed" information on bio's and voting histories far enough ahead of elections to unite and get him/her voted in.
What we desperately need is for genuine journalist types to research candidates, attend TPP meetings and speak. We need to be as certain as we can be about who we back for elections. We need the accurate "condensed" information on bio's and voting histories far enough ahead of elections to unite and get him/her voted in.
What we desperately need is for genuine journalist types to research candidates, attend TPP meetings and speak. We need to be as certain as we can be about who we back for elections. We need the accurate "condensed" information on bio's and voting histories far enough ahead of elections to unite and get him/her voted in.
http://www.alternet.org/news/146184/naomi_wolf_thinks_the_tea_parties_help_fight_fascism_--_is_she_on_to_something_or_in_fantasy_land__?page=1
R U changing your goals?
Second, the town hall/forum/debate formats require the politician to interact with us common folk and allow us to see how they conduct themselves and how they handle difficult issues. When I can attend an event, I want to get to know the person, not just hear a well-rehearsed speech.
The last reason I do not support the rule is that it puts the organizers of events in the position of deciding which voices will be heard above the others. That leads to organizers using the Tea Party label to support candidates. If we start going down that road, the next thing you know we'll have a Tea Party Chairman jetting around the country, paying for dinners at bondage clubs!
But we should be able to endorse and support,good people of any party.
I think we should be seeking out true conservitive democrats to support and give those folks a real choice also.
democratic and republican parties. Regardless what they
say, they both have not been for the people of this country.
Special interest is what drives both parties, and that is
what we have to stop.
Further,let's not become the third political party that the news media continues to say that we are trying to be.
I think it will be the end of the Tea Party if the rule is changed. (It will become just another Republican group.)
Its a thorny issue and I can see it both ways but the TEA Party is really not a party and is a forum for change from we the people. So as such we should not allow any politicians to speak and I have reservations on big names like radio personalities speaking.
I went to one event the second one in Dallas and was kinda turned off by the radio guy Mark whatshisname. I dont know what I was expecting but what it was is not what I spent 3 hours for.
If politicians are allowed to speak then we are on a big slippery slope to obscurity. The TEA party is pretty much grass rtoots and anytime a politicians starts in then it ceases to become grassroots and more of a machine.
And since the TEA party has both Rep and Dems who are we gonna allow to speak and will there be court challenges. In this day and age anything is possible.
Yes, I would love to hear Sarah Palin from the podium, but I like the independence of the Tea Party format, so that we don't become just another "contingency" that the Republicans have to stroke every election year. I'm tired of that!
If we give them the microphone at our rallies, frankly, I will lose interest personally, because I will see it as just another political rally to benefit some politician. And it truly is almost impossible to get their attention whether in their office or out on the trail. Somehow, we need to get our points across.
1. We got the vote out last election but people were confused about who to vote for and voted back in a bunch of RINOS. Letting candidates speak in a controlled environment with pointed questions will help prevent this confusion.
2. Freedom of speech and allowing access to important information (from the candidates) is best. It is more effective to allow candidates to speak to the group. It is difficult if not impossible for a candidate to speak with each person individually at a rally.
3. The Tea Party movement needs to progress or it will become just a bunch of people making noise. Time to accomplish great things and elect better candidates into office. We need to help worthy candidates get their message out.
We are today facing the greatest crisis we have ever faced because it involves a major attack upon our consitutional form of government and economic system and we have already lost a couple of significant battles.
We need to focus upon the Republican Party and do our part to see it nominates electable candidates who support our constitution, cultural traditions, and free market economic system. We need to avoid "feel good" sideshows like the Ross Perot one which led to 8 years of Bill and Hillary. Right now we need to elect Perry and every Republican we can because next year is redistricting time and Texas stands to gain 4 more seats. We don't want Bill White and company gerrymandering our state.
Thank you for asking.
Betse Lanier
At the Joe Barton appearance at the Texas Theater in Waxahachie last Friday evening people were walking out because he was campaigning. He expressed his opinion on various matters and left the impression that he was so much better informed than "we the people". Further, he did not seem to care what "we the people" said. "He knows better" is the attitude most elected officials project. He was no better than Nancy Polosi's attitude with the health care legislation. Why do we need anymore of that at our meetings? In case it isn't clear, I am against the rule change.
We best serve in the way we have created and we are successful in this way.
Phil Arnold
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,590023,00.html
Palin only cares about Palin. she endorses candidates that are running against real Tea Party candidates, charges $300,000 to speak at a Tea Party event and now speaks for the Tea Party as if we do her bidding.
How does it make you feel to know that Sarah Palin has stolen your voice and speaks for you and says things that you don't believe. That is why we should never allow career politicians to speak at Tea Party events. They are self serving and only care for their own career and nothing for liberty or freedom for us.
We must rely on Common Sense in determining who should and should not speak at events, not self defeating rules!
The rule is a problem because it does not differentiate between career politicians and established grassroots activists running for office for the first time.
the rallies main microphone, except for those elected officials and candidates selected by the party to speak.
No more self serving - group pacifying elected officials. We should continue to hold these elected officials accountable to
us, come future elections.
In particular, I reference Pastor Broden from the Dallas area. I have heard him talk on three occasions. He has given inspiring and informative talks about the current trend of the government to take us into a 'nanny state' condition. His talks explain what has happened to the black family and how this is now affecting the other members of our community. We think this is a good message and should be heard, in spite of the fact that he was running in the primary and is in a runoff.
By the time of the April 15th event, the runoff election will be over and we will know who
Let's not limit ourselves - but free each Tea Party to make those decisions when planning their meetings.
Republicans are desperate to get a handle on the TP movement as many of them fear for losing control of their office (e.g. they arent really conservatives). Putting politicians at the mic is simply a step in the direction of losing control of "our" message.
DTP rallies have been classy the whole way. If this consistency is maintained, the movement will simply grow. This should be the focus at this time; stay on message and get new folks on board.
Leave things as they are.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/how-start-populist-movement-under-three-minutes
Tea Party events have been uplifting and pure for all. Allowing politicians to speak at least has the potential to turn Tea Party events into something other than that for a portion of attendees %u2013 if not all.
I fear that if you accept and pass this proposal it will be the first step in the direction of becoming a political party. It%u2019s that ol%u2019 slippery slope argument. Secondly, I%u2019d argue that it will be divisive within the Tea Party movement as biases and disparate preferences of its members become evident for all to see. Just reflect on the most recent Republican primary battle for governor. Even though the Tea Party movement endorsed no candidate, it was a shorter list of people who didn%u2019t refer to Ms. Medina incorrectly as the %u201CTea Party candidate%u201D than did. In effect it became a %u201Cde facto%u201D endorsement of Ms. Medina %u2013 intended or not.<
I am all for free speech but that does not mean any time and any place.
Tea Party events have been uplifting and pure for all. Allowing politicians to speak at least has the potential to turn Tea Party events into something other than that for a portion of attendees %u2013 if not all.
I fear that if you accept and pass this proposal it will be the first step in the direction of becoming a political party. It is that ol slippery slope argument. Secondly, I would argue that it will be divisive within the Tea Party movement as biases and disparate preferences of its members become evident for all to see. Just reflect on the most recent Republican primary battle for governor. Even though the Tea Party movement endorsed no candidate, it was a shorter list of people who did not refer to Ms. Medina incorrectly as the Tea Party candidate than did. In effect it became a de facto endorsement of Ms. Medina %u2013 intended o
Roger Sloan
thank you
don taylor